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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.