Jacksonian Democrats and Democrats?

[Donald Hash]

My brother emailed this question to me. I don't know the answer, so I am asking the experts (you guys).

(In context, my brother and I were discussing - via email - Jefferson and Jackson's differing democratic views. I mentioned that I had read that Lindley stated Travis wasn't a Jacksonian Democrat, but he was a democrat.)

"I read about the Jacksonian Democrat and it didn't seem too bad, with the exception of Manifest Destiny. Were Democrats back in Col. Travis' days more like conservatives today? There was a shift in politcal parties after the civil rights movement, that's why I ask."

[Allen Wiener]

The bottom line here is that Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren and their followers founded the Democrat Party that still exists today. As to political philosophies over the following 180 years, that's another matter. For example, the Jacksonians (who became the Democrats) claimed to be advocates of Jefferson's politics, but Jefferson saw the House of Representatives as the closest representative of all the people at the Federal level and thought it should be the most powerful branch of government. Jackson thought the President was the only official truly elected by all of the people and that the presidency should be the most powerful Federal branch. He governed accordingly.

There are quite a few good books on Jackson and the Jacksonian era that explain things. Sean Wilentz's short bio is very good and Daniel Feller's "The Jacksonian Promise: America, 1815 to 1840" is an excellent summary of issues of the day and the various factions involved.

Allen

[Jim Boylston]

The ideologies of the parties have tended to shift a lot over the years, so viewing 19th century Democrats and Republicans through a 21st century lens can be problematic. Honestly, Jackson wouldn't recognize today's Democratic party any more than Lincoln would recognize the Republican party. The Jacksonian era did, however, give birth to the modern two party system. (And you'd be hard pressed to find a more partisan administration than Jackson's, in any political era. )

While Jackson claimed Jeffersonian roots and appropriated the "common man" image, one could argue that this was largely a political device. On the surface, many of Jackson's positions seemed egalitarian (his opposition to the Second National Bank, for example) when, in fact, they served to support monied interests to the detriment of the working man (the Bank again). For all his talk in support of the common men, Jackson's policies did them very little good.

As Allen mentioned, Jackson spent his presidency consolidating power in the executive branch, so much so that his critics charged him with despotism. They contended that Jackson ruled not as an elected official, but as a monarch.

Jim