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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.