Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 23, 2014, 01:36:19 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  History (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  1892 Democratic Party platform
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 1892 Democratic Party platform  (Read 1069 times)
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5470
United States


View Profile
« on: August 22, 2011, 07:43:09 pm »
Ignore

Quote
The representatives of the Democratic party of the United States, in National Convention assembled, do reaffirm their allegiance to the principles of the party, as formulated by Jefferson and exemplified by the long and illustrious line of his successors in Democratic leadership, from Madison to Cleveland; we believe the public welfare demands that these principles be applied to the conduct of the Federal Government, through the accession to power of the party that advocates them; and we solemnly declare that the need of a return to these fundamental principles of free popular government, based on home rule and individual liberty, was never more urgent than now, when the tendency to centralize all power at the Federal capital has become a menace to the reserved rights of the States that strikes at the very roots of our Government under the Constitution as framed by the fathers of the Republic.

We warn the people of our common country, jealous for the preservation of their free institutions, that the policy of Federal control of elections, to which the Republican party has committed itself, is fraught with the gravest dangers, scarcely less momentous than would result from a revolution practically establishing monarchy on the ruins of the Republic. It strikes at the North as well as at the South, and injures the colored citizen even more than the white; it means a horde of deputy marshals at every polling place, armed with Federal power; returning boards appointed and controlled by Federal authority, the outrage of the electoral rights of the people in the several States, the subjugation of the colored people to the control of the party in power, and the reviving of race antagonisms, now happily abated, of the utmost peril to the safety and happiness of all; a measure deliberately and justly described by a leading Republican Senator as "the most infamous bill that ever crossed the threshold of the Senate." Such a policy, if sanctioned by law, would mean the dominance of a self-perpetuating oligarchy of office-holders, and the party first intrusted with its machinery could be dislodged from power only by an appeal to the reserved right of the people to resist oppression, which is inherent in all self-governing communities. Two years ago this revolutionary policy was emphatically condemned by the people at the polls, but in contempt of that verdict the Republican can party has defiantly declared in its latest authoritative utterance that its success in the coming elections will mean the enactment of the Force Bill and the usurpation of despotic control over elections in all the States.

Believing that the preservation of Republican government in the United States is dependent upon the defeat of this policy of legalized force and fraud, we invite the support of all citizens who desire to see the Constitution maintained in its integrity with the laws pursuant thereto, which have given our country a hundred years of unexampled prosperity; and we pledge the Democratic party, if it be intrusted with power, not only to the defeat of the Force Bill, but also to relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure, which, in the short space of two years, has squandered an enormous surplus and emptied an overflowing Treasury, after piling new burdens of taxation upon the already overtaxed labor of the country.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29585#ixzz1VoAFz27J
Logged
Mikestone8
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2011, 02:02:14 pm »
Ignore

How do you mean "A Democrat in name only?"

Cleveland was a typical Democrat of the post-ACW generation, not hugely different from Seymour, Tilden or probably Hancock. It was his misfortune to outlive his time, and run an 1880s administration in the 1890s, when his party was moving to the left.

He puts me in mind of LBJ in 1968. Had he died in 1893 (or retired then after winning in 1888) he would be much better remembered.

As for the platform, it looks to me an entirely typical Democratic one for that period.
Logged
Bacon King
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16159
United States Minor Outlying Islands


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2011, 09:31:36 pm »
Ignore

Quote
when the tendency to centralize all power at the Federal capital has become a menace to the reserved rights of the States that strikes at the very roots of our Government under the Constitution as framed by the fathers of the Republic.

Historical context:

Benjamin Harrison heavily supported the 1890 Lodge Bill, which would have allowed the federal government to enforce the 15th Amendment and thus forcing the southern states to allow blacks the unhindered right to vote; the bill didn't pass because it was filibustered by southern Democrats in the Senate. He was also very critical towards Southern states regarding their records on civil rights. With so many Democrats from the South, I'm not surprised at all to see this in the platform.


Quote
relentless opposition to the Republican policy of profligate expenditure, which, in the short space of two years, has squandered an enormous surplus and emptied an overflowing Treasury, after piling new burdens of taxation upon the already overtaxed labor of the country.

"New burdens of taxation" is interesting, here, because it's just referring to an increase in the tariff, while the Democrats who won in this election went on to pass the nation's first peacetime income tax in 1894 (until the Supreme Court struck it down a year later). Most of this "profligate expenditure", by the way, was a new law that provided pensions to disabled Civil War veterans. IMO, not exactly objectionable.
Logged

BK without all the crazy drugs just wouldn't be BK.

Mikestone8
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 68
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2011, 03:43:51 am »
Ignore

Most of this "profligate expenditure", by the way, was a new law that provided pensions to disabled Civil War veterans. IMO, not exactly objectionable.

Except of course to Southern Democrats whose ex-Confederate constituents presumably did not qualify.
Logged
I Am Feeblepizza.
ALF
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 350
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 07, 2011, 12:22:05 pm »
Ignore

Most of this "profligate expenditure", by the way, was a new law that provided pensions to disabled Civil War veterans. IMO, not exactly objectionable.
At the time, the military pension system was riddled with abuse.
Logged
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11684
Russian Federation


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 07, 2011, 03:28:26 pm »
Ignore

Most of this "profligate expenditure", by the way, was a new law that provided pensions to disabled Civil War veterans. IMO, not exactly objectionable.

Except of course to Southern Democrats whose ex-Confederate constituents presumably did not qualify.
They didn't qualify, but many of them would have been offended at the idea of being paid pension by the Northern Aggressor.
Logged

Rockefeller GOP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 977
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2013, 08:54:36 pm »
Ignore

Not sure I understand.  Is this OP saying that because modern Republicans support States' Rights that they somehow carry the burden of the Democrats' racist past?  The GOP of Lincoln's day wasn't necessarily against States' Rights at all, and in fact (if you do your homework) really supported them at a fundamental level ... they also supported not letting a group of Rebels secede from the Union or letting Southerners impose cruel and unjust Black Codes on Blacks.  It doesn't change the fact that they were pro-business and fiscally conservative while the Democrats were, like today, fiscally progressive.  (Disclaimer: compared to modern Presidential administrations, practically all 1800s politicians were radically conservative on fiscal measures).
Logged

"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence built"

- Abraham Lincoln



Economic: +1.94
Social: -2.96
#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15236
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 18, 2013, 09:32:02 pm »
Ignore

What's the point of putting this up? I mean, once you've become versed a certain amount in American history, you get it. The Democrats of the 1880's and early 1890's weren't huge fans of tariffs or spending or whathaveyou. Big deal.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15236
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 18, 2013, 09:32:45 pm »
Ignore

And more to the point, what's the point of responding to a two year-old thread?
Logged

Rockefeller GOP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 977
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2013, 11:43:07 am »
Ignore

What's the point of putting this up? I mean, once you've become versed a certain amount in American history, you get it. The Democrats of the 1880's and early 1890's weren't huge fans of tariffs or spending or whathaveyou. Big deal.

Some people find it interesting (me included) and like I said in another thread, I didn't look at how old the threads were.  You didn't have to respond to said "two year old threads."
Logged

"That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence built"

- Abraham Lincoln



Economic: +1.94
Social: -2.96
compson III
sutpen
Rookie
*
Posts: 30
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2013, 02:16:50 pm »
Ignore

The discontinuity is less than some would think.  Prior to the modern mobility of capital, businesses were naturally very pro-tariff.  The more labor intensive the industry the more likely it was to be in favor of the tariff.  As industries substituted for more capital intensive production, and (more so) began moving capital freely to countries with cheaper labor, their enthusiasm for the tariff waned, and the Republican Party of course followed them.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines