Was the 1850s Democratic Party conservative/right-wing by 1850s standards?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Seems to be a bit of a contentious point for certain people.

[Married Gay Socialist]

Obviously. They were pro-slavery and just about as bigoted as can be. Also as economically right wing as you can get really.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

[Murica!]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

[Cashew]

Mixed. while it did still have some of that Jacksonian agrarian populism as opposed to the more aristocratic Whigs, it was undoubtedly reactionary when it came to infrastructure spending, education, and not to mention the slavery question.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This is a much more interesting question than most will give it credit for, not the least because the present "small vs. big government" dichotomy is so ingrained into the national psyche as to prohibit meaningful analysis of American political history prior to 1896/1932.

Let's start by establishing that the Democratic Party as it existed throughout the 1830s and early 1840s was certainly not a conservative party. Setting aside the matter of racism (which was far more complicated and bipartisan during this period than commonly acknowledged), the Democrats of the Age of Jackson clearly prescribed to the tenants of liberalism as they were then understood: namely, the equality of all (white) men before God, the corrupting influence of money and markets, and the natural enmity of the financial interests to the people. Jacksonian opposition to centralization, protectionism, and internal improvements was born, not from a conservative opposition to state action, but from a Jeffersonian distrust for the what Marx would call the
"bourgeoise" and what contemporary liberals and social democrats refer to as the "1%." The fact of the matter is that, prior to the Gilded Age and the rise of the likes of Bryan and LaFollette, the state was seen by most liberals as an obstacle to true equality and the interests of the common man. (The reason for this distrust dates back to Shay's Rebellion and the clash of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian philosophy following the ratification of the Constitution, but that's a topic for another day).

The question, then, is whether Jeffersonian and Jacksonian liberalism remained the raison d'etre of the Democratic Party in the decade before the Civil War. On the one hand, the Democrats retained much of their liberal rhetoric: they continued to oppose protectionism and other pro-business policies, and strongly criticized the nativist policies of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings throughout the 1850s. On the other, it is abundantly clear that by 1854, the Democrats were fully in the pocket of the slave power. With the failure of the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats abandoned much of their actual commitment to liberalism and instead raised the expansion of slavery as the party's unifying principle. This transformation was aided by the defection of the Barnburner and Anti-Nebraska factions to the Republican Party, allowing Southern slaveholders and Northern doughfaces to take control of the party. By 1860, slavery had become the beginning, middle, and end of the Democratic Party; both the Northern and Southern Democratic platforms from that year dealt exclusively with the slavery question, leaving the Republicans to take up responsibility for the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, and other originally-Democratic initiatives.

In short, by the mid-1850s the Democrats had ceased to be a truly liberal party (in the sense that advocating for liberal policies was no longer their primary objective). I don't think that makes them a "conservative" party, however; conservatism implies support for a wide array of conservative policies, and by the late 1850s, the Democrats only really cared about one issue: slavery. That might make them right-wing, depending on how you define that position, but it doesn't make them conservative.

[Murica!]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course not. America did not have a conservative party in the mid 19th century; actually it did not have one for the entire period between the collapse of the Whigs and the eventual transformation of the Republican Party into one (and exactly when we pin a date on that is obvious a matter of debate).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is a meaningless question but by standards that are often applied to modern American conservatism, no. But then that's so narrow that it may exclude Eisenhower or Hoover.

[Intell]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

That was only true till 1874, from 1874 on both parties were clearly conservative till Bryan wing of populists took over the Democratic Party

[Murica!]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

That was only true till 1874, from 1874 on both parties were clearly conservative till Bryan wing of populists took over the Democratic Party

Simply because their was a general consensus on economic matters aside from the tariff does not mean both parties were "conservative." I strongly suggest you learn a little bit of the period before attempting to argue your "point of view."

[Intell]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

That was only true till 1874, from 1874 on both parties were clearly conservative till Bryan wing of populists took over the Democratic Party

No. The republicans were more liberal at that time period, until the populist party formation and transition in to the democratic party.

[Goldwater]

1850s standards? Wouldn't the U.S. as a whole be quite liberal by those standards?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

That was only true till 1874, from 1874 on both parties were clearly conservative till Bryan wing of populists took over the Democratic Party

No. The republicans were more liberal at that time period, until the populist party formation and transition in to the democratic party.

Um President Hayes , President Garfield and Presidents Arthur moved the US on to the gold standard, put protective tariffs, and clearly support the laissez faire system .


All the liberals at the time were in the Greenback Party and later the populist party

[TDAS04]

Neither party was right-wing back then, but neither party was left-wing either.  It's complicated when applying our definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" to parties of that time.

[Intell]

Not uniformly no.

Both parties were conservative until the 1896 election when Bryan won the dem nomination and brought the populists into the dem party.

This is simply false.

Other then Lincoln I cant think of someone who was not a conservative being the nominee from either the Republicans or Democrats until 1896

That's your argument? So we'll just completely disregard the Barn Burners, the Radical Republicans and many of the ex-Radical turned Liberal Republicans of whom many supported the nationalization of the railroads as all conservative? While I would agree that none of these were(aside from some Radical Republicans) "left-wing" they most certainly were not "conservative" and to insinuate otherwise is pure ignorance of the time periods politics.

This, the democrats were obviously the consevative party of the day, while the republicans supported the transcontinental railroad, the homestead act (for the common man), some supported the nationalisation of rail roads, support for the income tax.

With the rise of the republican party, and the know-nothings, the left-wings of the whigs, and anti-slavery activists from the democrats joined the republicans, while the right-wing of the whigs, joined the know-nothings, then the Jon Bell.

That was only true till 1874, from 1874 on both parties were clearly conservative till Bryan wing of populists took over the Democratic Party

No. The republicans were more liberal at that time period, until the populist party formation and transition in to the democratic party.

Um President Hayes , President Garfield and Presidents Arthur moved the US on to the gold standard, put protective tariffs, and clearly support the laissez faire system .


All the liberals at the time were in the Greenback Party and later the populist party

The republicans and garfield also supported universal education system, funded by the federal government.

[Kingpoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[OSR stands with Israel]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who said those

[Kingpoleon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

who said those

Not a Democrat.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Of course they were. Just take a look at the platform. Extremely conservative, very right-wing.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29576

[Kingpoleon]

The question, then, is whether Jeffersonian and Jacksonian liberalism remained the raison d'etre of the Democratic Party in the decade before the Civil War. On the one hand, the Democrats retained much of their liberal rhetoric: they continued to oppose protectionism and other pro-business policies, and strongly criticized the nativist policies of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings throughout the 1850s. On the other, it is abundantly clear that by 1854, the Democrats were fully in the pocket of the slave power. With the failure of the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats abandoned much of their actual commitment to liberalism and instead raised the expansion of slavery as the party's unifying principle. This transformation was aided by the defection of the Barnburner and Anti-Nebraska factions to the Republican Party, allowing Southern slaveholders and Northern doughfaces to take control of the party. By 1860, slavery had become the beginning, middle, and end of the Democratic Party; both the Northern and Southern Democratic platforms from that year dealt exclusively with the slavery question, leaving the Republicans to take up responsibility for the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, and other originally-Democratic initiatives.

I think you have a flaw not in the general thought but in the general description. Jackson's general personality and his public economical thoughts were far more in line with Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry than the likes of James Madison and his friend Thomas Jefferson. Madison's personality was small, unimposing, somewhat anti-social, and brilliant. Jackson's personality was large, imposing, friendly, sociable, and populist nearly to the extent of ignorance. Their personalities nor ideologies align.

[mencken]

The question, then, is whether Jeffersonian and Jacksonian liberalism remained the raison d'etre of the Democratic Party in the decade before the Civil War. On the one hand, the Democrats retained much of their liberal rhetoric: they continued to oppose protectionism and other pro-business policies, and strongly criticized the nativist policies of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings throughout the 1850s. On the other, it is abundantly clear that by 1854, the Democrats were fully in the pocket of the slave power. With the failure of the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats abandoned much of their actual commitment to liberalism and instead raised the expansion of slavery as the party's unifying principle. This transformation was aided by the defection of the Barnburner and Anti-Nebraska factions to the Republican Party, allowing Southern slaveholders and Northern doughfaces to take control of the party. By 1860, slavery had become the beginning, middle, and end of the Democratic Party; both the Northern and Southern Democratic platforms from that year dealt exclusively with the slavery question, leaving the Republicans to take up responsibility for the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, and other originally-Democratic initiatives.

I think you have a flaw not in the general thought but in the general description. Jackson's general personality and his public economical thoughts were far more in line with Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry than the likes of James Madison and his friend Thomas Jefferson. Madison's personality was small, unimposing, somewhat anti-social, and brilliant. Jackson's personality was large, imposing, friendly, sociable, and populist nearly to the extent of ignorance. Their personalities nor ideologies align.

Ah yes, Jackson's populism clearly makes him right at home with Alexander Hamilton, along with Hamilton's steadfast ally Patrick Henry.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The question, then, is whether Jeffersonian and Jacksonian liberalism remained the raison d'etre of the Democratic Party in the decade before the Civil War. On the one hand, the Democrats retained much of their liberal rhetoric: they continued to oppose protectionism and other pro-business policies, and strongly criticized the nativist policies of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings throughout the 1850s. On the other, it is abundantly clear that by 1854, the Democrats were fully in the pocket of the slave power. With the failure of the Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats abandoned much of their actual commitment to liberalism and instead raised the expansion of slavery as the party's unifying principle. This transformation was aided by the defection of the Barnburner and Anti-Nebraska factions to the Republican Party, allowing Southern slaveholders and Northern doughfaces to take control of the party. By 1860, slavery had become the beginning, middle, and end of the Democratic Party; both the Northern and Southern Democratic platforms from that year dealt exclusively with the slavery question, leaving the Republicans to take up responsibility for the Homestead Act, the Transcontinental Railroad, and other originally-Democratic initiatives.

I think you have a flaw not in the general thought but in the general description. Jackson's general personality and his public economical thoughts were far more in line with Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry than the likes of James Madison and his friend Thomas Jefferson. Madison's personality was small, unimposing, somewhat anti-social, and brilliant. Jackson's personality was large, imposing, friendly, sociable, and populist nearly to the extent of ignorance. Their personalities nor ideologies align.

To the contrary, Jackson was perhaps the least Hamiltonian president of any chief executive to serve before the Civil War. He built his political coalition around opposition to the last vestiges of Hamiltonian financial policy - the tariff and the central bank - and it was standard practice within the Democratic party to cast the National Republicans / Whigs / Know-Nothings as Federalists by another name. Personal style has nothing to do with it, because political ideology is not a matter of putting on a show (even if electoral politics sometimes is). The overwhelming consensus within the professional historical community is that Jackson was the heir to Jeffersonian liberalism, as exemplified by his platform, the rhetoric of his surrogates, and the policies pursued by himself and his successors while in office.