How the First Republican Got Elected

In another sense, though, the first Republican who was elected was John Adams, the 2nd president. He was a Federalist, and the Federalists are the ancestors of the Republican's, whereas Jefferson's ant-Federalist or Democratic-Republican party became today's Democratic party.

Nonsense . . . you need to know a little more about the political history of the United States before you make such statements, Brandon . . . At a stretch, John Quincy Adams could be said to have been the first Republican, who ran against Andrew Jackson, the first Democratic President--as it is also incorrect to suggest that Jefferson's Republican party was the ancestor of the modern Democratic party.

Setanta: Quite right. It is altogether too simplistic to say that the Republican party was the successor to the Whig party, which, in turn, was the successor to the Federalist party. The Federalists were, in effect, absorbed into the Jeffersonian Republican party (the so-called Democratic-Republicans) during the Monroe administration (the "Era of Good Feelings"). Some of the former Federalists, no doubt, gravitated toward J.Q. Adams's faction of the Republican party (the "National Republicans"), and many of them, in turn, went into the Whig Party. But there was certainly no common identity among any of these groups.

Likewise, the Whigs didn't all magically turn into Republicans in 1856. Some joined the Republicans, some (especially in the South) joined the Democrats. If anything, the Republicans had more in common with the Free Soil party than with the Whigs.

Thus, Republicans who look upon George Washington or John Adams as the ur-founders of the party (through the evolution from Federalist-to-Whig-to-Republican) are simply fooling themselves.

In fact, Joe, i would contend that political parties as we know them did not exist until Jackson created a party machine in Tennessee, and then extended it on a national basis by gathering up the disaffected members of the former Jeffersonian Republican party, and so created the modern Democratic Party.

The reasons why partisan motivation would lead people to make such contentions about the origins of their respective parties should be obvious.

My motive is simply that history books I've read seem to say this. I'm a fan of Founding Fathers who were Federalists and Founding Fathers who were anti-Federalists. The motive you ascribe to me was not in my mind at all.

From: http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=1003670-h&templatename=/article/article.html


Based on this, it looks like both the modern Democratic and Republican parties trace their origin to the anti-Federalist or Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson.

That "derivation" is not an unreasonable statement. I refer again, however, to my remark about political parties as we know them. What we would recognize as a political party did not exist until the creation of the Democratic Party by Andrew Jackson. The attempt by Adams to form the National Republicans as a political party, however, failed, and it is by no means certain that those who met at Ripon, Wisconsin can be said to be the political descendants of the National Republicans. I am, in fact, willing to go out on a limb, and state that the people who met at Ripon were concerned with opposing the spread of slavery, and had no common agenda with Adams' National Republicans (this last sentence added by editing).

Well, you certainly know more about this kind of thing than I do. My knowledge of American history is primarily about (1) the period from perhaps 1740-1805 and (2) the history of science and mathematics. I would like to learn more about the origins of the two party system and other aspects of our government. I think that the origin of the American political parties is not something that most Americans have any familiarity at all with, and apparently I don't know as much about it as I thought I did.

Like Setanta said above, modern political parties in the United States date from the time of Andrew Jackson and Van Buren. Jackson was the first "true" southern Democrat, and the political machinery developed by the Wizard of Kinderhook delivered New York. Philosophically, Jackson's Democrats were the heirs of Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. With the demise of the Federalists, the Democrats were faced with the relatively ineffective Whigs. Jackson Democrats argued that they represented the "little guy" against the wealthy and powerful. They were against central banks, and wanted decentralized government. National projects were seldom undertaken, and the power of State governments was accentuated. The Democratic Party came to dominate the Southern States, and equated political power with the continued legality of slavery and the plantation system.

The Whig opposition were also descended from the Jeffersonians, but in many ways were more philosophically akin to Federalist principles. They favored central government that protected and encouraged commerce. Whigs wanted the Federal government to improve and extend roads, and navigatable waterways. The Whigs powerbase was with the wealthier industrialists of New England, and the more progressive pioneers out on the frontier of the "Free States".

The Republican Party got Lincoln elected when the Democratic Party split, primarily around the Mason-Dixon Line, and over the question of slavery. There were three Democratic candidates, each with its own fervent followers, whereas the little Republican Party was solid behind Lincoln.

After the Late Unpleasantness, the Radical Republicans enforced Reconstruction as a means of perpetuating their hold on government. The Democratic Party was on the ropes in the North, but in the South it dug in and remained almost unchallenged. It did that by passing Jim Crow laws and enforcing White supremacy by terror. The result was that the Republican Party retained control of the Presidency for the remainder of the 19th century. True to the Jeffersonian philosophy, that Republican Party firmly believed that "who govern least, governs best". They interpreted the Constitution to restrict Federal involvement in State affairs, and private business. Both Republicans and Democrats believed as an article of faith that the Federal government should assist business, not control it. That certainly would have offended Hamilton and other Federalists. The result was the Gilded Age. Powerful Rail and Steel Barons engaged in business practices that killed competition, and favored the few over the national interest.

The core beliefs of both Republican and Democratic Parties can be traced back to Jefferson, but the emphasis varies from time-to-time depending upon the mood of the public and expediency. Both are equally guilty of opportunism, and neither is above sailing close to illegality to win an election. Both depend upon a core of relatively radical activists to "get things done", by which I mean influence and gain the support of the great middle of our political spectrum.

At this time, the Republican Party is closer to the ideals of the Federalists than is the Democratic Party. I am a Federalist, and so support the Republican Party in this election year. Neither Bush nor Kerry is likely to become Federalist enough for me. The public persona of the two has less to do with their inner convictions than it has with the mechanics of getting elected. Both must woo the middle, and to do that they have to keep their radicals motivated to get out the vote. I doubt that either is the best, or worst, candidate for President that the country has seen. I expect that both will make a sincere effort to uphold the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are both human and they will make mistakes, but they will probably be honest mistakes.

I suspect that the current policies will continue no matter who is elected. The price of oil won't radically change, and the economy will continue to be driven by complex forces beyond the ability of anyone to control. The radical Islamic movement will not go away, and attacks on American interests will continue even if Kerry is President. U.S. Military involvement around the world will still be critical, even if the Democrats get into office. We need to tone down the rhetoric, because in the aftermath of November '04 whoever is President is going to need the support of the whole nation. If we are to be victorious over our enemies, we must present a united front. Personal attacks, whether by candidates or by 527 organizations, are ultimately counter-productive.

Asherman mentions both Jackson and Van Buren as the progenitors of the "modern" Democratic party, and I believe this is the current received historical wisdom, courtesy of Robert Remini and others. The Schlesinger model of the "New Deal" Jacksonian Democratic party has been largely refuted by subsequent statistical analyses. Van Buren, in particular, is credited with transforming the Jacksonian faction of the Jeffersonian Republican party and making it into a genuine political party, as was demonstrated in the 1836 election. Whereas the Whigs, incapable of fielding a single national presidential candidate, were reduced to running regional candidates, the Democrats were able to mount a national campaign behind Van Buren and win without a military hero or a Virginia aristocrat at the top of the ticket.

In fairness to Ash, i mentioned that first, at least in crediting Jackson. I would suggest that when Jackson became disillusioned with Clay and his percieved betrayal (which i consider sound perception), Van Buren hurried to fill the gap, and become Jackson's closest political "friend." I agree entirely that Van Buren created the necessary national organization, but i believe that it was Jackson who first created a political "machine" from the ground up in the counties in Tennessee, and that Van Buren had the wit and energy to transform that into a national organization.

Edit: I would like to add that when i read this: "The Democratic Party came to dominate the Southern States, and equated political power with the continued legality of slavery and the plantation system.", i considered that to be either a naive oversimplification or an intentional partisan slur. The Democrats suffered from political schizophrenia when it came to the slavery issue, and nothing more clearly demonstrates that than Lincoln's canny tactics against Douglas in the famous debates at the time of Lincoln's failed bid for the Senate. By forcing Douglas into a corner on the slavery issue, Lincoln assured that Douglas would have to alienate the Democratic political base in the South in order not to alienate the electorate in Illinois, which Douglas needed to win the Senate race. At the Democratic convention in South Carolina in 1860, Douglas forced the party to adopt a "nonintervention" plank in their platform, which resulted in his failure to lock up the nomination. When the Democrats reconvened in Baltimore, Douglas was only able to secure the nomination because more Southerners withdrew from the convention. While it is true that John C. Breckenridge, the "proto-Dixiecrat" helped to split the vote and Lincoln was able to squeak through, the electoral votes don't tell the real story. Douglas had sufficient support among Democrats who were not supporters of slavery that he polled more votes than any other candidate except Lincoln.

From the Britannica on-line edition, the election results in 1860:

Abraham Lincoln, Republican, 1,865,908 votes, 180 electoral votes
Stephen A. Douglas, Democratic, 1,380,202 votes, 12 electoral votes
John C. Breckinridge, Southern Democratic, 848,019 votes, 72 electoral votes
John Bell, Constitutional Union, 590,901 votes, 39 electoral votes

With Douglas polling more than a half-million votes more than Breckenridge, it should be obvious that the Democrats did not "equate political power with the continued legality of slavery and the plantation system." Slavery was the ugly step child of the American constitution, the nation buried its collective head in the sand, politically speaking, and until the organization of the Republican Party at Ripon, Wisconsin, there was simply no political organization in the country which actively opposed slavery.