Your Party ID Through the Years

[SWE]

I'm probably one of the few people here who would always be a Democrat.

Except for right now apparently, judging by your avatar!

Thanks to everyone who has (and will) post! Ya'll mean a lot to me!

Since I've been asked about my new avatar, I think this would be a good time to explain. No, the Democratic Party hasn't finally left me. I'm taking a job with the federal government; as with executive branch employees, I'm supposed to be politically neutral, at least while on duty. If I happen to be posting from work, I don't wanna be have a Democratic avatar and politician signs in my signature (Governor Long isn't around anymore, so I think my current signature will be ok!).

I guess most of my posts here are fairly neutral anyway (maps, race updates, tracking polls, etc.) but I just wanted to be sure!

[Miles]

I'm probably one of the few people here who would always be a Democrat.

Except for right now apparently, judging by your avatar!

I'm still a registered Democrat

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm probably one of the few people here who would always be a Democrat.

Except for right now apparently, judging by your avatar!

Thanks to everyone who has (and will) post! Ya'll mean a lot to me!

Since I've been asked about my new avatar, I think this would be a good time to explain. No, the Democratic Party hasn't finally left me. I'm taking a job with the federal government; as with executive branch employees, I'm supposed to be politically neutral, at least while on duty. If I happen to be posting from work, I don't wanna be have a Democratic avatar and politician signs in my signature (Governor Long isn't around anymore, so I think my current signature will be ok!).

I guess most of my posts here are fairly neutral anyway (maps, race updates, tracking polls, etc.) but I just wanted to be sure!

Thanks for that!

Miles, even though it's most certainly not my situation politically, I respect your loyalty to your party even as it changed; I'm in a similar situation.

[Lincoln Republican]

Federalist
Whig
Republican
Progressive (Teddy Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson 1912)
Republican

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Socialist

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm probably one of the few people here who would always be a Democrat.

Even during the Civil War?

I mean, there was no Republican Party in Louisiana.

I seem to recall at least one black Governor or Senator from that state during the 1870's...

[Mechaman]

If I had to guess:

1789-1828: Democratic-Republican
1828-1832: Working Men's Party
1832-1844: Democratic
1844-1848: Other
1848-1854: Free Soil
1854-1874: Republican
1874-1884 Greenback
1884-1900: Union Labor
1900-1972: Socialist
1972-1991: Left Wing Independent
1991-Present: Green

Basic Gist: Some combination of Fenian Nationalism, Georgism, Social Ecology, etc.  In general, favoritism towards the anarchistic left.

[Frodo]

Beginning when I first became politically aware:

1999-2003 (Republican)
2004-present (Democrat)

As for hindsight hypotheticals:

1789-1824 (Federalist)
1825-1833 (National Republican)
1833-1854 (Whig)
1854-1932 (Republican -and my family in real life were rock-ribbed Republicans throughout this time period)
1933-present (Democrat)

[RogueBeaver]

2004-6: None
2006-present: Conservative

2004-9: PLQ
2009-present: None

[Redalgo]

I prefer to stay independent unless there is party that matches very well, but for the sake of participation...

1792-1798 | Federalist Party
1798-1825 | Democratic-Republican Party
1825-1833 | National Republican Party
1833-1848 | Whig Party
1848-1855 | Free Soil Party
1854-1874 | Republican Party
1874-1884 | Greenback Party
1884-1885 | Anti-Monopoly Party
1885-1888 | Greenback Party
1888-1891 | Republican Party
1891-1898 | Populist Party
1898-1901 | Social Democratic Party of America
1901-1972 | Socialist Party of America
1972-2014 | Socialist Party USA

[Mr. Illini]

Democratic-Republican 1791-1824
National Republican 1824-1832
Whig 1832-1848
Free Soil 1848-1856
Republican 1856-1884
Democrat 1884-1888
Republican 1888-1912
Progressive 1912-1916
Republican 1916-1924
Progressive 1924-1928
Democrat 1928-1948
Republican 1948-1960
Democrat 1960-present

I changed more than I thought I would.

[windjammer]

I'm probably one of the few people here who would always be a Democrat.

This.
At least since Bryan.
I know nothing about the USA during the 19th century.

[Mechaman]

Democratic-Republican 1791-1824
National Republican 1824-1832
Whig 1832-1848
Free Soil 1848-1856
Republican 1856-1884
Democrat 1884-1888
Republican 1888-1912
Progressive 1912-1916
Republican 1916-1924
Progressive 1924-1928
Democrat 1928-1948
Republican 1948-1960
Democrat 1960-present

I changed more than I thought I would.

I must admit I am kind of surprised to see that someone who has hinted at being an Irish Catholic would go near the National Republican and Whig parties.  I guess that when it comes to one or two issues (slavery and Indians) where those parties on the whole were at best barely more tolerable than Democrats has more weight than the vicious racism and Catholicphobia being waged by said parties to defend voting privileges for a "purer" and "harder working" land owning elite not that supported them.

Some of you really need to learn your history.

[Redalgo]

I've got Irish ancestry to some extent, as well, though on top of everything else the Jacksonians and early Democrats opposed industrialization and public education. For most of U.S. history the major parties have been terrible - though I guess if I knew about the country's history in greater detail I'd be better at deciding which parties were how much more terrible than their contemporary counterparts?

[Deus Naturae]

I've got Irish ancestry to some extent, as well, though on top of everything else the Jacksonians and early Democrats opposed industrialization and public education.

If you're going to do as Mechaman suggests and take your Irish ancestry into account when selecting your hypothetical historical partisan affiliations, opposition to public education (at least during the 19th century) should be a plus in your book.

[Redalgo]

If you're going to do as Mechaman suggests and take your Irish ancestry into account when selecting your hypothetical historical partisan affiliations, opposition to public education (at least during the 19th century) should be a plus in your book.

Without the benefit of hindsight, yes, and if the Irish ancestry were predominant. Most of my background is German and Norwegian so the religious influence would have pulled in the other direction, ya?

[Deus Naturae]

If you're going to do as Mechaman suggests and take your Irish ancestry into account when selecting your hypothetical historical partisan affiliations, opposition to public education (at least during the 19th century) should be a plus in your book.

Without the benefit of hindsight, yes, and if the Irish ancestry were predominant. Most of my background is German and Norwegian so the religious influence would have pulled in the other direction, ya?

No 19th century German would ever support the Greenbackers.

[pendragon]

-1783 Tory
1783-1789 Anti-Federalist
1789-1792 Anti-Administration
1792-1828 Democratic-Republican
1828-1932 (with hindsight) or 1940 (without hindsight) Democratic
1932/1940-whenever I become aware of the AIDS crisis Republican
198X-present Independent

[Redalgo]

No 19th century German would ever support the Greenbackers.

Thanks for the insight! Though if I may ask, what is the story with that? Did German-Americans have some kind of interest in the gold standard or in using it in conjunction with silver? Or was it something else?

[pendragon]

No 19th century German would ever support the Greenbackers.

Thanks for the insight! Though if I may ask, what is the story with that? Did German-Americans have some kind of interest in the gold standard or in using it in conjunction with silver? Or was it something else?

The Greenbackers were associated with nativists who wanted to restrict immigration/ban foreign-language private schools/force candidates for office to take an oath to say they wouldn't do the Pope's bidding.

[AggregateDemand]

Hamiltonian Federalist
Jeffersonian Democrat
Unaffiliated
Whig (way ahead of their time)
Radical Republican
Progressive Republican
Big Business Republican
FDR Democrat
JFK Democrat
Goldwater Republican - libertarian neoliberal - Anti-Democrat

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

1828-1932 (with hindsight) or 1940 (without hindsight) Democratic

Even during the Civil War?

[traininthedistance]

Democratic-Republican 1791-1824
National Republican 1824-1832
Whig 1832-1848
Free Soil 1848-1856
Republican 1856-1884
Democrat 1884-1888
Republican 1888-1912
Progressive 1912-1916
Republican 1916-1924
Progressive 1924-1928
Democrat 1928-1948
Republican 1948-1960
Democrat 1960-present

I changed more than I thought I would.

I must admit I am kind of surprised to see that someone who has hinted at being an Irish Catholic would go near the National Republican and Whig parties.  I guess that when it comes to one or two issues (slavery and Indians) where those parties on the whole were at best barely more tolerable than Democrats has more weight than the vicious racism and Catholicphobia being waged by said parties to defend voting privileges for a "purer" and "harder working" land owning elite not that supported them.

Some of you really need to learn your history.

What's your opinion of the Specie Circular and the Panic of 1837, Mecha?

[pendragon]

1828-1932 (with hindsight) or 1940 (without hindsight) Democratic

Even during the Civil War?

The "random" draft was enforced at four times the rate in (poor, immigrant Catholic, Democratic) New York City than in (rich, WASP, Republican) Massachusetts.  Federal Marshals would literally round up all the men on boats coming in to New York harbor from Europe and send them to the front lines.   What's more, a rich (AKA, WASP Republican) draftee could avoid service by, at first, paying a $500 fee, or later paying a poor to fight in his place.  Draftees, particularly immigrants, were put in the front ranks of soldiers during combat and suffered enormous (above 50%) casualties.

The identity of the people the Union was sending to their deaths explains a lot about their strategy during the war - constant high-casualty attacks whether or not they had any chance of success and regardless of how many casualties might be caused.  Democratic general McClellan was famously sacked for objecting to that strategy.

Yes, the Republicans did free the slaves, and the significance of that cannot be discounted, although one might point out that the life of the post-war southern black sharecropper was not much different from the life of the southern black antebellum slave - and that hundreds of thousands of now-unemployed ex-slaves starved to death after the war.  So they freed the slaves, but did next to f[inks]-all (or in a huge number of cases, far worse than f[inks]-all) to actually improve the lives of said slaves.  Its main effect was to improve the lives of the slaves' descendants who moved to Northern states 50 years later or received legal protection from discrimination 100 years later,* not the lives of the slaves themselves.  But while viewing the civil war as a Republican crusade to free the slaves is accurate** (though they were far more concerned with ending slavery than helping the slaves), one must also consider how it was a rather cynical exercise by the Republicans in the mass slaughter of their political opponents, on both sides of the lines.

I don't vote for people who want me dead.  Same reason I'd leave the GOP during the AIDS crisis.

Also, when I was considering what party I'd be a part of, my major consideration was which party would be more likely to nominate someone with my particular set of views, and my demographic profile, for any given office.  A libertarianish type such as myself would fit in very well with the "Barnburner"/"Loco-Foco"/"Young America" faction of the Democratic Party at the time, but would have a very hard time being nominated in the Republicans.  Moving on to demographics: Of course, neither party would nominate an openly-atheist candidate at the time, but the Democrats were associated with non-religious types like Stephen Douglas, Andrew Jackson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Thomas Jefferson etc.  And of course, neither party would nominate an openly-gay candidate either, although the Democrats elevated the transparently-closeted James Buchanan and William King to high office.  And while it wasn't unheard of in the GOP, it would be far, far more likely at the time for someone of Catholic immigrant descent to be nominated for office by the Democrats.

So I'd have to say the Democrats have the decisive advantage on the "down with people like me" front during the Civil War period, on either an ideological or demographic basis.

*I apologize for being a little too into libertarianism-as-secular-religion in my old account and being obsessed with "freedom of association" to the point of opposing protections against discrimination.  "Freedom of association," like all "rights" (which are, in actuality, really legal fictions when you have an entity with a monopoly on force), is not some magical cure-all that improves every situation, if only there were more "freedom of association."

**I also apologize for previously hawking the mendacious DiLorenzo crap that is was really about tariffs on my old account. I'd been sucked a little too far into the Lew Rockwell vortex at that point.

[Bigby]

Assuming I still have the same mindset as I do now....

1789 - 1812: Federalist
1812 - 1836: Independent
1836 - 1854: Whig
1854 - 1912: Republican
1912 - 1916: Independent
1916 - 2014: Republican