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

[Kingpoleon]

Jackson clearly prioritized the nation over the states, in direct contrast to the limit, restraint, and balance advocated for by Madison. He claimed Presidential powers come from the people, whereas Madison claimed Presidential powers come from the Constitution. One man would fire on a mob, and the other would turn a blind eye to a mob. Jacksonianism is populism - power* proceeds from the people. Madisonianism is constitutionalism - control* is contained by the Constitution. These two ideas could not be more different. Don't forget that Jackson waged war on Madison's Second Bank of the United States.

Yes, Jefferson and Madison are not synonymous, but the Democratic-Republican Party was as much Madison's as it was Jefferson's. In its latter years, Madison had clear control of the party. In addition, Madison's classical liberalism is mostly at odds with Jackson's populism.

*used as synonyms for the purpose of alliteration

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Certainly, there are noteworthy differences between Madison and Jackson; the fact remains that they belong to the same ideological tradition. The distinction you draw between Madisonian constitutional liberalism and Jacksonian democratic liberalism is a commentary on the dramatic revolutions in American society that accompanied the Industrial Revolution and the Era of Good Feeling. Those changes created a new historical reality, forcing political ideas - like organisms in a changing environment - to evolve or die. Jackson's view of the presidency was different from Madison's because the context in which they governed was different, not because of some unbridgeable ideological gap between the two. For that matter, Jefferson and Madison also took an expansive view of presidential power when it served their purposes (the Louisiana Purchase being the most obvious example of this).

I'm rambling, but my essential point is that Jacksonianism and Jeffersonianism/Madisonianism are branches of the same tree, shaped by the times in which they emerged but fundamentally alike in principle.

[RINO Tom]

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

"That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people."

"That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people."

"That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned by the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-books."

Whatever you want to call those views, very few would classify them as "right-wing."

[Intell]

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

"That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people."

"That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people."

"That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned by the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-books."

Whatever you want to call those views, very few would classify them as "right-wing."

Yes you would, liberalism in that context, was liberalism for slave owners, this historical revisionism needs to be stopped. The democrats argued for the tradition, and state's rights to preserve slavery. It's platform would be irrelevant to that.

You're ideology is same to the republicans of 1860's, liberalism, so I don't know why you're complaining.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

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

"That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people."

"That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people."

"That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned by the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-books."

Whatever you want to call those views, very few would classify them as "right-wing."

Yes you would, liberalism in that context, was liberalism for slave owners, this historical revisionism needs to be stopped. The democrats argued for the tradition, and state's rights to preserve slavery. It's platform would be irrelevant to that.

You're ideology is same to the republicans of 1860's, liberalism, so I don't know why you're complaining.

At least one of the quotes Mr. RINO posted refers pretty explicitly to the rights of immigrants.

[Intell]

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

"That Congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people."

"That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people."

"That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned by the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-books."

Whatever you want to call those views, very few would classify them as "right-wing."

Yes you would, liberalism in that context, was liberalism for slave owners, this historical revisionism needs to be stopped. The democrats argued for the tradition, and state's rights to preserve slavery. It's platform would be irrelevant to that.

You're ideology is same to the republicans of 1860's, liberalism, so I don't know why you're complaining.

At least one of the quotes Mr. RINO posted refers pretty explicitly to the rights of immigrants.

I mean, it'sno different to the republican charter.

[Kingpoleon]

Certainly, there are noteworthy differences between Madison and Jackson; the fact remains that they belong to the same ideological tradition. The distinction you draw between Madisonian constitutional liberalism and Jacksonian democratic liberalism is a commentary on the dramatic revolutions in American society that accompanied the Industrial Revolution and the Era of Good Feeling. Those changes created a new historical reality, forcing political ideas - like organisms in a changing environment - to evolve or die. Jackson's view of the presidency was different from Madison's because the context in which they governed was different, not because of some unbridgeable ideological gap between the two. For that matter, Jefferson and Madison also took an expansive view of presidential power when it served their purposes (the Louisiana Purchase being the most obvious example of this).

I'm rambling, but my essential point is that Jacksonianism and Jeffersonianism/Madisonianism are branches of the same tree, shaped by the times in which they emerged but fundamentally alike in principle.

Madison rarely, if ever, took "an expansive view of presidential power".

However, you failed to address my biggest point: Jackson's war he waged on Madison's Second Bank. His concerns with Madison's Second Bank ring with Hamiltonian undertones. His concerns with the Second Bank were mainly the changes that hadn't existed in Hamilton's First Bank. We must understand that Madisonianism and intellectualism are in direct contrast to Jacksonianism and populism. We cannot forget that Madison aligned himself with Napoleon, who was almost the exact opposite ideologically of Jackson. Napoleon and Madison were the two leaders of their time most dedicated to civil liberties for all people. Jackson was far less concerned with civil liberties than either of them. Do not claim that Jacksonianism was a continuation of Madisonianism. You continue to conflate the two.

Irregardless, Madisonianism and Jeffersonianism are not quite the same, but the modern Democratic Party has far more to do with Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism than with Madisonianism.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, Kingpoleon. I will concede that Madison and Jackson were two very different men, governing in different times, and with different philosophies. I do not agree that this makes Jackson the heir to the Hamiltonian tradition, nor do most historians. I also disagree that intellectualism vs. populism is the most important measure of political ideology.

Madisonianism and Jeffersonianism are not quite the same, but the modern Democratic Party has far more to do with Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism than with Madisonianism.

On this, we agree.

[RINO Tom]

It sounds really dumb, but it's like that famous porn court case quote: "you know it when you see it."  It's just obvious, at least to me, that where Jefferson and Madison were coming from - the true goals they had in mind and their reasons for doing what they did - came from a decidedly "liberal" spirit that, even if TONS of things have changed, provides a clear ideological link to what modern liberalism is trying to accomplish, even if their methods and rhetoric for achieving this goals are vastly different, maybe even opposite.  See the same reasoning for Hamilton being a conservative.

[Kingpoleon]

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, Kingpoleon. I will concede that Madison and Jackson were two very different men, governing in different times, and with different philosophies. I do not agree that this makes Jackson the heir to the Hamiltonian tradition, nor do most historians. I also disagree that intellectualism vs. populism is the most important measure of political ideology.

Madisonianism and Jeffersonianism are not quite the same, but the modern Democratic Party has far more to do with Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism than with Madisonianism.

On this, we agree.

Where we probably disagree is that it is unfortunate that Madisonianism is less popular than Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism. The only President post-Cleveland(at the latest) who was distinctly Madisonian was Gerald Ford.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The party was changing too much to make a blanket statement like this. It included the only time a sitting President was primaried, in 1856.