tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post396956527147220404..comments2024-03-28T02:46:03.227-04:00Comments on The Historical Society: Half-Breeds, Stalwarts, and ContingencyRandallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16755286304057000048noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-35650211381473736322016-06-30T10:54:30.830-04:002016-06-30T10:54:30.830-04:00The "what ifs" of history....
I can'...The "what ifs" of history....<br /><br />I can't tell you who won the 1932 world series for the simple reason that, eighty-two years later, it doesn't make a damned bit of difference to our lives who won it. I can tell you who won the presidential election that year, though. Four score and two years after the fact that does make a difference. Think about this: On the evening of February 15, 1933, less than a month before entering the White House, a would-be assassin named Giuseppe Zangara attempted to murder Franklin D. Roosevelt in Miami, Florida. The bullet, instead, hit Chicago mayor, Anton Cermak, who died nineteen days later. Had FDR been assassinated on the eve of his inauguration, the presidency would have gone to his running mate, a not-too-visionary bigot from Texas named John Nance Garner. If Zangara's bullet had not missed its mark on that night, the entire history of the world - not merely the United States - would have been much different. "What if...." It makes the imagination tremble.<br /><br />http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com <br /><br />Tom Degan Tom Deganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17911175264811957550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-59915548662765085242011-06-22T21:01:29.778-04:002011-06-22T21:01:29.778-04:00Dear David:
I've spent a great deal of frustr...Dear David:<br /><br />I've spent a great deal of frustrating time today trying to find the answer to your excellent question. I think I may finally have it (an emphasis on MAY, here)....<br /><br />While Blaine, who was a hugely corrupt machine politician, is now seen as the leader of the Half-Breeds, it appears that when they first emerged, their distinctive characteristic was that they staunchly opposed the renomination of Grant (which is true). That meant that the movement pulled into it the old reformers like Carl Schurz and George Curtis. They were "Half-Breeds"-- yes, it was derogatory-- because they were willing to vote against the Republican Party nominee if they didn't like him (as many did in 1872, and then again in 1876, voting for Tilden). <br /><br />A dictionary of terms, published in 1885, identifies "Half-Breed" as "A term of reproach given by the more partisan faction of the Republican party to the element which sometimes, by<br />disaffection, gave victory to the enemy...." A cartoon in Puck from 1880 has the anti-Grant faction led by Schurz and Curtis, which would bear this interpretation out. <br /><br />So they were Half-Breeds largely because they opposed Grant (Conkling was Grant's man, of course), and those most fervently opposing Grant were the old reformers. Blaine was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reformer, but his people became associated with it even when the reformers jumped from his ship (as they did quickly at the convention in 1880, and then entirely in 1884).<br /><br />There is no merit that I can see in the argument that they were Half-Breeds because they were moderates-- I haven't a clue where that interpretation came from, although it's all over the web. Blaine was an opportunist from day one, and so was Conkling. But there was only room for one of them at the head of the party.<br /><br />Way more than you wanted to know?<br /><br />BTW, I could be wrong on this. Do jump in, anyone, if you can contribute.<br /><br />Thanks for the great question, David. <br /><br />And yes, LD, it's cool, but also really disturbing to me to see how many really, really important events in our past were determined by ridiculously trivial events. More on that in another post.hcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07334093881332383848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-7431933793179315582011-06-22T12:22:16.534-04:002011-06-22T12:22:16.534-04:00This is the kind of thing that makes me *love* his...This is the kind of thing that makes me *love* history. Talk about contingency! Wow.LDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09742066809468902814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872819010848426693.post-62381721093392815852011-06-22T11:25:13.007-04:002011-06-22T11:25:13.007-04:00Fascinating post, Prof. Richardson. My question is...Fascinating post, Prof. Richardson. My question is tangential to your main point, but any idea how the name "Half-Breed" came to be applied to a group of white politicians? Is it connected to the then-common usage of "half-breed" to refer to the offspring of Europeans and Natives, or is it a more general metaphor taken from animal husbandry?David G.http://juvenileinstructor.orgnoreply@blogger.com