Welcome back the Gauntlet of Balthazar for a re-issue of "Republicans Versus the Race Party...I Mean the Democrats Part II: 1825-1854", now broken up into smaller segments, and methodically tracing the evolution of political party philosophy in the United States from the founding until the present day.
Within reason the premise of this series of posts is to demonstrate that
there has been only two dominant political trains of thought throughout our history
- those being, Pro-Central Government versus the Liberty of Individual Rights.
It is my contention that the push and pull of these philosophies is, and has
been, an intra-party struggle within the Republican Party, while the primary
focus of the Democratic Party was, and still currently is - simply race. From
the DNC's founding as the pro-slavery party in the 1830's, to being the
party of anti-desegregation in the 1960's, and currently fomenting division by
plying Marxist Intersectional race, class and gender warfare initiatives, race
politics has served as the primary means (hand-in-hand with Globalist
Corporatism) by which the DNC has cemented its power base.
So, let's return to the methodical march through time and pick up the next
phase of American political history with the election of 1824.
Part Two: 1825-1854 (Republicans, Whigs and the Pro-Slavery Party)
John Quincy Adams - the son of Federalist Party founder, John Adams, against a southern populist war hero known as Andrew Jackson.
Reformulated themselves into the National Republican Party, and headed by J.Q. Adams and Secretary of State Henry Clay,
the NRP was initially referred to the Adams-Clay Republicans in order
to differentiate themselves from the Jeffersonian Republicans - but
these were clearly Federalists. The National Republican Party was in
essence the fusion of the earlier Democratic-Republican party and the
Federalist party - the once bitter rivals agreeing on one thing: that
Jackson and his ilk had to go!
While Adams won the
1824 election, he savagely lost the election of 1828 election to Andrew
Jackson. The Jackson camp (the Jacksonian's) quickly adopted the moniker
"the Democratic Party", and the origin of the current political party
of the same name dates from that year. If we are to believe their
rhetoric (and wikipedia) there is an unbroken line of thought here, or
at least that is what we are led to believe. True, Jackson attacked the
institution of central banking as an evil, and in that he was largely
correct, and within reason the DNC did indeed inherit many of the
socially left ideals of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. But more so
the Jacksonian's utilized the individualism of the platform and states
rights sovereignty to justify and support the continuation of their most
prized issue - the institution of slavery in the south (and Native
American culturcide and genocide, if we're being fully forthcoming).
lost to Jackson in the 1828-1837 period, The National Republicans went
into a tailspin, but in the long run the defeat galvanized them into a
stronger platform, gathering their former members together with
disaffected Democrats, as well as the Anti-Masonic Party
- which supplied a strong third-party alternative to Jackson in the
1828 election. Honestly, by today's standards the Anti-Masons would
frankly seem at home with the conspiracy theorists and the soft
Alt-Right, or at least "Alt-lite". Nonetheless, these three streams all
coalesced into what was called the Whig Party, which formalized itself in 1833. Indeed, such was the appeal of the party that four US Presidents after Jackson were Whigs.
a party the Whigs (or "Clay" Whigs) took their name from the powdered
wigs that the colonial founders sported, belying their pride in the
revolution and their patriotism. They were a center-right party, which
favored economic interventionist policies such as protective tariffs,
national infrastructure development, and an "America First" outlook
(sound familiar?). Unlike the earlier regional divisions of the parties,
the Whigs had supporters in both the north and the south, notably from
the entrepreneurial class. Due to this, or maybe because of this, the
Whigs opted to not have a strong platform regarding slavery, either way,
and chose to kind of ignore it.
By today's standards I feel that the closest parallel to the Whig Party of the 1840's would be to that of the Tea Party movement of the early 2000's. Both were Federalists, but not extremely so. Both were Classical Liberals - with a Conservative streak. And both prized Entrepreneurial Capitalism but not war- mongering and Corporatism,
and I like to imagine that the Whigs and the Tea Party would have
shared a similar heartfelt disdain for Neo-Con's (and Neo-Lib's).
I personally like to think of myself as a bit of a Whig, and if President Donald Trump
thought about it, he would too, even though his brand of populism has
had a similar divisive effect on the opposition party and the
media-indoctrinated partisan populace as Jackson did in his time.
you might have premeditated, I'm about to talk about Whigs "chicken's
coming home to roost" effect due to their avoidance to taking a stand on
the slavery issue. And if you did guess that, you'd be absolutely
see, it was due to, or maybe because of the neutral approach the Whig's
took on the issue of slavery, that several single-issue abolitionist
splinter parties came into existence in the 1840's - such as the Liberty Party (1840-1848),
who responded to southern Democrats (and somewhat northern Democrats)
who were pushing for the expansion of slavery in the newly acquired
south-western territories. Ironically, Southern Whig's leaned to being
even more pro-slavery than their Democratic Party counterparts in either
the south or north, while Northern Whigs tended to being more
anti-slavery than Northern Democrats. However, as Southern Democrats
started to suggest the concept of secession over the issue of slavery,
Southern Whigs moved away - their Federalist-born national patriotism
being more important than what was in many ways seen as a "regional
However, slavery was of course not just a
regional issue, it was a moral issue. So, in the end, morality caught up
with the Whigs, who promptly divided into two major factions: the
anti-slavery Conscience Whigs and the Pro-Southern Cotton Whigs. While
the Conscience Whigs were noted for their opposition to slavery on moral
grounds, the Cotton Whig's association with the New England textile
industry led them to consistently downplay the slavery issue. During the
1850s, several Conscience leaders played an important role in the
founding of the Republican Party - displaying the abolitionist stream of
Republican thought even prior to the technical founding of the party.
It should be mentioned that the Whigs and their
denial of the issue of slavery first led to them loosing elections, and
finally to a collapse, and then dissolution in the wake of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. This led to a reunification or a re-absorption of
their party back into the National Republican Party. Likewise such were
the times that the Liberty Party, the Conscience Whigs, and many
Barnburner Democrats (who left the DNC), soon formed the Free Soil Party
in 1852 - a centrist anti-slavery political party. No shock here - the
Free Soil Party and the NRP then merged on March
20th, 1854 to form the GOP (Grand Old Party) then as now known simply as the
I should make it clear that the
Democrats were not immune to the push and pull of the slavery issue, and
at least in the north, a radical anti-slavery wing of the Democratic
Party called the Barnburners, or Barnburner Democrats came into being.
They were opposed within the party by a group called the Hunkers. The
Barnburners (like current fiscal Conservatives)
while not against large entrepreneurial businesses, opposed expanding
the national debt and aggrandizing the power of large state-subsidized
They also stood for local control, as did the Jeffersonian's. The
Hunkers also wished to minimize the issue of slavery, like the Northern
Whigs, but unlike the Federalists they favored state banks rather than a
Democrats of the time insisted they were still less socially
Conservative than Republicans, and reflected some of the leftist
leanings of Jefferson's original Democratic-Republican Party (minus the
moral qualms over slavery), just as at it's inception under Jackson, the
issue of race (and pro-slavery) became the purview of the Democratic
Party leading up to, and after, the Civil War.
retrospect it is clear that the Democrats of the 1824-1854 period only
supported states rights in order to insure that African-American's would
not be freed, and that Native American land could be freely
confiscated. Add to that their Anti-Catholicism, and it should come as no surprise why the DNC would later come to be the home of secessionists, anti-de-segregationists, eugenicists, and the KKK until the 1980's, and is in my opinion a political party that is currently still obsessed with race in the form of post-modern language deconstruction, Marxist intersectionality and identity politics.
But that's for the later posts in this series.
Till next time.
Post a Comment