When did Northern Democratic counties move to the left of Northern GOP counties

[nclib]

While the GOP was to the left of the Dems for some time, a lot of that was mainly attributable to the South. When did the Dem counties move to the left of the GOP counties in the North?

[Benj]

If we're talking strictly in economic terms, Democratic areas have always been to the left of Republican areas in the North. There were exceptions in cities where the Republicans once had powerful machines (Philadelphia and Detroit come to mind), and in Scandinavian areas of the Upper Midwest, but by and large I think the economic cleavage dates to the foundation of the Republican Party.

[windjammer]

1964? Even with Kennedy, Reagan was a moderate republican. Goldwater is really the first republican to be clearly more on the right that the democratic candidate. But even after, there were many conservative democrats and moderate republicans: in 1991: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/102/house/1/9
You can see many moderate republicans: Snowe, Morella,... and many conservative democrats!
Barack Obama's election is clearly the end of moderate to liberal republicans and conservative dixiecrat democrats!

[Mechaman]

If we're talking strictly in economic terms, Democratic areas have always been to the left of Republican areas in the North. There were exceptions in cities where the Republicans once had powerful machines (Philadelphia and Detroit come to mind), and in Scandinavian areas of the Upper Midwest, but by and large I think the economic cleavage dates to the foundation of the Republican Party.

This is the only real correct answer.

The exceptions to the rule were largely either the work of Republican machinery (as noted above) or in response to the corrupt nature of Democratic urban machinery.  Hell, even in the Gilded Age Democrats might've been to the left of the Republicans (think Free Trade, immigration liberalization, against bible thumpers in government, etc etc). . . .though you can be forgiven for not being able to tell due to late 19th century moderate heroes (Samuel Tilden, Winfield Hancock, Grover Cleveland) getting the Presidential nomination.  Grover Cleveland was the William J. Clinton of his time, as seen in his appeal to Republican "mugwumps" or whatever the hell you call them.
Even Stephen Douglas was to the left of Abraham Lincoln.  I mean, what platform sounds more liberal to you:

"We must stop the expansion of slavery that has been encouraged by activist Supreme Court Justices.  The mad expansion of slave owner authority, to such bounds that free men could be considered slaves under Dred Scott decision, exceeds the traditional scope outlined in the Constitution and the Missouri Compromise.  I call on all Americans to stand by and support Constitutionalism, to support rational balanced government, and to stop the mad spread of activist judicialism that threatens our very system of governance."-Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Campaign

"There is something missing in the national debate.  That thing is, dear citizen, choice.  The choice for you, and your fellow citizens, to decide for each of yourselves how you want to live your lives.  How you want your state governments to work.  Too often, bureaucrats believe that only they know what policies work for you.  Thus, ultimately, the populace is at the mercy of bureaucrats, on all levels, deciding things with referenda.  Well America, that time is about over!  I, Stephen Douglas, your Democratic nominee for President, supports the right of citizens in every state to decide for themselves important policy issues!  Don't like slavery?  Well, my friend, I support your right to vote against it if your state holds a referendum on the issue!  Like slavery?  Well you can vote for it as well!  I might be a Washington politician, but I strongly believe in Popular Sovereignty, just like our hero the Great Andrew Jackson!  So vote for freedom, vote for choice, vote for suffrage!  Vote for Douglas!"-Stephen Douglas 1860 Campaign, in a nutshell.

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

Even Stephen Douglas was to the left of Abraham Lincoln.  I mean, what platform sounds more liberal to you:

"We must stop the expansion of slavery that has been encouraged by activist Supreme Court Justices.  The mad expansion of slave owner authority, to such bounds that free men could be considered slaves under Dred Scott decision, exceeds the traditional scope outlined in the Constitution and the Missouri Compromise.  I call on all Americans to stand by and support Constitutionalism, to support rational balanced government, and to stop the mad spread of activist judicialism that threatens our very system of governance."-Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Campaign

"There is something missing in the national debate.  That thing is, dear citizen, choice.  The choice for you, and your fellow citizens, to decide for each of yourselves how you want to live your lives.  How you want your state governments to work.  Too often, bureaucrats believe that only they know what policies work for you.  Thus, ultimately, the populace is at the mercy of bureaucrats, on all levels, deciding things with referenda.  Well America, that time is about over!  I, Stephen Douglas, your Democratic nominee for President, supports the right of citizens in every state to decide for themselves important policy issues!  Don't like slavery?  Well, my friend, I support your right to vote against it if your state holds a referendum on the issue!  Like slavery?  Well you can vote for it as well!  I might be a Washington politician, but I strongly believe in Popular Sovereignty, just like our hero the Great Andrew Jackson!  So vote for freedom, vote for choice, vote for suffrage!  Vote for Douglas!"-Stephen Douglas 1860 Campaign, in a nutshell.

Using similar arguments doesn't necessarily mean that they come from the same ideology, however.

Example:
"If you outlaw guns, there will be a huge black market for guns.  You won't actually stop the use of guns.  Why should the government get rid of our Constitutional freedoms because someone's scared of something?" - Random Republican
"If you outlaw abortion, then there will be a huge black market for abortion.  You won't actually stop abortion - you'll just make the procedures less safe.  Why should the government get rid of our Constitutional freedoms because someone is offended by it?" - Random Democrat

[Mechaman]

Even Stephen Douglas was to the left of Abraham Lincoln.  I mean, what platform sounds more liberal to you:

"We must stop the expansion of slavery that has been encouraged by activist Supreme Court Justices.  The mad expansion of slave owner authority, to such bounds that free men could be considered slaves under Dred Scott decision, exceeds the traditional scope outlined in the Constitution and the Missouri Compromise.  I call on all Americans to stand by and support Constitutionalism, to support rational balanced government, and to stop the mad spread of activist judicialism that threatens our very system of governance."-Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Campaign

"There is something missing in the national debate.  That thing is, dear citizen, choice.  The choice for you, and your fellow citizens, to decide for each of yourselves how you want to live your lives.  How you want your state governments to work.  Too often, bureaucrats believe that only they know what policies work for you.  Thus, ultimately, the populace is at the mercy of bureaucrats, on all levels, deciding things with referenda.  Well America, that time is about over!  I, Stephen Douglas, your Democratic nominee for President, supports the right of citizens in every state to decide for themselves important policy issues!  Don't like slavery?  Well, my friend, I support your right to vote against it if your state holds a referendum on the issue!  Like slavery?  Well you can vote for it as well!  I might be a Washington politician, but I strongly believe in Popular Sovereignty, just like our hero the Great Andrew Jackson!  So vote for freedom, vote for choice, vote for suffrage!  Vote for Douglas!"-Stephen Douglas 1860 Campaign, in a nutshell.

Using similar arguments doesn't necessarily mean that they come from the same ideology, however.

Example:
"If you outlaw guns, there will be a huge black market for guns.  You won't actually stop the use of guns.  Why should the government get rid of our Constitutional freedoms because someone's scared of something?" - Random Republican
"If you outlaw abortion, then there will be a huge black market for abortion.  You won't actually stop abortion - you'll just make the procedures less safe.  Why should the government get rid of our Constitutional freedoms because someone is offended by it?" - Random Democrat

Point is, voter suffrage (especially of the type that Douglas was advocating) was a decisively liberal position.  Lincoln's position on slavery, the "thou shalt not expand!" was based on widely accepted conservative constitutional convention.  I would recommend reading one of NCYankee's commentaries on the Dred Scott case, for instance.

And, while this may seem a controversial add to some, I should note that racial politics didn't really factor into the whole "left" and "right" debate of the times.  There were those who would be labeled solid "conservatives" who staunchly supported Civil Rights for blacks while there were those solid "liberals" and even "populists" who embraced a good deal of White Supremacy.  Woodrow Wilson, was after all, considered a "progressive Democrat".  Warren Harding was a "pragmatic conservative".  As it is, politics from the 19th-mid 20th century, at least on the "left" and "right" dichotomy, is as Benjy noted, was mostly economic with various political reforms.  Now, there are exceptions to the rule, like Theodore Roosevelt.  Many observers of the 1904 Election considered TR and his Democratic opponent to be pretty much the same candidate running.  Roosevelt was considered the "radical" Republican and Alton Parker was considered the "conservative" Democrat and that they both could've ran as the other party's nominee.  The Democratic nominees I mentioned before, Tilden, Hancock, and Cleveland, ran on pretty moderate hero platforms for Democrats (with lots of appeal to middle/upper class Republican WASPs who were prosperous business owners).  I've heard it argued that Bryan didn't really revolutionize the Democratic Party, but merely brought it back to it's Jeffersonian/Jacksonian anti-elitist agrarian roots.  Admittedly, the Civil War era/Reconstruction is a bit of a grey area, so interpret that as you will.

[traininthedistance]

And, while this may seem a controversial add to some, I should note that racial politics didn't really factor into the whole "left" and "right" debate of the times.  There were those who would be labeled solid "conservatives" who staunchly supported Civil Rights for blacks while there were those solid "liberals" and even "populists" who embraced a good deal of White Supremacy.  Woodrow Wilson, was after all, considered a "progressive Democrat".  Warren Harding was a "pragmatic conservative".  As it is, politics from the 19th-mid 20th century, at least on the "left" and "right" dichotomy, is as Benjy noted, was mostly economic with various political reforms.  Now, there are exceptions to the rule, like Theodore Roosevelt.  Many observers of the 1904 Election considered TR and his Democratic opponent to be pretty much the same candidate running.  Roosevelt was considered the "radical" Republican and Alton Parker was considered the "conservative" Democrat and that they both could've ran as the other party's nominee.  The Democratic nominees I mentioned before, Tilden, Hancock, and Cleveland, ran on pretty moderate hero platforms for Democrats (with lots of appeal to middle/upper class Republican WASPs who were prosperous business owners).  I've heard it argued that Bryan didn't really revolutionize the Democratic Party, but merely brought it back to it's Jeffersonian/Jacksonian anti-elitist agrarian roots.  Admittedly, the Civil War era/Reconstruction is a bit of a grey area, so interpret that as you will.

There's a lot more "exceptions to the rule" than you seem to acknowledge.  Benjamin Harrison, for instance, was quite left-wing economically for his time, while Grover Cleveland wasn't a "moderate hero", he was a union-busting goldbug.

I would say that things were generally fluid and confused, with parties operating on sectional and ethnic lines rather than ideology, for quite some time.  One can make a strong case that the first election where "Democrats = left-wing economically" and "Republicans = right wing economically" was unambiguously and permanently true was the 1934 midterms.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Starting with 1896, the Democratic nominee has generally been to the left of the Republican. Maybe not in 1904 or 1924, but basically every other election.

[Mechaman]

And, while this may seem a controversial add to some, I should note that racial politics didn't really factor into the whole "left" and "right" debate of the times.  There were those who would be labeled solid "conservatives" who staunchly supported Civil Rights for blacks while there were those solid "liberals" and even "populists" who embraced a good deal of White Supremacy.  Woodrow Wilson, was after all, considered a "progressive Democrat".  Warren Harding was a "pragmatic conservative".  As it is, politics from the 19th-mid 20th century, at least on the "left" and "right" dichotomy, is as Benjy noted, was mostly economic with various political reforms.  Now, there are exceptions to the rule, like Theodore Roosevelt.  Many observers of the 1904 Election considered TR and his Democratic opponent to be pretty much the same candidate running.  Roosevelt was considered the "radical" Republican and Alton Parker was considered the "conservative" Democrat and that they both could've ran as the other party's nominee.  The Democratic nominees I mentioned before, Tilden, Hancock, and Cleveland, ran on pretty moderate hero platforms for Democrats (with lots of appeal to middle/upper class Republican WASPs who were prosperous business owners).  I've heard it argued that Bryan didn't really revolutionize the Democratic Party, but merely brought it back to it's Jeffersonian/Jacksonian anti-elitist agrarian roots.  Admittedly, the Civil War era/Reconstruction is a bit of a grey area, so interpret that as you will.

There's a lot more "exceptions to the rule" than you seem to acknowledge.  Benjamin Harrison, for instance, was quite left-wing economically for his time, while Grover Cleveland wasn't a "moderate hero", he was a union-busting goldbug.

I would say that things were generally fluid and confused, with parties operating on sectional and ethnic lines rather than ideology, for quite some time.  One can make a strong case that the first election where "Democrats = left-wing economically" and "Republicans = right wing economically" was unambiguously and permanently true was the 1934 midterms.

I wil admit, I honestly forgot about James Garfield too, who was quite populist in economic outlook.  Garfield is arguably, the most left wing Republican to ever win the party nomination.  However, Harrison's silver stances are nicely balanced out by his hackish support of protectionism, which was and honestly still should be, considered anything but "left wing".  Though, I will agree the politics of the time were a bit more confused, given the presidential nominees and the fact that party bosses and the like pretty much upheld the Gilded Age up to the late 19th century.  I must admit my post was more of a reactionary post to the idiots who have continued to assert the myth of the "left wing Republican WASP majority", which when you consider the masters and handlers in the era who were overwhelmingly in favor of the system in place, is ridiculous.  Republicans didn't win by being the more liberal party, they won because they were the party of the majority (that is, the white protestant majority).

Now, the thread is titled "When did Northern Democratic counties move to the left of Northern GOP counties?"  Given the way it's worded, I'm assuming this is going beyond presidential nominees (though, okay, I did bring that up, but mostly for rhetoric points) and about the counties themselves.  On that part I find the idea that prosperous middle-upper class Brahmins as more to the left than textile mill immigrants a bit. . . . well let's just say absurd (which was implied in the OP).  However, I would also concede that out West and in the Plains it is conceivable that Silverite Scandinavian union members would be to the left of say former Confederate veterans settling in the middle of nowhere, Montana to start a farm.  Hell, lots of westerners seemed to go from one party to the other in massive margins, so convention partisan and class politics go out the window.  I admit, when I read "Northern counties" I was thinking more east of the Mississippi than west.  I don't say this often when I'm talking about history, but I screwed up.

With that said, I agree with the idea that politics was more on ethnic and sectional lines, given that regionally politics back then were much different.  However, left wing sentimentalism seemed stronger in Democratic areas (again, with some exceptions in the Plains and West where populism was strong and the GOP coalition was mostly anti-urban Democratic machines), for obvious class related reasons.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is one of those threads were I wish that I had about three hours to compose a long post only to then lose it and have to rewrite it yet again. Sadly, I don't even have three minutes to devote to this.

I must say that I am flattered to be "cited" as the great Mechaman has so done. His points are fairly close to the truth, but there are some aspects which need clarification, but sadly I lack the time to do so at this present instant.

I would say in general though that the Democratic party was founded on a liberal premise of voter sovereignty and "the common man", whereas the GOP was founded to preserve "republican" institutions being threatened by slavery and inherited the influences of business from its Whig and Federalist ancestors. The GOP was devoted to the interests of business which prior to 1896 centered around fostering a bigger goverment, but afterwards came to see it as a hinderance.In 1792 your biggest threats as a businessmen are pirates, Shays, downing with all your iron ore while trying to cross the Delaware or Hudson in a boat becasue there weren't any bridges nearby, and foreign companies benefiting from the economies of scale. Therefore you would want a navy, a standing army and stronger goverment to keep stability since there was no goverment in 1792 save a post office, infrastructure and tariffs.  In 1992, you biggest problems are taxes, regulations and ambulance chasing lawyers, and thus you want limited goverment.

The reason for the shift was the attaintment of the desired goals and then the use of goverment for other purposes. Since gov't was desired by business in 1792, it was the tool of the elites opposed by Jefferson and Jackson. By the time that WJB came around, gov't was a tool to restrain the elites and help the common man. The means to best advance the common man (the same goal of Jefferson and Jackson) was to abandon their means and in favor of your own to acheive that end. Government is now a tool to aid the poor, and thus business starts to opposes. Ironcially Cleveland was still using the means of Jefferson and Jackson, but the change in times meant that they were no longer achieving the same ends and thus why he had such appeal to many upper class voters and business interests.

The businesses realized that change in what government was being used for along with those tariffs now longer working, that aside from beneficial policies like tax and other subsidies, gov't is a hinderence for business.  

Bottom line, Mechaman is mostly right and the thread is based on a flawed premise of party's "flipping" over one another. I reject that notion entirely. If anything both parties were evenly split prior to the 1960's until we entered a period of ideological polarization that continues to the present day and in conjunction with modern demographics, produces the results we see today, which give a fall appearence of a "flip", that never really occured. The real cause of the false impression is the polarization and the GOP worming its way into the South, after realizing that North couldn't sustain a Conservative GOP like it had in the 1920's for instance.

I am over time and must go. Not bad for just a couple of minutes.

[TDAS04]

Sometimes, the Democrats were more liberal than the Republicans in the 1800s, just like today.  However, not always.  Partisan affiliation generally had more to do with regional/ethnic/religious affiliation back then.  Scandinavian Protestants were heavily Republican, although many were aware that they liked the overall Democratic message of the "common man;" they could not understand why such a party supported slavery, and they may have actually agreed with the WASP anti-Catholicism.

During the Gilded Age, both parties were fairly pro-business and neither favored much government assistance to the poor.  The difference was that the Bourbon Democrats were completely hands-off with the economy; they supported free-trade and didn't want the government to help anyone, rich or poor.  Many Republicans at the time favored helping big business, believing that such economic involvement (with tariffs) would benefit society.  Actually, modern Democrats (including Obama) are willing to be involved with business if it is for the public good.  Ron Paul Republicans prefer the Bourbon Democratic approach (Paul admires Grover Cleveland).

Anyway, while some of the Democratic rhetoric from the time sounds more liberal and less moralistic, the actual causes were not always liberal.  Those defending the South talked about "rights", but only for the right to keep a tradition that hurt the disadvantaged blacks.  Democrats were more pro-immigrant, as long as immigrants were white; Republicans were less hostile toward Chinese immigrants.  Also, while Democrats (in the North) were less moralistic in supporting alcohol rights, that resulted in them being less supportive of female suffrage (since women mostly supported prohibition).

Overall, it is difficult to say if one party was clearly more liberal than the other, at least before the 1920s.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sometimes, the Democrats were more liberal than the Republicans in the 1800s, just like today.  However, not always.  Partisan affiliation generally had more to do with regional/ethnic/religious affiliation back then.  Scandinavian Protestants were heavily Republican, although many were aware that they liked the overall Democratic message of the "common man;" they could not understand why such a party supported slavery, and they may have actually agreed with the WASP anti-Catholicism.

During the Gilded Age, both parties were fairly pro-business and neither favored much government assistance to the poor.  The difference was that the Bourbon Democrats were completely hands-off with the economy; they supported free-trade and didn't want the government to help anyone, rich or poor.  Many Republicans at the time favored helping big business, believing that such economic involvement (with tariffs) would benefit society.  Actually, modern Democrats (including Obama) are willing to be involved with business if it is for the public good.  Ron Paul Republicans prefer the Bourbon Democratic approach (Paul admires Grover Cleveland).

Anyway, while some of the Democratic rhetoric from the time sounds more liberal and less moralistic, the actual causes were not always liberal.  Those defending the South talked about "rights", but only for the right to keep a tradition that hurt the disadvantaged blacks.  Democrats were more pro-immigrant, as long as immigrants were white; Republicans were less hostile toward Chinese immigrants.  Also, while Democrats (in the North) were less moralistic in supporting alcohol rights, that resulted in them being less supportive of female suffrage (since women mostly supported prohibition).

Overall, it is difficult to say if one party was clearly more liberal than the other, at least before the 1920s.

You run into a classic problem and that is tha the terms themselves mean different things in different times and in the process you are discounting "liberalism" or lack thereof based on the application of a modern values structure onto a past period when such values were not present.

I am on operating on the basis of some generalized defintions that would give the terms the most applicability across time, without so misapplying a modern values structure. While generalized, it also is not so to the extent that it basically revolves around who supports changing X, versus who supports keeping it the same. Such a standard would naturally lead to people alternating between ideologies on every issue because no system reflects entirely the preference of any single individual. Conservatism is centered around preserving some kind of institutions. As we discussed in a prior thread, we don't have a King or Aristocracy, instead we have the institutions and intentions of the founding to be preserved or applied if they have been abused. If slavery is in violation of what you beleive to be said intentions of the founders, thus abolition, while being "liberal in action", by means of changing something, it is to advance the preservation of founding principles and therefore inherently Conservative. The Republicans were advocating for a radical change in doing so at their creation, but they were doing it to restore and preserve the Republic and its institutions that Slavery was destroying and corrupting through its very existance as well as the actions of those determined to preserve it. The only thing close to an American aristocracy is the business interests, hence my emphasis on them as well.

You have exceptions in every party and at all times because politics forces pragmatism and compromise. You also have candidates and politicians who are operating from an outdated playbook and thus don't necessarily acheive the desired ends because the tactics aren't in line with what the times demand. That was the source of Cleveland and the Bourbons. You also have unintended consequences and so with Jackson breaking up entrenched business interests in the 1830's or the trust busting of TR, both had the effect of clearing the way for new entrepreneurs and advancing commerce and business in the process. As for the keeping the blacks down, that is because liberalism is only as good as the values of the people it empowers. In all periods, Liberalism can be best summarized as promoting the common man and popular will against the interests of the establishment, the elites and entrenched power. If those "common folk" are racist whites then it stands to reason that policy would indeed reflect their warped principles and values if so empowered.

I think that such an encompassing definition for both is the best way to examine a question that incompasses a period that witnessed a shift in the overal means and methods as it relates to the use of gov't in policy, to best address the question at hand, without being too general and at the same time not also misapplying a modern values structure, which is always to be avoided in such questions if possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The simplest answer is either when demographics changed the makup of the counties or when either the existing value system drove them over to the other party or said system was altered thus achieving the same effect.

A good example would be the influx of working class textile workers into Southern New England for instance. For the second a good example would be the Catholic South Germans of Mercer County, OH who voted for the party of Catholics, the Democrats, until its social liberalism motivated them to switch in the era of abortion and other such issues. Finally, you have the rural, Yankee Protestants of New England, who moved to the left as religion declined and environmental movement was formed. With this occuring in the era of the parties being polarized ideologically, they thus began to vote Democratic more and more in the last two decades.

The second would explain the shift in say Southern Illinois to the GOP, whilst the first and to some extent the third made first Cook County and then other parts of Northern Illinois move to the Democrats. The first also explains the big cities moving to the left in general over time as first working clase ethnics moved in and then middle class Republicans either moved out to the suburbs (which falls under number 1 above) and/or began to switch because of a combination of two and three. 1920 and 1924 aside, which were the products of the Democrats staying home or Coolidge having some appeal to Catholic ethnics, New York City has a had a pretty substantial Democratic lean dating back to the days of Jefferson. Lincoln lost it both times I beleive and most certainly Grant did so as well. Though it wasn't anywhere near as lopsided as it is now of course and there were substantial pockets of GOP support, especially amongst the wealthy and middle class inhabitants.

[TDAS04]

Senator North Carolina Yankee,

Obviously, it is difficult to generalize about who was more "conservative" or "liberal" 150 years ago.  Clearly, the Jeffersonians seemed to have been more liberal than the Federalists in many ways through simple application of today's standards.

I disagree with both the argument that the party's flipped, and the argument that the Democrats have always been more liberal than the Republicans.  I do object to the notion that Stephen Douglas was to the left of Lincoln (not saying that Lincoln was all liberal); after all, today's conservatives talk about "state's rights", and social conservatives use the popular sovereignty argument about the right of average people to ban gay marriage.  With gay marriage, upholding American values is an argument used by both sides; some argue that it is against traditional American institutions, while others say the right to marry is actually required by the American value of liberty.  Sure, abolitionists before the Civil War use religious arguments against slavery, and were often accused of being "moralistic."  Still, others claimed that the Constitution did not protect nonwhites, and in Dread Scott, SCOTUS ruled that blacks could never be citizens and that slavery was constitutionally protected throughout the US.  Republicans may have blasted "judicial activism", but Democrat Andrew Jackson did not listen to SCOTUS when it ruled that the Indians could not be forcibly removed.

So if I understand correctly, I think that we basically agree that modern definitions of "liberal" or "conservative" are hard to apply to the major parties of several decades ago.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator North Carolina Yankee,

Obviously, it is difficult to generalize about who was more "conservative" or "liberal" 150 years ago.  Clearly, the Jeffersonians seemed to have been more liberal than the Federalists in many ways through simple application of today's standards.

I disagree with both the argument that the party's flipped, and the argument that the Democrats have always been more liberal than the Republicans.  I do object to the notion that Stephen Douglas was to the left of Lincoln (not saying that Lincoln was all liberal); after all, today's conservatives talk about "state's rights", and social conservatives use the popular sovereignty argument about the right of average people to ban gay marriage.  With gay marriage, upholding American values is an argument used by both sides; some argue that it is against traditional American institutions, while others say the right to marry is actually required by the American value of liberty.  Sure, abolitionists before the Civil War use religious arguments against slavery, and were often accused of being "moralistic."  Still, others claimed that the Constitution did not protect nonwhites, and in Dread Scott, SCOTUS ruled that blacks could never be citizens and that slavery was constitutionally protected throughout the US.  Republicans may have blasted "judicial activism", but Democrat Andrew Jackson did not listen to SCOTUS when it ruled that the Indians could not be forcibly removed.

So if I understand correctly, I think that we basically agree that modern definitions of "liberal" or "conservative" are hard to apply to the major parties of several decades ago.

I would agree that Lincoln was far more liberal than Douglas in terms of wanting to change the status quo, but for what purpose did he want to change the status quo? Hence my point. You can take an individual case and say X was more liberal then Y and be correct, but only situationally and in absence of the larger picture.

Politics is about uniting people of differing motivations to support the same objective. The Republicans had just as many former Jacksonian Democrats in its ranks as former Whigs, people who had come down from the Free Soil Party (which was marginally more composed of Democrats then Whigs I believe), and a large preponderance of the Republicans would have been Jeffersonians in the era of the Federalists because of that party's elitism and exclusivity. The Republican party was a mongrel party containing everything from rich business elites to newly immigrated German Socialists and Communists.  I would not argue that the later weren't more liberal than the Democrats or ninety percent of the people and politicians of the era. They opposed slavery and thus joined the party that opposed slavery. My point was that the Republicans were founded on a rather Conservative premise of restoring/preserving the union and its founding principles from the degradation of slavery's continued existance and the increasingly outrageous demands that is supporters were putting forward, the reason being that only such a Conservative stance would have a chance of uniting such disparate groups under one party. It did help that economic and demographic factors were blowing in their favor. I have stated previously that the Erie Canal (and latter the B&O, NYC and Pennsy lines) did as much to elect Lincoln as Dred Scott, by means of linking the economic interests of states like ILL and IN with New York City, as opposed to New Orleans. Without that, an all northern electoral alliance would not have been possible.

I don't get what your point about the Supreme Court. The example of Jackson is a case where the court did its job and Jackson ignored it. The other is a example of the court not doing its job, yet its ruling being respected evenly while criticized by the Republicans. I don't see what point you are trying to make from that. As I would see it, a Conservative who was trully faithful to what he believed would fault Jackson for an abuse of power in the former and fault the court for its flawed ruling in the latter. A conservative by nearly any definition as a coherent ideology and not some issue by issue relative distinction would reach that conclusion.

While I am one the matter of relativism, I should state once more that Conservatism is often defined by what the left is doing. When it wanted excess of democracy and not enough Gov't, you had the Federalists in response and when it wanted excessively large gov't you have the Conservatism that has existed since the Depression (and in some ways since 1896 or at least 1920).

I would have responded sooner, but May was a bad time you see.

[TDAS04]

My point about Jackson and the courts was just that both Democrats and Republicans have criticized judicial activism.  In any case, it is difficult to apply modern "conservative" and "liberal" standards to define Andrew Jackson.

Both parties had strong "conservative" and "liberal" elements until the 1930s, but it would be difficult to argue that the Democrats were not more liberal than the GOP during the New Deal, so generalizations can be made to an extent.  Arguably, the Republican Party became clearly the conservative party after the Democrats absorbed the Populists during the 1890s.  However, I definitely believe that it was at least iffy before then.  Interestingly, Rutherford B. Hayes was not that conservative; he expressed concern about the growing income gap between rich and poor.

Then again, I agree that "conservative" and "liberal" labels from today are very difficult to apply to several decades ago.  In the modern era, I personally fit in far more with today's Democratic Party, and it's becoming more and more difficult to find anything about the modern GOP that appeals to me.  That probably has something to do with the growing ideological polarization of the two parties, and the decline of regional and ethnic partisanship.  If I were to place myself in a party in the 1880s, I see the difficulties.  I would have liked some of the positions of the Bourbon Democrats, particularly their anti-imperialism.  However, if I had to pick a party from that era, it would be Republicans, because I would not have wanted much to do with the party of "white supremacy." 

Obviously, my reasons would have been more liberal that most of the GOP; I would have opposed slavery and Jim Crow primarily because of human rights concerns, but that was not the reason why most of the GOP promoted a halt to slavery's spread.  Most Republicans (though not all) during the 1850s were motivated by conserving the tradition of free labor and/or even keeping the West white (I think you mentioned something like that somewhere).  Some, however--such as Thaddeus Stevens--favored strong government action to change Southern society and promote human equality.  If a typical Republican today was Thaddeus Stevens or Charles Sumner, I would be a typical Republican.

Anyway, yes, modern ideological labels are mostly problematic when applied to long ago.

[TDAS04]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that I could possibly know which party I would have belonged to if I had actually lived during the 1860s.  It's difficult to compare my modern ideology to that of the parties from back then.  It's just that from my modern perspective today, the 1860s Democrats look worse than the Republicans.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well Jackson did herald an age of white male suffrage without concern to property requirements and so forth, and was a noted enemy of the elites and the establishment. At the very least he earns the title of Populist because of those two if for nothing else.

Hayes is a rather interesting person, as it is Harrison. Both of which are a product of the party system of their times and the parties as they existed. Therefore they had to play to a lot of interests. Keep in mind that the GOP at that time was still rather diverse in it is membership and having abandoned the South after reconstruction, were wholly dependent on winning majorities in all the Northeast and the Midwestern states in order to have a shot at winning. I have commented on this situation and how it latter necessitated that Southern Strategy, post New Deal. However, the laboring classes in those states has always had a penchant for the more "populist" nature of the Democratic Party and the Jefferson Republican Party before it, then the party of their bosses and rich businessmen. Slavery (probably more a fear of its continued existance eventually causing it to be moved north having taken an ascendancy over the previous belief that maintaining it kept the blacks out, then a philosophical problem with slavery) brought  enough of them in line with the GOP with the help of its Tariff policies. I would hazard that some anti-slavery "Free Soil" types who had been Democrats and had embraced their views on everything else who had joined the Republicans in the 1850's because of slavery, rejoined the Democrats during and then after the Civil War and Reconstruction. Abatting these losses thus necessitated a rather "laborist" chique if you know what I mean. It is not as if either Hayes or Harrison actually achieve much in the realm of union policy or welfare or whatnot. That is not to say they were lying outright, but the party at large new who buttered its bread and remained so focused. Lincoln had also stated such things, remember and he he the rather poor background to ensure that he wasn't just whistling dixie on the matter, but what he would have done in said era absent the war or had he lived beyond it, we won't know.