Is history repeating itself? Is the GOP following the Whigs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Musing over the subtext of the Shutdown thread -- TEA party v GOP moderates -- I decided to do a little reading.

While the Democratic Party can trace its roots back to Jefferson, its ups and downs have not torn the party apart -- despite deep divisions that lasted for decades (Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats for example) and despite temporary fragmentation (War v Peace Democrats in 1861-1865).

By contrast, the Whig party that formed to oppose the growth of Presidential power under Jackson, was torn apart and destroyed by the slavery question. The anti-slavery elements of the party opted out, denying the party's nomination for President even though he was an incumbent, and...in a very few years...the party folded. The new party, the Republicans, took advantage of a major rift between southern and northern democrats to elect Lincoln in 1860.

Following the civil war, however, the democrats reformed, brining in the conservative dixiecrats who were often at odds with their northern party members but nevertheless maintained a mostly coordinated effort on behalf of the party. The democrats remained viable despite the domination of the Presidency through most of the last half of the 19th century.

So, unlike the Democratic party, the GOP comes from a group that has already demonstrated that they will withdraw support from a party and kill it rather than give up their point.

Is this happening again?

Are the situations analogous? Is limited government/stricter constitutionalism as focal an issue as slavery? The nascent GOP of the 1850s were the "liberal" party. Are the TEA conservatives fundamentally different so that that analogy does not apply, or is this issue as divisive as slavery?

Thoughts?