Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did the "Big Top" party manage to do so well in 2010?
As you and I both know, many don't vote in off year elections. For this reason, they encourage the extremists. Let's see how the Big Top party does in 2012. So far, they've put on quite a clown show. I miss Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain already. All of them lead the polls at one time. If that doesn't make you go , nothing will.
My post to you was over you saying he wasnt even a republican and he clearly was, according to the library of congress he was
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.
The OP said he was the Republican governor in 1863. You can check it. It's post #1.
I said he wasn't governor in 1863, and he wasn't a Republican in 1863. You can check what I said. Both of those statements were true.
In 1863, he wasn't governor. And he was a member of the Union Party. He's sometimes listed as a Republican because of his affiliation with Governor Stanford, but he was registered as a member of the Union Party at that time.
I'll be waiting for you to acknowledge that you misread my post, and that your assertion that I was incorrect was wrong.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension then.
The OP said he was the Republican governor in 1863. You can check it. It's post #1.
I said he wasn't governor in 1863, and he wasn't a Republican in 1863. You can check what I said. Both of those statements were true.
In 1863, he wasn't governor. And he was a member of the Union Party. He's sometimes listed as a Republican because of his affiliation with Governor Stanford, but he was registered as a member of the Union Party at that time.
I'll be waiting for you to acknowledge that you misread my post, and that your assertion that I was incorrect was wrong.
He returned to California in the summer of 1861, just in time to start campaigning as a Republican
During the Republican State Convention of 1863
We can sit here and debate the year in which he became gov but its pretty obvious that in 1863 he was a republican.
He was a member of the union party in the early 1860s and then in 1861 he became a republican.
As you and I both know, many don't vote in off year elections. For this reason, they encourage the extremists. Let's see how the Big Top party does in 2012. So far, they've put on quite a clown show. I miss Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman and Herman Cain already. All of them lead the polls at one time. If that doesn't make you go , nothing will.
And one of the survivors is basically a "FDR Democrat". I won't say the Republicans have not overreached, as the Pelosi led Democrats did before them. Of the three you mentioned only one could be labeled an extremist.
Actually, NO, it's not obvious that he was a Republican in 1863. He was a member of the Union Party in 1863. He may have ran on a Republican ticket, because the Union Party didn't have a ticket, but in those days where party affiliation was much, much looser than it is today, it means that he didn't have to be a Republican.
I shouldn't have to go over the history of California politics just for you, but you were the one who decided to attack the veracity of my post. Leland Stanford was a Whig. He ran on the Republican ticket to become the first Republican governor of California, but he could have run on the Martian ticket, because Leland Stanford was the candidate of the RAILROADS at that time. It didn't matter which party's ticket he ran on. He was the RAILROAD candidate with RAILROAD money behind him. Why were railroads so popular at the time? Because product that shipped from California to the American seaboard had to be shipped either via water or via land, and both journeys were expensive and very risky. The ships had to travel all the way down the coast of South America, then all the way back up. It was long and dangerous, and many ships were lost. Shipments of GOLD. Wagon trains had to travel through the American west, through non-US territory, through Indian territory. The need for provisions to make that journey often drove the costs so high that it simply wasn't feasible. The railroads would connect California to the rest of the country. They were desperately needed and wanted. So the Republican Party didn't make Leland Stanford. Leland Stanford made the Republican Party.
Pacheco started out as a member of the Democratic Party. Which didn't mean a lot in 1850's California. Political parties were vehicles that organized elections at that time and in that place. The political positions were very fluid and very local. Which is why there were plentiful political parties to choose from. When Pacheco returned from an extended stay in Europe, he chose to become a member of the Union Party. What was the Union Party? It was pro-Union. It supported a stronger United States by keeping the seceding states in, and by opposing Californians who entertained secession as well. After all, it's not like California had a long history of being part of the United States at that time. But the Union Party didn't have money. It was organized around an ideal. The railroads had the money in California at the time, and the railroads affiliated with the Republican party because that party dominated the federal government in 1860 election. And railroads wanted government assistance in building trans-continental rail. Obviously, the Republican Party in Washington opposed secession at that time, so the Union Party candidates in California would run on Republican Party tickets. Why? Because of money. After the Civil War, Pacheco became a Republican. Why? Because the Union Party was organized against secession, and after the Civil War, secession was no longer an issue. And the Republican Party in California was still controlled and funded by railroads.
In 1863, Pacheco was not governor. And in 1863 Pacheco was a member of the Union Party.
Actually, NO, it's not obvious that he was a Republican in 1863. He was a member of the Union Party in 1863. He may have ran on a Republican ticket, because the Union Party didn't have a ticket, but in those days where party affiliation was much, much looser than it is today, it means that he didn't have to be a Republican.
I shouldn't have to go over the history of California politics just for you, but you were the one who decided to attack the veracity of my post. Leland Stanford was a Whig. He ran on the Republican ticket to become the first Republican governor of California, but he could have run on the Martian ticket, because Leland Stanford was the candidate of the RAILROADS at that time. It didn't matter which party's ticket he ran on. He was the RAILROAD candidate with RAILROAD money behind him. Why were railroads so popular at the time? Because product that shipped from California to the American seaboard had to be shipped either via water or via land, and both journeys were expensive and very risky. The ships had to travel all the way down the coast of South America, then all the way back up. It was long and dangerous, and many ships were lost. Shipments of GOLD. Wagon trains had to travel through the American west, through non-US territory, through Indian territory. The need for provisions to make that journey often drove the costs so high that it simply wasn't feasible. The railroads would connect California to the rest of the country. They were desperately needed and wanted. So the Republican Party didn't make Leland Stanford. Leland Stanford made the Republican Party.
Pacheco started out as a member of the Democratic Party. Which didn't mean a lot in 1850's California. Political parties were vehicles that organized elections at that time and in that place. The political positions were very fluid and very local. Which is why there were plentiful political parties to choose from. When Pacheco returned from an extended stay in Europe, he chose to become a member of the Union Party. What was the Union Party? It was pro-Union. It supported a stronger United States by keeping the seceding states in, and by opposing Californians who entertained secession as well. After all, it's not like California had a long history of being part of the United States at that time. But the Union Party didn't have money. It was organized around an ideal. The railroads had the money in California at the time, and the railroads affiliated with the Republican party because that party dominated the federal government in 1860 election. And railroads wanted government assistance in building trans-continental rail. Obviously, the Republican Party in Washington opposed secession at that time, so the Union Party candidates in California would run on Republican Party tickets. Why? Because of money. After the Civil War, Pacheco became a Republican. Why? Because the Union Party was organized against secession, and after the Civil War, secession was no longer an issue. And the Republican Party in California was still controlled and funded by railroads.
In 1863, Pacheco was not governor. And in 1863 Pacheco was a member of the Union Party.
I suggest that you actually read the link from the library of congress because it clearly states
in the early 1860's he changed party affiliation to the Union Party.
In 1860 Pacheco took an extended trip to Europe. He returned to California in the summer of 1861, just in time to start campaigning as a Republican for a seat in the California State Senate
Now you can sit here and wanna debate that he wasnt actually a republican all day long but you have no proof that he wasnt. While I've proved proof that he was a member of the union party in 1860 and then in 1861 he ran as a republican. But for some reason it seems impossible to you that something might have happened while in Europe and he changed parties. Something that never ever happens
This convo is over as far as I'm concerned. If you have any further issue please take it up with the Library of congress
I suggest that you actually read the link from the library of congress because it clearly states
in the early 1860's he changed party affiliation to the Union Party.
In 1860 Pacheco took an extended trip to Europe. He returned to California in the summer of 1861, just in time to start campaigning as a Republican for a seat in the California State Senate
Now you can sit here and wanna debate that he wasnt actually a republican all day long but you have no proof that he wasnt. While I've proved proof that he was a member of the union party in 1860 and then in 1861 he ran as a republican. But for some reason it seems impossible to you that something might have happened while in Europe and he changed parties. Something that never ever happens
This convo is over as far as I'm concerned. If you have any further issue please take it up with the Library of congress
... Give it up already. It's no different than someone being registered as a Republican or Democrat, and running as an Independent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, nothing will.
... Give it up already. It's no different than someone being registered as a Republican or Democrat, and running as an Independent.
