Talk:History of the Republican Party (United States)/Archive 1

NH 1853 myth
The myth that the party was founded in 1853 in New Hampshire is rejected by every scholar. See the Gould and Gienapp books for recent scholarship. A few locals in New Hampshire may believe it--it was heavily pushed by Gov Gregg (father of the Senator). Fact is the word "republican" was often used before 1854--it goes back to Jefferson! (lets not forget Plato's Republic) But the PARTY was not founded in 1853 in NH or anywhere else. Gregg simply misunderstood what happened. See Lex Renda history on NH politics  Civil War-Era Politics in New Hampshire (1997) p 224 Rjensen 17:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of my references predate Hugh Gregg's book, ergo Gregg's work is not sole source. The Ripon claim is only supported by Democrats like Russel Feingold. Citizenposse 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Gregg certainly had a bee in his bonnet. But in fact the Exeter meeting did not lead to anything whatever. Gregg admits the minutes are lost, and the newspaper account is vague. No other town in NH followed Exeter. No newspaper reported the new party, it did not announce itself. There was no platform or manifesto or statement. It was a well kept secret in 1853! All scholars reject it.  Senator Gregg--son of Gov Gregg--does push it to honor the memory of his father. But it's local myth. Rjensen 17:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's in Amos Tuck's own autobiography. He was a congressman at the time, btw. I have contacted the New Hampshire Historical Society to provide us with other scholarly references. I hope you are open minded enough to consider them, and not just intent on ramrodding your own orthodoxy.Citizenposse 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There probably was a secret meeting in 1853 but it did not lead to anything. Tuck supported the "People's Party" in the state 1854 elections. Tuck did indeed in 1856 help start the Republican Party in New Hampshire. But not 1853--there was NO new party that came out of that meeting. Rjensen 17:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Show some references for your allegations. There is nothing in his autobiography on any "People's Party" work. "PROBABLY" a secret meeting??? What kind of a scholarly jump to conclusions is that? Where do you get off deciding what is orthodox history or not? I've provided ample references to the public records that the meeting occured. You are the one inventing the cloak and dagger. Citizenposse 22:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
I have requested mediation over this dispute. You have made two personal attacks against me, slandering me with claims that I am some sort of militia groups right winger, and you have violated the wikipedia limit against reverting a page more than three times in one day.Citizenposse 18:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mediation may be a good idea. People who pick militia names and denounce leftwingers tend to give themselves away. By the way, Tuck did not join the Republican party until 2+ years after he founded it. New-York Daily Times. Free-Soil Convention in Boston. New York Daily Times (1851-1857). New York, N.Y.: Feb 17, 1854. p. 1 gives full text of Tuck speech he gave to the Free Soil party convention in Boston the day before
 * --makes no mention of the word "republican" or any new party. Rjensen 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In that era, there were no prohibitions on individuals belonging to multiple political parties. He was elected to congress as a Free Soiler prior to his GOP organizing meeting in Exeter, and in that day and age, an individual stayed listed with the party they were elected under until the next election, or they left office. Politicians did not jump parties and retain office. If my name were "Lionel" would you prejudicially assume I were african-american? You expose your own bigotry and ignorance by making such aspersions. I am also fully capable of denouncing right wingers, as I am neither right or left wing. I assumed you were left winger because it appears from history that it was Democrats from Wisconsin trying to hijack history with the Ripon claim.Citizenposse 20:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am confused. What about finding your position to lack sufficient evidence to support it have to do with Democrats or Wisconsin?  RGTraynor 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Ripon claim is promoted by Democrats, namely Senator Russell Feingold, who introduced a bill in the Senate in 2004 claiming Ripon as the founding place of the GOP. This bill was not created by Republicans.Citizenposse 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For pity's sake, the GOP's own web site supports the Ripon position.  Are you genuinely trying to claim that the US Republican Party is being secretly controlled by liberal Democrats?  RGTraynor 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The NH GOP's website (which I've referenced) claims otherwise.Citizenposse 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow I think the Republican National Committee's POV is more reliable than that of self-promoting Granite Staters with puffed-up notions of themselves. In any event I still eagerly await your sourced explanation of how Democrats have taken over the GOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RGTraynor (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You have also committed fraud here. There is no such website as www.conservative.net, www.conservativenet.net, www.conservativenet.com. So I dispute your claim to being a conservative.Citizenposse 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It took me about four seconds (Google was slow) to find CONSERVATIVENET@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU, edited by Richard Jensen. RGTraynor 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I googled and found nothing. Is it a one man email list or a blog? Sounds to me like a lone person with an axe to grind.Citizenposse 22:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I find I was right, it's not a blog (despite his claims), it is an email list. According to one source: "The moderator of the list is Richard Jensen, an emeritus professor of history at the University of Illinois, Chicago (rjensen@uic.edu) and the list is sponsored by that school. The dean of the university is Stanely Fish who has written a book called "There's No Such Thing As Free Speech." No surprise there. In fact the exchange between Jensen and myself (especially if he is an academic who imagines himself to be a conservative) illustrates the magnitude of the problem presented by a one-party culture, accustomed to an ethos of intellectual intolerance and to preening itself on being "liberal" when confronted by a campaign that seeks to make it inclusive and fair to non-party viewpoints. If you thought Stalinism was bad, just imagine what these people would be like if they had a gulag at their disposal instead of sensitivity training classes, and if they commanded the powers of the KGB instead of the English Department."
 * "What precipitated our exchange was the perfectly reasonable assumption of Greg Ransom of the Hayek Center that maybe a list like ConservativeNet (already an Internet ghetto for academic untouchables) might be the place to post the case for academic fairness and inclusion outlined on the pages of Frontpagemagazine.com this week. How wrong he was. Jensen refused to post the Frontpage articles, using several preposterous pretexts to do so. The irony that he was suppressing a complaint about the university's suppression of dissenting viewpoints seems to have escaped him entirely." The source goes on to document an email exchange with Jensen.
 * So it appears Prof. Jensen has an established record of suppressing free speech and attempting to suppress history. It also appears that Prof. Jensen is a self proclaimed "conservative" in order to engage in a campaign of shifting the political middle to the left. Furthermore, Jensen USES HIS OWN RESEARCH as references for his articles on the Republican Party. Isn't that a violation of the no original research rule?Citizenposse 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Richard Jensen has also been implicated in election fundraising scandals. Given his political operations are in Wisconsin, his claims for Ripon should be given NO GREATER credence than mine. I have sources, he has sources, my sources show a party being organized before his Wisconsin meeting.Citizenposse 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never lived in Wisconsin and have not visited the state in over 20 years; I have never been involved in any fundraising for any party anywhere. I'm retired and live in Denver. Re Tuck: All the "sources" come from Tuck himself years later or from an elderly NH politician named Hugh Gregg (he was governor in 1952; his son is now the very powerful US Senator Judd Gregg, and as the newspapers report, he supports his late father 100%.) (I used to live in NH and once met the elder Gregg.) Gregg even founded--and funded--a group in NH to promote his pet theory. Historians have unanimously rejected the claim--which comes from a plaque on an old hotel. Did Amos Tuck found the republican party in 1853? he did not say so at the time. He did not join the Republican party until 1856. In 1854 he was campaigning for his old party (The Free Soil). The secret 1853 meeting had no minutes or reports. No followup. No ticket. None of the participants joined the Republican party for a year or two.  The secret meeting produced no documents of ANY kind. It was not reported at the time.  What sort of party is that?  The Republican party was set up in NH by Tuck in 1856, over two years after the secret meeting. By then it was a major party in many states.  The actual history has been reported many times by many scholars.  Tuck in his autobiog years later claimed  that at the meeting he said "republican" would be a good name for a new party. Indeed, it was a good name; it was Jefferson's name for HIS party and was in common use in New Hampshire when Tuck was young. For details see Democratic-Republican Party (United States) esp the talk page.  But Tuck's 1853 group did not found anything. Rjensen 23:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Richard Jensen has also been implicated in election fundraising scandal"? Your link points to a Wisconsin story about Wisconsin Assembly speaker Scott Jensen's legal troubles and his employee Carrie Richard's testimony. You might want to be a tad more selective when Googling "Richard Jensen". FinFangFoom 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, for someone who complains bitterly about personal attacks, you launch them at the drop of a hat. First you start screeching libel and slander at Rjensen because he makes the (correct) observation that any "Republic of New Hampshire" is a fantasy invented by modern-day so-called "militia" groups.  Then you screech fraud at him because you can't find a www.conservativenet.com, ignoring that he never asserted that he had a website by that name.  Then you come up with what is a genuine libel in asserting (falsely) that he's been involved in fundraising scandals.  The funny thing is that it'd be defensible to speculate that you were a "militia" type, on as sound grounds that if I had UN="HeydrichGauleiter" it might be inferred I had Nazi sympathies, or that if I had UN="KnightWhiteCamellia" I might hold KKK sympathies.  Perhaps if you don't want to be associated with militia groups, you should select a UN less in keeping with their buzzwords.
 * Be that as it may, Prof. Jensen and I are on different sides of the political spectrum; I left the Republican Party in 1980 when it was hijacked by fantasists who demonized patriotic Americans and borrowed our nation into penury owned by foreign investors. But what I am seeing here is an unwarranted and unprovoked vendetta, and urge you to take stock and stop.  RGTraynor 14:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The only person engaging in a vendetta here is Mr. Jensen, who is stalking my edits around the wikipedia. Here are additional references from the New Hampshire Historical Society all supporting the 1853 founding in New Hampshire:


 * McGiffen, Stephen Paul. Prelude to Republicanism: Issues in the Development of Political Parties in New Hampshire, 1835-1847 (1984)
 * Bright, Thomas R. The Emergence of the Republican Party in New Hampshire 1853-1857 (1972)
 * Sewell, Richard H. John P. Hale and the Politics of Abolition (1965)
 * Marston, Philip W. Amos Tuck and the Beginning in New Hampshire of the Republican Party Historical New Hampshire (1960)
 * Moos, Malcom. The Republicans - A History of their Party (1956)
 * Burbank, Russel P. Exeter, The Birthplace of the Republican Party (1954)
 * Frasier, Dudley P. The Antecedents & Formation of the Republican Party in New Hampshire 1845-1860 (1947)

All of the above are recognised and respected historians, so Rjensens claim that "all historians" accept the Ripon claim is also a lie. Rjensen is engaging in cherry picking his sources to support his contention.Citizenposse 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "All of the above are recognised and respected historians" -- what is your source for this? Do you know any of their vitae curriculae?  To what peer review were their claims submitted?  How many of them are not from New Hampshire?  Beyond that, I note you do not address your numerous personal attacks on Jensen; you've neither apologized for calling his assertion to host the conservativenet list a fraud, nor apologized for your grossly-misspoken allegation of electoral fraud.  RGTraynor 19:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Did citizenposse read any of those pamphlets and books he lists? He never quotes any of them. He also missed the most important recent book on the subject: Lex Renda. Running on the Record: Civil War-Era Politics in New Hampshire. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997. See my review at . Rjensen 21:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually citizenposse is inventing things again. The NH-specific books he lists don't quite exist (except the Sewell book exists). For example, Frasier, Dudley P. "The Antecedents & Formation of Rep Party" was not a book but a 90pp typescript--probably a student paper; it was never published and the only copy is at the Dartmouth College library. No library anywhere seems to own: Burbank, Russel P. Exeter, The Birthplace of the Republican Party or Bright, Thomas R. The Emergence of the Republican Party. Marston, Philip W. Amos Tuck and the Beginning... is not a book but an article in the state magazine, which he would be aware of if he actually saw it. So I suggest he pulled these titles out of a bibliography and never actually read any of them. Rjensen 21:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did some research on the titles myself, and I'm done. I don't know whether Posse's ignorance is deliberate or not, but I've no use for someone who just grabs article titles out of the air and declares their authors respected historians just because he wants them to be.  That kind of bad faith poisons the atmosphere.  RGTraynor 03:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well one more: Prelude to Republicanism issues in realignment of political parties in New Hampshire, 1835-1847 by Steven Paul McGiffen is not a book but an unpublished dissertation from a British University available only on microfilm. It does not cover the 1853-56 era anyway. So what we have here are fake "sources" that commonposse did not in fact ever look at. Rjensen 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is Rjensen who is lying again. I got these references from the New Hampshire Historical Society, whose in house historian provided them to me. I have now provided over two dozen references, which blows out of the water Rjensens claims that "NO HISTORIAN" supports the Exeter, NH claim. I will also note that Rjensen has not produced any similarly sized list of references, and in fact, he REFERENCES HIS OWN WORK in his article. He is also making false accusation in claiming that I claim they are books. What does it matter if its a dissertation or a book? Rjensen is engaging in illegitimate attacking of the format of the reference. Such is a logical fallacy. Citizenposse 19:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Citizenposse now blames other people for giving him fake titles of books that do not exist. The major book is by Renda and yes indeed I did review it for publication. It clearly lists the NH parties that were active in 1853-54-55 and they did NOT include the Republican party--this mystery party that was "founded" in 1853. We still do not have any historian who supports commonposse's claim; his "recognised and respected historians" in fact did not write books and did not support his far-fetched theory.  He cites books he never has seen--some never existed--which is a clear sign of a hoax.  What is funny is that Senator Judd Gregg (son of Gov Hugh Gregg who promoted Tuckism) 10 years back required all GOP candidates campaigning in the state primary to declare that NH 1853 was the founding of the GOP. That is beyond hilarious.  (they all lost of course and Clinton was elected) Rjensen 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Posse and Jensen :
 * I came here hopeful to find an explaination and walk upon your debate. I have comments for both of you.
 * Mr. Jensen : Wikipedia may be an open encyclopedia, but you have no rights to go around messing with other peoples entries unless they are FUNDEMENTALLY wrong (ie: The Republican Party was founded in India on an Elephant. That you may delete) But urban legends and myths have a place here. Historically and culturally, myths and legends have been a part of our lives. If Posse wants to post an legend here, he has ALL RIGHTS TO and you have NONE of editing it otherwise. I think that if he has evidence (the book list, calling the NHHS) then the myth does NOT have to be accepted as truth but as a possible scenario in which the party was formed. It has a right to be here.
 * Posse : Thanks for the interesting info. If you have read my opinion of Jensen, then you know that you are truly doing nothing wrong. That's what this website is all about. Collecting information. If 35% of the population as of today believes that the Republican party was founded in New Hampshire, then it belongs here, but not as a definate statement. I haven't got a chance to look at the history pages, but if you did not broadly state the the Republican party was founded in NH, you were in the right.


 * If it is any consolation to you two, I EDITED the page and put a new header:
 * == Founding ==
 * While sources are not exactly clear, it is believed that the Rupublican Party was founded in a schoolhouse at Ripon, Wisconson in 1854 but others say it was founded in Exeter, New Hampshire on Oct 12, 1853. There is no conclusive evidence to support either of these claims, but the first statement is the one generally accepted by historians and put into textbooks and other scholarly materials. A couple books support the latter and the New Hampshire Historic Society says the second opinion is truth.


 * --CherryT 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope--see discussion at length above. see the recent histories of the GOP by Gould or Gienapp. The Exeter meeting wasd a failure--all the people there stayed with their old parties for another 2 years (including Tuck). Rjensen 02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "Democrat Party"
The section of the article on this matter begins The context has usually been negative--but not always, as when President George W. Bush declared, during a visit to Georgia that he was traveling "with proud members of the Democrat Party." I don't see that the use of the term "Democrat Party" here HAS to be positive. The President could have been (a) taking a subtle dig at the Democrats, or (b) using the term out of habit. (With all due respect, George W. Bush is not known for extremely fine nauances of wording.) I'm proposing to delete all but the first five words of the sentence, to make it more NPOV, but would welcome further discussion. 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Broughton (talk • contribs)


 * Bush always uses the adjective "Democrat" in both friendly and hostile contexts. Some bloggers have alleged the term is always used in hostile sense, which is refuted by the example. keep. Rjensen 20:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See Democrat Party (phrase); where all the sources, none of them bloggers, see it as overwhelmingly offensive and opprobrious. If it has gotten here, I will remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism repaired
I restored the entire section on the Progressive era that had been blanked out. I also restored the "party system" heading that are of use to the 100,000 students a year who take AP Government and are tested on party systems. One suspects that many thousands of them come to Wikipedia for help. Rjensen 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly there should be a section on the Progressive Era; but it should be called that, not the virtually meaningless and factually disputable Fourth Party System. However, any article which can use such phrases as "Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting all the factions of his party..." is both non-neutral and in factual error (Frémont was a small faction, but a real one) to a degree which makes further editing of it pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3-4-5 party system model is in the textbooks students used. We know that 100,000 a year are tested on it in AP Government. So they need it. As for Lincoln, I think the theme of recent studies like Goodwyn to emphasize Lincoln's amazing success in holding the party together esp at cabinet level. When  it's the consensus of scholrs, Wiki editors must report that and are not allowed to present their own personal OR. Goodwin says Lincoln "was a brilliant politician. I mean, think about this man who was able to bring into his cabinet all of his rivals, men who thought they should have gotten the nomination-- Seward and Chase and Bates-- and somehow bring them in. He understood how to deal with them, how to compromise without compromising principle, how to take mistakes and accept them for himself rather than blaming others." and Goodwin uses "genius" in title. Richardson says "This brilliant strategy harnessed their formidable political ambitions". Lincoln was "cautious, brilliant and lucky, the pilot who kept trying to steer the ship to the middle of the river" says David W. Blight. Rjensen 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some textbooks, not others; as for Lincoln, the quotes do not support the language you defend; but then no quote could; as should be shown by this conversation. I am arguing about 1864, you about 1861. Hopelessly vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

POV?
The radicals didn't "win a sweeping victory" in 1866 election. The majority of the party was moderate. The radicals were a faction in high places in congress. And they never controlled the army with grant's election. Grant was no radical, though he supported some of there measures. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 17:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Fair use rationale for Image:Alflandon.jpg
Image:Alflandon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This paragraph reads too much like Reagan propaganda
Ronald Reagan was elected President in the 1980 election by a landslide vote, not predicted by most voter polling. Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong persona proved too much for Carter. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present.) He inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Republican Position on the Political Spectrum
As I am relatively sure, the Republican Party has not always remained firmly in one spot on the political or idealogical spectrum (Liberal-Moderate-Conservative). The article hints at this, but I believe it is not quite clear enough. The party's planks are given, but when the switch from Liberal to Conservtive occured is blurry. As we know, the Republican Party was Liberal until sometime after the beginning of the 20th century, when the Republican Pary became as we know it today (in general), Conservative. '''Maybe a small chart detailing this?. ''' Just trying to help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimentio (talk • contribs) 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't think a chart would do much good. Since the founding of the Republican Party, the idealogical split was always within the parties not between them.  The emergence of liberal and conservative minded parties is a relatively recent occurrence.  I would estimate the rise of idealogically driven parties to have occurred somewhere between the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and election of Ronald Reagan.  76.204.94.214 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The terms liberal and conservative are so murky that they're nearly useless, except as straw men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.103.116 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral
THis article is not neutral in its viewpoint. 216.100.164.162 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of party
There's some info in the article already, I came across something not mentioned in it here http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,816859-3,00.html indicating Joseph Medill had a role. Any more info on this? Шизомби (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

19th century blacks
I recently began an article on Norris Wright Cuney and it made me think that this article is glossing over some important aspects of the history. From the close of the war to around the turn of the century (1865-1896 roughly) blacks made tremendous strides in civil rights and the Republican Party was at the forefront of a lot of that, especially in the South. Many in the Republican leadership saw the black vote as an important vehicle for strengthening the party's numbers. There was an important drama that went on with conservative whites trying to rid the party of blacks and black leaders increasing their power in the party. For a while blacks gained a great deal of power in the party but by the end of the century all of that started to reverse itself and, by 1910 blacks were almost completely disenfranchised in the party.

This whole aspect of the history seems to me signficant enough that it bears more explicit discussion in the article. Granted it is touched on a tiny bit but I think more detail is warranted.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire founded the party in 1853
There are more than 13 references available that support and document the fact that the first GOP meeting was in Exeter on Oct 12, 1853, many months before the later meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin. These references include the state GOP website (which should know its own history), several books, the US Congress' own databases, among others. Rjensen is engaging in one more campaign of history suppression.Citizenposse 17:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The broad coalition movement which led to the founding of the Republican party was in response to the the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska act in January, 1854. Anything before 1854 can be a precursor, but it is not in the main line of the development of the Republican party as it existed from 1854 onwards. AnonMoos (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All pre-1854 claims
The Republican party came into existence specifically in response to the controversy caused by Stephen Douglas's introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, with its provision to repeal the 36° 30' Missouri compromise latitude line; this called into existence a loose grouping of so-called "anti-Nebraska" forces, and the Republican party originated as an attempt to give the scattered anti-Nebraska coalition of 1854 some real organization and cohesiveness. Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska proposals were known to a few Washington insiders as a part of back-room wheeling and dealing in December 1853, but the Kansas-Nebraska act didn't become a matter of public controversy until January 1854 (see Appeal of the Independent Democrats, the first big political salvo in the Kansas-Nebraska dispute). Therefore any pre-1854 organization or event was simply NOT in the main line of development of what became the Republican party of 1854 or afterwards. Before 1854, there were abolitionists, there was the Liberty Party, there was the Free-soil Party, and from time to time there were various political groupings (including the Democratic Party) which rhetorically invoked the legacy of Thomas Jefferson's old "Democratic-Republicans" -- but there was not anything which was a direct institutional precursor to the Republican Party. AnonMoos (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alleged "Real" Birthpace
An IP is repeatedly asserting that "the real birthplace of the Republican Party is Camillus, NY." This is not backed up by a reliable source but is instead referenced to a single page typed statement from the 1950s scanned onto this website. Future efforts to add this claim w/o discussion here or a reliable source should probably be treated as vandalism. Even if a reliable source has this claim, this would make it only one of several claims -- not the "real" birthplace. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The following is a copy of what I posted on the IP's talk page:


 * So, do yo have any intent to be a serious contributor or are you just going to keep reverting while refusing to discuss the issues? I tried to start a discussion at Talk:History of the United States Republican Party, but you have ignored it. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources.  These types of sources include "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" -- they generally do not include non-scholarly websites.  I can't find your claim in any of the major works on this subject which appears to be simply a local fringe theory.
 * Probably the best source on the origins of the party is Gienapp's "The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856." There is, of course, no mention of your claims despite substantial coverage of the situation in NY. Gienapp points out that the first effort to create a statewide third party in 1854 opposed to the expansion of slavery failed.  You need to make the case on the discussion page and establish a consensus that accepts your claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Republican Party Roots
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The specific application of political philosophies can greatly change over 200 years in response to greatly changed circumstances. There's no direct institutional continuity between the pre-1830's Federalists and the post-1854 Republicans, but some scholars speak of a certain "Hamiltonian" orientation which connects the two (as opposed to the "Jeffersonian" orientation of Democratic-Republicans and modern Democrats).  One area in which the Republican party has been very clearly Hamiltonian as late as 2008 is in supporting policies which favor big business and high finance (big banking). AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Legislatures
The GOP gains in state legislatures are very important since they shape state politics and House redistricting AND were the greatest in 80+ years. There is plenty of space to talk about governorships. One editor wants to erase this sourced information for reasons unknown. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, your indignant attitude is not helpful. Second off, I have trouble trying to fit in info about state-legislature gains when the graf is supposed to be about the congressional elections. Third off, if these are the biggest gains since 1928, then why aren't the 1928 state-legislature elections also mentioned? Seems if this year's gains are important, 1928's should be worth mentioning too. (Either that, or neither are significant.) Fourth off, if the sentence had simply stated, "GOP also won control of legislatures in X states," that might be worth considering including. What I omitted was trivial, meaningless statistical data about how many total state legislators were elected versus that of the Dems in comparison to elections past. Finally, just because something is sourced does not make it a valid addition to any Wikipedia article. If there is a place to include this trivia, it might be the gubernatorial elections article, or even the state-legislature elections article, if one exists. Right now I can't find it. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already reformed the notation into a nutshell version. You seem to be the one undoing everything, calling it trivial, and making no suggestions for a compromise or consensus. It's not a typical midterm election, and the impact of it should be mentioned. jjrj24 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because when you add something to a page and it's reverted, you're supposed to discuss it on talk, not keep edit-warring until you assume the other editor gets tired. I can add a sentence noting that the GOP also picked up a number of governorships and state legislatures, but SERIOUSLY, no one cares what percentage of total seats in all legislatures whichever party gained since 1928! PLEASE cease your assumption that that is what is important about this story. It is beyond silly. --SchutteGod (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I talked on your talk page, as well as this talk page. I've tried to discuss this with you. I've tried to edit it, and compromise. All you keep doing is reverting it back. I've changed the wording for a second time.jjrj24 (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and unfortunately, you never sought consensus when you made these token attempts at discussion. You are supposed to seek consensus first for controversial items, not keep re-adding the items with different wording in the hopes that the reworded item sticks this time. And I notice you still haven't made the case for why this item needs to be in the article (even moreso than the governorship gains, which you seem to have no regard for at all), nor have you actually come back with a reliable source detailing this fact and why it, out of all the developments from the 2010 midterms, is significant. I have already told you that a short item that the GOP picked up state legislatures along with the governorships and congressional seats also gained, but you seem hell-bent on including the trivia about how many legislative seats nationwide were gained (versus the number of legislatures gained, which I would think is more important). And until you can make the case for why this trivia from a lobby group's Web site is significant enough for inclusion in a history article, I see no reason to take your most recent edit any more seriously than the previous ones. --SchutteGod 70.181.166.87 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone correct this error? The election of Abraham Lincoln in 2011
The Civil War and an era of Republican dominance: 1860–1896 Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President (1861-1865) The election of Abraham Lincoln in 2011 ..... 68.197.137.225 (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Founder
i can't see the founder or founders of the party. who founded this party? when was it actually founded? isn't there any official foundation document? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.122.56.98 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really -- Senator Stephen A. Douglas's plans for the Kansas-Nebraska Act unleashed a wave of indignation across many parts of the North beginning in January 1854, and there were many "anti-Nebraska" rallies and "anti-Nebraska" meetings in 1854, but most of them were locally organized, and those who attended didn't always do so with the intention of changing their party affiliation or founding a new party. There were a number of prominent personalities (Greeley, Seward, Chase, etc.) involved  to some degree in coalescing the "anti-Nebraska" protests into some kind of coherent organization, but no real single founder.  A reasonably-well organized separate and distinct party across the whole North didn't really fully come together until the campaign of 1856, I don't think... AnonMoos (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming the party
I take issue with the wholesale deletion of the paragraph on how the party was named. The details are important in helping prove that Ripon is, in fact, the party's birthplace. For any town to claim the mantle of birthplace, the name "Republican" must have been suggested at a meeting there. The source I link to, The Origin of the Republican Party, written by Ripon College professor A.F. Gilman in 1914, provides the backstory on how the name emerged, and is backed up by dated correspondence between Alvan Earle Bovay and Horace Greeley, along with other letters and recollections gathered by the Ripon Histoical Society.

I can only imagine why someone would delete these interesting and illuminating details. Is it because the deleter disputes the source? Because the reasons for choosing the name "Republican" do not correspond to the deleter's image of the party? I saw an earlier edit where someone claimed the name was chosen because it fit the "republican values" of the Founding Fathers, and it linked to the Wiki article on Republicanism in the U.S., and provided no reference. I admit that some of the reasons Bovay gave for choosing the name may not jibe with the current philosophy of the party or its followers, but then again there are a lot of first planks that no longer fit in the GOP's current platform.

I also wonder why someone felt it necessary to "trim details," as if the internet would suddenly run out of room. Dispute the facts if you wish, but do not delete them because you easily tire of reading.

I must confess I'm new to the editing of Wikipedia articles, so I apologize if I'm not following protocol. If there is some "i" I have not dotted in participating in this discussion, please let me know.--Dmmiller23 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the naming is worth a sentence or two--but it should be based on modern scholarship that is familiar for example with Republicanism in the United States. The Gould history of the party for example or The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856 by William E. Gienapp. In any case the key point (which is also made in the 1914 article) is the link to Jeffersonian republicanism. Numerous other people had suggested "Republican" -- it was after all a party that the older men had once belonged to themselves (the term "Republican Party" was still in use in the early 1830s).  Greeley is the person who named the new party--he had ALREADY used the name "Republican" before he talked to Bovay in 1852 so there is no evidence Bovay originated the term. The name "Republican Party" was in use by top Washington politicians by May 1854 (says Gienapp p 89) --as opposed to the June 1854 use in Ripon. Rjensen (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Progressive Era section is remarkably short of Republican reformers' deeds
I've read through the section on the Progressive Era several times now, and it's misleading. From the text one would get the impression that the Progressive movement was a top-down decree from that great humanitarian and civil rights leader, William McKinley. It gives shockingly short shrift to the true reformers that fought against the very trusts that McKinley supported and supported him in turn. The role of insurgent governors is diminished by placing a few mentions of them way after the valentine to McKinley, when in fact it was the governors that led the movement. Most alarming is the "Stalinizing" of Republican Bob La Follette, who only gets one mention, and that as a landslide loser to Coolidge. Anyone using this section to, say, pass a test, would get the impression that the Progressive Era was just a speed bump on the way to the prosperous 1920s. I hope this isn't a case of a partisan watering down the party's liberal successes and what they achieved.--Dmmiller23 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * which great republican achievements did you have in mind? Rjensen (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the progressive Republican achievements on the national level were by Teddy Roosevelt personally, and LaFollette is most famous today (outside of Wisconsin) for his presidential run in 1924 under the Progressive Party (not GOP). AnonMoos (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and Davy Crockett is today most associated with the coonskin cap, but that shouldn't prevent people from learning about the Alamo. La Follette was supremely relevant to the Progressive Era, and to Republican history as well. To ignore his leadership of the movement and his accomplishments would be like leaving Lee out of the Civil War. To have his only mention be that he lost to Coolidge (and that didn't even happen in the era) is highly suspect. I know some Republicans would love to forget that the Progressive Era ever happened (and apparently someone felt compelled to delete the whole section), but it did happen, and it can't be denied that Republicans played a leading role. I know that the things they fought for then (safer food & drugs, protections for workers, corporate accountability, more direct democracy, etc.) are heretical to Republicans today, but you have to admit these are glaring omissions. I'm reminded of Winston Smith, the protagonist in Orwell's 1984 whose job was to scrub historical records of any embarassing facts that don't fit current ideology. The diminishing of the Progressive Era by renaming it the ridiculously obscure "Fourth Party System" is Orwellian in the extreme. What, should we suddenly be calling the Civil War "The Third Conflict Occurence"? Excuse me folks, but your tusks are starting to show. --Dmmiller23 (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could give us a précis of what specific information you think should be added to the article, instead of indulging yourself at luxuriant length with elaborate totalitarian analogies... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Era did not end in 1932
The 1920s were no by means part of the Progressive Era, and any source that says so is obviously promoting a minority view. The McKinley, Harding (Hello! Tea Pot Dome!) and Coolidge administrations were not Progressive administrations by any stretch of the imagination. I think we can all agree that they advanced a pro-business doctrine that resisted government control of corporations, the very antithesis of Progressive philosophy. Again, cite the actual reforms that Republicans backed in the 1920s, because by broad consensus Harding's "return to normalcy" was a hands-off approach to big business. Because just one author stretched the era into the 1920s and erred on the side of inclusion doesn't mean it's still not an error.--Dmmiller23 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Harding and Coolidge were pretty conservative--but the problem is that one of the dominant leaders of the GOP was Herbert Hoover, precisely because he was seen as the Progressive hero. See Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (1975) Rjensen (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you at least agree that Harding and Coolidge were conservatives (!). But without citing specific instances of reforms supported by Republicans in the 1920s, you cannot claim it as a continuation of the Progressive Era. If you did, you certainly couldn't claim that the era ended in 1932, because the majority would argue that it was the beginning of a new Progressive Era (see: New Deal). Using your logic, the era would then extend to at least 1945. Again, please cite the specific instances of progressive action (particularly passed legislation) by Republicans in this time period to back up your claim.--Dmmiller23 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * start with the Sheppard–Towner Act of 1921 that provided federal funding for maternity and child care--eg federally-financed instruction in maternal and infant health care and gave 50-50 matching funds to individual US states to build women’s health care clinics. It was one of the most significant achievements of Progressive-era maternalist reformers.Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The term "Republican" came from the influential newspaper in Springfield, Massachusetts
John Bowles III (journalist), an influential newspaper publisher in Springfield, Massachusetts was instrumental in organizing the Republican Party in 1855. Bowles' best friend and Springfield (Mass.) lawyer George Ashmun presided over the first Republican Congress, which nominated Abraham Lincoln for the Presidency in 1860. The first recorded usage of the term "Republican" to identify the party in national parlance was made in an article by Bowles, whose influential newspape, "The Republican," ("still existant,") declared on Friday, Sept. 21, 1855 that "The Child is Born!" This signified the national birth of the party.

This is historical research, very well-sourced in texts relating to the formation of the party. Its lack of inclusion on this WIkipedia article is curious and disappointing to those who would wish to know the Party's history. I plan to re-instate the paragraph for now; there is simply no reason to take it down. 76.119.66.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I don't know if you bothered reading any of the other paragraphs, but, ahem, the Republican party was founded in the year 1854, soon after the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The headline you reference is about a year late, 1855. Many papers were named "Republican" at the time, but this was a reference not to the anti-slavery movement, but to Thomas Jefferson. I don't think this one newspaper declaring the founding a year late is relevant enough to include here, don't you think?--Dmmiller23 (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dmmiller23 is right. What happened in 1855 was the founding of the Republican Party in Springfield, Mass, a year after it was founded elsewhere with the name "Republican". Gould and other leading sources give the name credit to Greeley in 1854. Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much about politics, too few about party history
Hello, this article has the same problem as the German one (on a different scale). It reports a lot about the political history of the United States, what the GOP did in elections and who was the president nominee, what acts were supported by the party - but hardly anything on the party itself. The organization, party rallies, party officials, membership... I know that this is playing a smaller role than in Europe, but still, this article is supposed to be about the history of the party, not a short history of the USA with a Republican focus. Ziko (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * US parties are very different from Europe. they do not have memberships or much structure for example, and are largely dominated by candidates Rjensen (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not completely true. There's a little bit in the article now about the backgrounds of its typical supporters in the 1850's, and "Ethnocultural politics (1860-1912)", and there could be a little more explanation of why, for example, Irish Catholic immigrants leaned heavily towards the Democrats, while German immigrants were much more susceptible to Republican appeals (it really wasn't all alcohol prohibition, as the article seems to imply).  There could possibly be more on Mark Hanna as the political-financial impresario of the late 19th century.  Etc. AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there so much on the last 2 or 3 years??
It seems strange that almost a third of the article seems to be on the last three years, even though that's only 2% of the amount of time that the Republican party has been in existence. Frankly, I think it would be a good idea for this article to end at the Bush/Obama transition (if not earlier), and hand off to the contemporary articles at that point... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * well maybe--but the history material 1854-2008 is very well covered by hundreds of articles --thousands probably--covering every important election, politician and event, and this is the main coverage of very recent history --the 2012 election probably attracts more readers than the 1912 election. Rjensen (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Wikipedia's bias is in favor of the past over current events in the way you suggest. Why shouldn't the contemporary material be on the main Republican Party (United States) article? AnonMoos (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is top-heavy on the Obama-era material and that section needs to be seriously scaled down. For comparison, check out the section in History of the Democratic Party on the same time period. --SchutteGod (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * there is a bid difference--with a Dem in White House the internal history of the Dem party is a minor issue. But the main action in the GOP involves attacks on Obama admin in Congress & in nomination contest. Rjensen (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's nice, but it doesn't really explain why there should be a heavy "recentism" bias... AnonMoos (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * it's very hard to write concise history when we don't yet have the heavy duty scholarship to summarize. It's much easier to summarize 1912 than 2012.Rjensen (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we have to wait for the slow advance of scholarship when deciding whether or not this article is the most suitable location for a blow-by-blow account of the events of the last three years... AnonMoos (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this has been a scintillating back and forth. The section will be scaled back unless there is further input from other users objecting to such. --SchutteGod (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * wait for the nominee to be decided before cutting the section--history is written to explain why the final outcome happened, and it has not happened yet. Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's the queer thing about history - it does not exist in four-year blocks. The Republican National Convention is not the ultimate event (or the "final outcome") that decides upon the recent history of the Republican Party and where it's headed. There's also an election after that, and either a second Obama term or a Republican administration. The section is going to be reformatted based on the discussion here, not on an arbitrary timeline. --70.181.184.7 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When the GOP holds the White House the attention is all on the president and the party is much less important. However when the Democrats have the White House the GOP looms much larger, especially in Congress, and especially in confrontation with President Obama/Clinton etc. Even more important, with no incumbent seeking reelection the GOP focuses on its nominating process. That's why the 4-year chunks work so well in structuring the history.Rjensen (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why have you been trimming the section yourself? Because you realize we are right, or because you don't want anyone to edit your work but you? --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Update
The last section on the 2012 election cycle needs updating as the Florida primary has happened. Possibly more on Santorum ? --He to Hecuba (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe events of the last two or three years should only be given a very brief summary, or omitted altogether (see section above). AnonMoos (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did Wall St. support the Rockefeller Republicans?
They were pro-regulation.--24.62.109.225 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The financial sector was very different in the 1950's -- much more dominated by old-line WASPs, more of a service for industry and relatively small groups of investors than something pursued solely for its own sake (the tail hadn't started wagging the dog yet), and so a bit stodgier and less motivated by dubious "innovations" and "greed is good" / "creative destruction" ideology. The memory of gilded age robber barons and dubious practices leading to the crash of 1929 loomed larger in the collective memory than it does today, and few influential business or political leaders advocated a return to the pre-1929 period... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Grand old Party"
FTA: "The "GOP" (short for Grand Old Party, as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Roscoe Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator James G. Blaine of Maine, pushed for reform of the Civil service. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "Mugwumps." In 1884 Mugwumps rejected James G. Blaine as corrupt and helped elect Democrat Grover Cleveland; most returned to the party by 1888."

From my understanding the first use of "Grand Old Party" in reference to the Republicans came after the fall of Grover Cleveland, and in fact had until that point been used to refer to the Democrats.

It can be traced to some news paper article. Some digging should find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.236.153 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Southern Strategy
Some thoughts:

1. In the "Realignment" section, the subsections "1964-1972" and "So-called Southern Strategy" should be reorganized, since 1964-1972 is arguably the beginning of the Southern Strategy.

2. The section labeled "So-called Southern Strategy" currently starts with a pretty strong argument for the non-existence of the Southern Strategy. First should come a definition of what is [supposedly?] is/was. Arguments that propose its non-existence can follow.

3. "So-called Southern Strategy" as a heading is POV. It should simply be "Southern strategy," as there is wide consensus that some kind of appeal to southern white traditionally Democratic Party voters beginning at least with the Goldwater campaign existed. What that strategy was, it's purpose, extent and effect can be the content of the section. Note that the Main Article entitled Southern strategy is not labled "So-called." I propose renaming this section accordingly.

4. Indeed, a better model for the shape of this entire section is the Main Article Southern strategy. It's probably a bit more NPOV then this present section, and seems to be where the action is in terms of working that out among interested wikipedians. I propose certainly linking to the Main Article and possibly rewriting this section - mostly for organization.

Interestingly, the main article Republican Party (United States) makes no direct reference to Southern Strategy in its history section, though it alludes to it somewhat.

43hellokitty21 (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I undid the recent, large, BOLD removal of information. I think it needs to be fixed up but that was just too RS'ed material to cut without a talk page discussion first.  Springee (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Lassiter
An interview with Matthew Lassiter seems to show that he's very keen on understanding and coming from the perspectives of both sides. I just point that out because there are a few references of his, and he seems to be an appropriate source. Small resume, but appears to be pretty sound. Opinions? Knowledge Battle 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of the United States Republican Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080226213133/http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf to http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested source
Goodwin's Team of Rivals is mentioned in the "further reading" section. While it is generally about Lincoln's cabinet, a good deal of the book deals with the formation of the Republican Part. The contrast between the visions of government es[poused by Seward, Lincoln and others and the current GOP are striking. Would anyone mind if I inserted some of them into this article? Thank you.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Added a paragraph, as above, to "Ideological beginnings".--Daveler16 (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United States Republican Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930194002/http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the United States Republican Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420055859/http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o to https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=111877178

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

First income tax constitutionality
The section "Civil War and Republican dominance: 1860–1896" mentions "the first temporary income tax (subsequently ruled unconstitutional in Springer v. United States)", but the article for Springer v. United States says that the decision upheld the income tax. Am I missing something, or should that parenthetical be deleted or changed to 'constitutional'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.74.142 (talk) 04:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What about loss of black voter support following the 1927 Mississippi flood relief effort lead by Herbert Hoover?
According to Mr. Barry, one of the pivotal moments in Republican Party history occurred in the aftermath of the flood on the lower Mississippi River (the Delta) in 1927. President Calvin Coolidge appointed Herbert Hoover to oversee the relief effort, the first time in American History that the Federal Government acted in such a broad intervention. Hoover had earned a reputation based on his efforts heading the European Relief and Rehabilitation Administration for President Wilson following World War I. Mr. Barry claims that between Hoover and the American Red Cross, the poor people affected by the flood were treated so shabbily that the Republican Party's reputation was utterly tarnished, and black leadership across the country abandoned the Party, which they had supported since Reconstruction. Subsequent migration of blacks from the Mississippi Delta to other parts of the country would have spread the defection from the Party. In this view, the mass of Southern blacks had already left the Party before the Great Depression.Tweedye (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Some Black leaders actually made an informal deal with Herbert Hoover before the 1928 election that they wouldn't raise a big public stink about the abuses which had affected Black people after the 1927 flood, if Hoover would act favorably towards blacks after he became president. However, Hoover basically broke these promises after he came into power.  This, along with Hoover's ineffectual response to the Great Depression, caused many Black people to break with the Republican party and vote for Roosevelt in 1932 (the first significant political divergence of Blacks from the GOP).  However, most of the state and local leaders in areas affected by the 1927 flood were Democrats... AnonMoos (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Lincoln as founder of Republican party
Abraham Lincoln is currently listed as a "founder" of the Republican party in the article infobox, but that seems quite dubious to me. He was the first president elected from the Republican party, but in the party's early days in the mid-1850s, he was more of a generalized Anti-Nebraska movement supporter than a formally-affiliated member of the Republican party. In his famous August 24, 1855 "Russia" letter to Joshua Speed, he said he was still a Whig. Also, before 1858, relatively few people outside Illinois had heard of him, and many of those who had heard of him knew him as "spotty Lincoln", for his vehement opposition to the Mexican War during his single term as Congressman in the 1840s. AnonMoos (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

With far-right factions?
Do we have conclusive evidence that the modern Republican party is center-right to right wing with far right factions? The global parties survey of scholars view the republican party as approximately similar to the Spanish Vox in a traditional left-right spectrum socially and fiscally, and the Vox are undeniably far-right. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ImjG16_Q0TPkJLbwG9K-ZRPibf8=/0x0:2740x1584/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:2740x1584):format(webp):no_upscale/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22325750/EZibQR_WkAM7y4B.jpg image from Vox, data from https://www.dropbox.com/s/oidnej45mx6tyei/Global%20Party%20Survey3.pptx?dl=0. 2601:194:827F:2F0:B0AB:983:768F:E54E (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you favor lesser-known file formats like WEBP and PowerPoint (I did look at the JPEG version of your first link). Anyway, it may be irrelevant to academic political science, but in the U.S. political context, a party supported by the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street is not usually considered "far right" (though there's no denying that the party has taken a turn towards truth-denial and conspiratorial thinking in the last few months).  The GOP's facade of mainstream respectability may be cracking, but it hasn't fallen away yet... AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Rename
"History of United States Republican Party" is ungrammatical, and the official name of the party is simply the "Republican Party." I therefore propose renaming this article "History of the Republican Party of the United States." -choster 01:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the current name reads fine. Schizmatic 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * agree will happen now Popscurling (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"Big Tent"
it should be renamed big tent of the political right, just big tent means both leftists and rightists united which is obviously not the case Braganza (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure why the GOP could be called a "big tent" party now. When that was said in the 1980s, it meant there were no litmus tests, and support was welcomed from all non-extremists.  Nowadays there are plenty of litmus tests (as Liz Cheney discovered), and also lots of extremists inside the party... AnonMoos (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @AnonMoos @Braganza "Big tent" with only right-wing factions is questionable. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which left-wing factions exist inside republicans? Braganza (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * There used to be "Rockefeller Republicans" and African-American Republicans like Edward Brooke, and white Republicans strongly opposed to racial discrimination, like George Romney. The last Rockefeller Republican left at the national level is basically Susan Collins, but it's hard to consider her a moderate when most Democrats who are aware of her hate her guts, while today's African-American Republicans have to be stridently conservative to show their loyalty.  Long ago, there were progressive Republicans, like trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt, and "Fighting" Bob La Follette... AnonMoos (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * the infobox represents what the party is nowdays (for some reason) and the Rockefellers are still not left-wing
 * big tent is usually used for like parties of power or syncretic parties but not for broad right-wing parties Braganza (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party is NOT a big tent. Andre🚐 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)