Hate to get involved in a rather abstruse discussion, but I think you’re falling prey to a rather common mistake.
There were initially no “parties” at the founding, other than federalists and anti-federalists, neither of which line up particularly well with the parties that later developed. Or, rather, the federalists at the Founding all pretty much went into the Federalist Party, but the anti-federalists split, with some joining, at least initially the Federalists and others signing up with the Republicans.
The Federalists had a long decline as the opposition party agter 1800, but pretty much killed themselves off, at least as a national party, during the War of 1812. There followed a period from the late teens thru 30s where the contention was primarily not between parties as such, but more between Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians, both groups fully paid up members of the Democratic-Republican Party, the only one left standing.
This party split in two during the 1830s, forming the Whigs and the Democrats. So IMO the Whigs were every bit as much a continuation of the original Democratic-Republican Party as the faction that kept the Democratic name. And so were the Republicans who eventually succeeded the Whigs in the role of opposition party to the Democratic machine.
BTW, as you probably know, the 1850s were a much more complicated period in American political party history than any other. The Whigs, Democrats, Know-Nothings (American) and Free-Soil parties all played a part.
And of course during the 1860 election there were four parties in the running, northern and southern Democrtats, Republicans and Constitutional Union, which was more an attempt to revive the Whigs than anything else.
Most critically, national politics, and particularly party politics, did not consistently break out into a real north vs. south split until the 1850s. As southern aggression (which they viewed as only self-defense) got more intrusive, the North developed as a self-concious political region, replacing the previous East and West, with the West normally aligned with the South.
Sherman Logan:
"Hate to get involved in a rather abstruse discussion, but I think you’re falling prey to a rather common mistake." I'll show you where we disagree.
Sherman Logan: "So IMO the Whigs were every bit as much a continuation of the original Democratic-Republican Party as the faction that kept the Democratic name.
And so were the Republicans who eventually succeeded the Whigs in the role of opposition party to the Democratic machine."
Nice try, but that doesn't work.
The simple fact, with very few exceptions is: from the first real election in 1796, Southern states voted solidly for Jefferson Democratic-Republicans or Jackson Democrats.
At the same time, New England states voted consistently for Federalists, Republican Unionists, Whigs and then Republicans.
So your suggestion that both modern parties came from the same Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican root is just not right.
The better explanation is to apotheosize John Quincy Adams for his heroic efforts -- the last and futile attempt -- to reestablish the Founding generation's vision of a nation without political "factions" -- as parties were called then.
Adams, like his father was a close personal friend of Jefferson, joined Jefferson's party and tried to unite the country with a single-party leadership.
It didn't work, and party alignments soon returned, just as they had been in, for example, the 1800 presidential election.
If you doubt my explanation, then I'd invite you to do this:
Start here, with the 1796 election.
Note the map where South is green (Jefferson) and North orange (Adams).
Now, click on the link (upper right) for the 1800 election.
Note most states have the same colors.
Now if you'll click through each following election, you'll see that with very few exceptions, the South consistently voted for Jeffersonian/Jackson Democrats, the North for whatever party was in opposition -- Federalists, Republican Unionists, Whigs or Republicans.