Was the Whig Party the worst major political party in US history?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Been reading about 19th century US political history recently, and I cannot believe how utterly contemptuous the Whig Party was on almost every level. It's not so much that their policies sucked, in fact they were probably better than Democrats on the issues (although that doesn't mean very much), but that they were the lamest bunch of boring Moderate Heroes, whose uniting ideology seems to have been "nationalism is good, guys!" while being totally devoid of of political principle in letting literal secessionists into the party even though they completely disagreed with the Whig platform, just because they wanted more votes. And even worse than that, they sucked. All the Whig Presidents were either incredibly terrible, died in office, weren't actually Whigs or were some combination of the three. Their most prominent political leader was a perennial loser in Presidential contests. In 1836 the party ran with the dumbest Electoral College strategy in the history of American politics. And as soon as slavery became the top national issue the Whig Party was wiped out because they couldn't formulate a stance on slavery other than "please don't talk about it". Good riddance.  

It's like if the Democratic Party collapsed after a Trump landslide so the Resistance joined forces with NeverTrumpers to form an opposition party based on bland slogans of constitutionalism and national prosperity with a centrist technocratic economic policy, and for President they decided to run generals with zero political experience all the time because hey everyone loves war heroes. Oh, and they're also the ones who engage in xenophobic immigrant-baiting too. Man I hate the Whigs.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The biggest thing that has to be understood about the Whigs is the concept of elitism versus populism. Whereas the Federalist vs. DR battle had been one of aristocracy versus egalitarianism, fast forward 30 years and the battle lines have shifted in the more democratic direction but it is essentially the same fight.

The Whigs started out as the nationalist wing of the DRs, called the National Republicans. They consisted of former Federalists and also home grown DRs who were also nationalists like Henry Clay.

Once JQ Adams lost and then especially after Henry Clay lost, the Whig Party was formed by the NRs, Nullifiers and Anti-Masonic movements as a way to unify opposition to Jackson. The only thing that kept them together was hatred of Jackson.

The Whig Party also didn't conceive of the notion of electoral politics the way we do know. They expected to dominate the Senate, because the Senate was institutional and elected by state legislatures and at first that was true. They also saw House resolved Presidential elections as completely normal and presumed to be a regular occurrence and since that worked in 1824, it seemed like the best way to get a Whig in after Jackson, hence 1836.

One of the main factions of the Whigs was the Anti-Masonic movement and these provided crucial support for Harrison against Webster for instance. The politicians who formed the Anti-Masonic wing would form the basis for the conscience Whigs later on, in contrast in the North to the more accepting of slavery Websterites. The Harrison faction was also less ideological on the issues of the day, which contributed the embrace of war heroes and the vapid/empty platforms with contrary minded running mates.

Was it the worst party in history, no I would say the Dixiecrats and Wallace's AIP were.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The biggest thing that has to be understood about the Whigs is the concept of elitism versus populism. Whereas the Federalist vs. DR battle had been one of aristocracy versus egalitarianism, fast forward 30 years and the battle lines have shifted in the more democratic direction but it is essentially the same fight.

The Whigs started out as the nationalist wing of the DRs, called the National Republicans. They consisted of former Federalists and also home grown DRs who were also nationalists like Henry Clay.

Once JQ Adams lost and then especially after Henry Clay lost, the Whig Party was formed by the NRs, Nullifiers and Anti-Masonic movements as a way to unify opposition to Jackson. The only thing that kept them together was hatred of Jackson.

The Whig Party also didn't conceive of the notion of electoral politics the way we do know. They expected to dominate the Senate, because the Senate was institutional and elected by state legislatures and at first that was true. They also saw House resolved Presidential elections as completely normal and presumed to be a regular occurrence and since that worked in 1824, it seemed like the best way to get a Whig in after Jackson, hence 1836.

One of the main factions of the Whigs was the Anti-Masonic movement and these provided crucial support for Harrison against Webster for instance. The politicians who formed the Anti-Masonic wing would form the basis for the conscience Whigs later on, in contrast in the North to the more accepting of slavery Websterites. The Harrison faction was also less ideological on the issues of the day, which contributed the embrace of war heroes and the vapid/empty platforms with contrary minded running mates.

Was it the worst party in history, no I would say the Dixiecrats and Wallace's AIP were.

Well I wouldnt call them a major party since the really lasted only one election while the Whigs were one of the two major parties for 2 decades.


The worst all time party that got electoral votes has to be the Southern Democratic Party in 1860

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Whatever do you mean? The Southern Democratic Party of 1860 got exactly what it wanted, a Southron-dominated republic untainted by Yankee influence so that slavery could be permanently protected. Politically, it was a very successful party, even tho it achieved that result via secession. It was events outside politics that kept the realization of their accomplishment so short.

[Del Tachi]

I don't mind the Whigs, they were pretty instrumental in supporting internal improvements and developing the U.S.' industrial capacity.  They supported high tariffs and industrial protection.  They broadly represented the interests of both northern industrialists and Southern gentry, which explained their indecision on the Texas and slavery issues.

The Know Nothings were much worse, as well as Reconstruction-era Democrats.

[Orser67]

I'd easily put the Whigs above the Federalists, and would probably take them over the Democratic-Republicans and the Republicans. I'd also easily take them over the 19th century Democratic Party. Those are imo the 5 major parties in U.S. history, at least if you exclude the National Republicans, who were pretty much the proto-Whigs.

they were the lamest bunch of boring Moderate Heroes, whose uniting ideology seems to have been "nationalism is good, guys!"

Given that a civil war happened less than a decade after the Whig Party collapsed, the whole "nationalism is good, guys" thing might have been warranted.

The other thing I want to note is that, while the Whig Party did include slave owners, the party was generally less pro-slavery and less Southern-dominated than the Democratic Party of the same era. Some Democrats did join the Republican Party, but generally speaking the most important Republicans, including Lincoln and William Seward, were Whigs before becoming Republicans. John Quincy Adams, the one nationally prominent politician of the 1840s who was overtly anti-slavery, was also a Whig.

[darklordoftech]

I think the Whigs stood for Rule of Law and the Constitution while Andrew Jackson wanted a society ruled by lynching mobs.

The Whigs' two big problems seemed to be:

1. Their Presidents tended to die in office.
2. Much of the party was composed of WINOs. These people joined the Whigs only because they disliked Jackson. Otherwise, they agreed with the Democrats on everything.

I wonder what Henry Clay would have done had he lived longer. He owned slaves, but he agreed with the Republicans on all other things.

I think the worst party in history was the Nullifier Party. They were a proto-Confederate party led by Calhoun.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Will Rogers were alive during the Whig years he would've said "I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Whig".

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I think the Whigs stood for Rule of Law and the Constitution while Andrew Jackson wanted a society ruled by lynching mobs.

But it's hard to deny the U.S. would be better off had Jackson made good of his threat to lynch John C. Calhoun.

[LabourJersey]

Reading about 19th political history also makes you realize how amazing it was that the U.S. didn't suffer a Civil War until 1861.

Some conflict between the slave and free states was almost a certainty, and yet it took 70 years for the last straw to break the camel's back.

[Blue3]

Never heard they were the worst. Just out of the "major", they rank behind Democrats, Republicans, Democratic-Republicans, and Federalists.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Reading about 19th political history also makes you realize how amazing it was that the U.S. didn't suffer a Civil War until 1861.

Some conflict between the slave and free states was almost a certainty, and yet it took 70 years for the last straw to break the camel's back.

Having a political alignment based on class went a long way to towards delaying it.  That is why the Whigs had Plantation Owners and why the Democrats had farmers in Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin.

[LabourJersey]

Reading about 19th political history also makes you realize how amazing it was that the U.S. didn't suffer a Civil War until 1861.

Some conflict between the slave and free states was almost a certainty, and yet it took 70 years for the last straw to break the camel's back.

Having a political alignment based on class went a long way to towards delaying it.  That is why the Whigs had Plantation Owners and why the Democrats had farmers in Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Definitely.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

John Quincy Adams, the one nationally prominent politician of the 1840s who was overtly anti-slavery, was also a Whig.

Eh, sort of—Adams was a Whig in the sense that he was an Anti-Jacksonian, and the Whigs were their linear descendants. Party membership was far more mercurial in the nineteenth century than today, and labels are tricky; but Adams didn't get on well with the leaders of the Whig party after he left the presidency (Clay in particular was a disappointment to him) and was largely sidelined within the party. He was loosely affiliated with the Anti-Masons throughout the early 1830s and became a Whig for electoral purposes following the merger of the Anti-Jacksonian parties in 1834, but it would be an overstatement to suggest he had any real pull with the leadership or that his policies were reflective of the party as a whole.

[S019]

I mean their opposition was worse

In three consecutive elections Dems nominated Cass, Pierce, and Buchanan, who were all slavery loving Democrats.

Also the Southern Democrats in 1860, wanted to expand slavery and this was the wing of the party that pushed for secession after Lincoln won.

So, 1850's and 1860's Dems are horrible, with the Southern Democrats in 1860 and the Copperheads in 1864 as the worst.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The political system is similar to the British system: Whigs who were the compassionate conservative party lead by Abe Lincoln and the Jefferson party were the Dixiecrats and switched to Secular and Tradtl Labour and Tory party after industrial Revolution. We just put D and R's next to our politicians

[OSR stands with Israel]

The political system is similar to the British system: Whigs who were the compassionate conservative party lead by Abe Lincoln and the Jefferson party were the Dixiecrats and switched to Secular and Tradtl Labour and Tory party after industrial Revolution. We just put D and R's next to our politicians

Lol No

[Orser67]

John Quincy Adams, the one nationally prominent politician of the 1840s who was overtly anti-slavery, was also a Whig.

Eh, sort of—Adams was a Whig in the sense that he was an Anti-Jacksonian, and the Whigs were their linear descendants. Party membership was far more mercurial in the nineteenth century than today, and labels are tricky; but Adams didn't get on well with the leaders of the Whig party after he left the presidency (Clay in particular was a disappointment to him) and was largely sidelined within the party. He was loosely affiliated with the Anti-Masons throughout the early 1830s and became a Whig for electoral purposes following the merger of the Anti-Jacksonian parties in 1834, but it would be an overstatement to suggest he had any real pull with the leadership or that his policies were reflective of the party as a whole.

I agree that he was never a key party leader at the national level for the Whig Party, but he was still a Whig. He was certainly more anti-slavery than the average Whig, but ideologically he fit in far better with the Whig Party than he did with the Democratic Party.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

No, that would be the Southern Democratic Party of 1860, which advocated Slavery and secession.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The political system is similar to the British system: Whigs who were the compassionate conservative party lead by Abe Lincoln and the Jefferson party were the Dixiecrats and switched to Secular and Tradtl Labour and Tory party after industrial Revolution. We just put D and R's next to our politicians

Lol No

While there are some issues with his statement like Lincoln leading Whigs, I generally agree with the premise that there are vast similarities between the UK Liberals and the US Democratic Parties in the 19th century. Both were classically liberal in their support for freedom of speech, religion etc, Free Trade, expanded voting and so on. Both were relatively pro-immigrant and both had working and laboring classes as a base. Both derived support from Catholics compared to the opposition.

Meanwhile both the Whigs and and their Republican successors (excepting for the period during the Civil War when it was broad anti-slavery coalition), shared many tropes with the UK Conservatives. Both favored entrenched elites, both favored the dominant religious group in the country (though what that group was differed between the two countries obviously), both were economically protectionist and both wanted to expand influence abroad more than the opposition.

Just like the Democrats, the UK Liberals began to embrace redistribution just before their collapse during and after World War I. And on that note, both the Liberals and the Democrats suffered greatly for leading their countries through World War I, only in the US the Depression revived the Democrats, but in the UK, the Labor Party had displaced the Liberals and had the misfortune of leading the country as the Great Depression began.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Trump Republican Party is now and will be historically the worst major political party in U.S. history.

[TDAS04]

The Trump Republican Party is now and will be historically the worst major political party in U.S. history.

Kind of a shame, because the Lincoln/reconstruction Republican Party was the best.