Historical political party platforms, 1840-2008

[Progressive Realist]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

Interesting for political geeks to geek out on.

[Lief]

Nice! Donald Bruce Johnson and Kirk H. Porter edited a collection of national party platforms called "National Party Platforms, 1840-1972" which included most of the political parties that ran each year, though obviously it only goes up to 1972, which is also a good source for this kind of stuff.

[Bo]

Thanks. Very interesting.

[True Federalist]

It's a interesting historical link that is relevant enough to this forum that I've decided to sticky this thread until we've got enough sticky topics to make having a summary topic containing such links useful.

[Orthodox]

George Wallace's economic platform is actually pretty interesting given his reputation and the legacy his campaign left on American politics.

[Communists For McCain]

Interesting excerpt from the 1856 Democratic National Platform:

Resolved, That the foundation of this union of States having been laid in, and its prosperity, expansion, and pre-eminent example in free government, built upon entire freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of person in regard to rank or place of birth; no party can justly be deemed national, constitutional, or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a political crusade in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholic and foreign-born is neither justified by the past history or the future prospects of the country, nor in unison with the spirit of toleration and enlarged freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.

[shua]

Here's an odd phrase from the 1904 Democratic Platform

Sectional and Race Agitation

The race question has brought countless woes to this country. The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that it brings no more.

To revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. North, South, East and West have but recently stood together in line of battle from the walls of Pekin to the hills of Santiago, and as sharers of a common glory and a common destiny, we should share fraternally the common burdens.

We therefore deprecate and condemn the Bourbon-like selfish, and narrow spirit of the recent Republican Convention at Chicago which sought to kindle anew the embers of racial and sectional strife, and we appeal from it to the sober common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people.

What does this mean? Wasn't their own nominee Alton Parker a Bourbon Democrat?

[True Federalist]

Here's an odd phrase from the 1904 Democratic Platform

Sectional and Race Agitation

The race question has brought countless woes to this country. The calm wisdom of the American people should see to it that it brings no more.

To revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed. North, South, East and West have but recently stood together in line of battle from the walls of Pekin to the hills of Santiago, and as sharers of a common glory and a common destiny, we should share fraternally the common burdens.

We therefore deprecate and condemn the Bourbon-like selfish, and narrow spirit of the recent Republican Convention at Chicago which sought to kindle anew the embers of racial and sectional strife, and we appeal from it to the sober common sense and patriotic spirit of the American people.

What does this mean? Wasn't their own nominee Alton Parker a Bourbon Democrat?

The Bourbon label was one generally applied to conservatives by their enemies and not a self-embraced label.  Since he Parker wasn't an enemy in 1904, they wouldn't call him a Bourbon, but they certainly could brand the Republicans with that label.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Love this thread. Very interesting to read about past platforms

[shua]

Here's an ebook/pdf of an old book that has among other things the platforms from 19th century conventions beyond those on that site:

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/thomas-hudson-mckee/the-national-conventions-and-platforms-of-all-political-parties-1789-to-1905-c-ala.shtml

[Spanish Moss]

I didn't see it here, but I've both heard and read that the early Republican Party actually addressed "wage slavery" - can anyone confirm that?

[Spanish Moss]

"All Americans should have universal access to quality, affordable health care—not as a privilege, but as a right." - Democrats, 1992

They've moved to the right on that a little... of course, that party has been moving rightward at least for 20 years.

[True Federalist]

I didn't see it here, but I've both heard and read that the early Republican Party actually addressed "wage slavery" - can anyone confirm that?

yes, they basically denied the concept existed in that those who earned wages with the ability to do so were free to rise to level of their ability.  From the very beginnings of the party, the Republicans espoused a strong belief in upward mobility.  Arguably that was easier to achieve in the 19th century than in the 21st century.  It was Southern Democrats who most strongly tried to equate wage earning with an imperfect form of slavery in which the old and disabled were left to fend for themselves once they were no longer useful to their masters while in the South old and infirm slaves were looked after by their masters in a glorious form of Christian socialism.

[traininthedistance]

Interesting excerpt from the 1856 Democratic National Platform:

Resolved, That the foundation of this union of States having been laid in, and its prosperity, expansion, and pre-eminent example in free government, built upon entire freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of person in regard to rank or place of birth; no party can justly be deemed national, constitutional, or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a political crusade in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholic and foreign-born is neither justified by the past history or the future prospects of the country, nor in unison with the spirit of toleration and enlarged freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.

This is not so surprising.  Poor, urban Catholic immigrants are the one and only one demographic slice which have been a constant in the Democratic Party for pretty much its entire postbellum history (100 years ago it was Irish/Italian/Polish, now it's Hispanics), through all the various realignments.  I guess their Republican counterpart would be farmers in the Midwest (and Eastern Tennessee).