The other thing that Tucker Carlson's text message makes undeniable

The Washington Post (via MSN.com) ^ | 03 May 2023 | Philip Bump

[zeestephen]

Carlson had for years been explicit — increasingly so — about his views of race and diversity in America...And then there was the replacement theory. Over and over, Carlson suggested that immigrants were being brought to the United States to shift the electorate to the left...This was a white-nationalist trope, now airing on the country's most-watched cable news channel in prime time.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "It was the Republicans who were far more corrupt - look no further than the explosion in corruption once power was centralized.
Look at the myriad of financial scandals in the various Republican administrations in the late 19th century.
This was to be expected when power is centralized and government is in bed with big business."

There's no objective evidence that Republicans after 1860 were more or less corrupt that Democrats had been before 1860.
What's certainly true is that the media, the press, back then, as now, delighted in exposing Republican wrong-doing, while it more often covered up Democratic corruption.

There's no objective evidence that Big Business was more "in bed" with Republicans after 1860 than it had been with Democrats before 1860, or would become again with Democrats after 1932.

The general rule here is that business and corruption follow the party in power.
Before 1860, that was almost entirely the Democrats.
From 1861 until roughly 1932, it was generally Republicans.
From 1932 until today, political power has been dominated by Democrats.

There is no objective evidence that political power was "centralized" more under Republican administrations than it was under Democrats before 1860 or since 1932.

FLT-bird: "The imperialism of US foreign policy pre 1860 pales to insignificance compared to the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians, as well as the various Indian tribes in all of the Western states, the Banana Wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the constant interventions in Latin America, the near constant meddling in China, etc."

The Trail of Tears -- 1830 to 1850 -- had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats.

1850s foreign interventions in Latin America, the Pacific, China and the Mediterranean had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats.

So you can "what about" all you wish, you cannot turn Democrats before 1860 into isolationists, or humanitarians regarding American Indians.

FLT-bird: "The Republicans wanted to keep not only slaves out of the Western territories.
They wanted to keep BLACK PEOPLE out.
That is why Blacks were specifically excluded in the state constitutions of Oregon and Kansas."

And once again, that was 100% Democrats.
In Kansas, regarding their 1859 Wyandotte Constitution:

"Solon O. Thacher [Republican] of Lawrence gave a rousing speech opposing the exclusion of African-Americans from Kansas.
The motion to exclude African-Americans was subsequently defeated, despite the fact that previously, "all the Democrats and a few of the Republicans favored the exclusion."[6]"

As for Oregon, before 1862, it was ruled by Democrats, who again ruled after 1870.
Democrats' 1857 exclusion law was frequently challenged by Republicans and finally repealed after Republicans were elected in 1914.

So, it was always the Democrats.

FLT-bird: "They wanted to use those states and the Senators they would send to Washington DC to enhance their own political power to impose crushingly high tariff rates which would line their own pockets at the Southern states' expense."

Once again, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations was Democrats, not Republicans.
Southern Democrats like Andrew Jackson and even John C. Calhoun (originally) supported it.
Southern Whigs like Henry Clay supported it.

The majority of New Englanders opposed it.

The Tariff of Abominations passed in part because some of those in opposition outsmarted themselves politically.
But the bottom line is that Southern Democrat President Jackson stood behind it and threated military action if South Carolina declared secession over it.

I know... I know, how desperately you wish to blame Republicans for everything, but the facts are that nine times out of ten, it was really just the Democrats.

[FLT-bird]

Sorry, but those are total, complete 100% lies, and you can repeat and repeat and repeat those lies as often as you want, you still cannot make them true. Here's the real truth of it: Jeffersonian Democratics, or anti-Administration faction, from 1790 to 1800, were the opposition party, and out-of-power they adopted a "Strict Construction" critique of Federalists' Washington, Adams and Hamiltonian policies. However, once in power, after 1800, they reversed themselves on every issue and Federalists became the new "Strict Constructionists". Specifically, this covered: Tariff of 1789, sponsored by Virginia Congressman James Madison, it was intended to raise revenues to pay off US war debts and also to encourage US manufacturing industries. Southerners & Democratics generally (i.e., John C. Calhoun) supported protective tariffs on Southern products like cotton, sugar and tobacco in 1816, though by 1820 they strongly opposed other tariffs. 1790, Treasury Secretary Hamilton's proposal for a Federal takeover of state Revolutionary War debts, opposed by Jefferson on "strict construction" grounds, became a bargaining chip in exchange for the new capital city in the District of Columbia, the Compromise of 1790, which Jefferson supported. 1792, 1st US Bank, proposed by Hamilton, opposed by Jefferson and Madison on Strict Construction grounds (among others), approved by Pres. Washington. In 1816, President Madison approved renewing the Bank's charter as the Second Bank of the United States. 1790s, Internal Improvements, we call "infrastructure", were supported by Pres. Washington and Federalists, opposed by Jeffersonians on Strict Construction grounds. By 1808 Jefferson had flipped entirely, supporting his Secretary of Treasury's Gallatin Plan, the most ambitious Federal infrastructure proposal yet seen. It was, naturally, opposed by Federalists on Strict Construction grounds -- are you seeing the pattern here? 1804, Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase revealed the utter hypocrisy of Democrats regarding "Strict Construction", when Jefferson himself admitted it needed a Constitutional amendment to authorize. Passage in Congress was strongly opposed by fellow Virginian John Randolph's Old Republicans, but narrowly won a House vote 59-57. 1807, Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798, including Jefferson's defense of states' rights to nullify Federal laws, were completely reversed when President Jefferson's 1807 Embargo against British trade was opposed by New Englanders. 1814, when New England's opposition to Pres. Madison's War of 1812 threatened secession at the Hartford Convention, Madison moved US Army troops nearer New England in case of open rebellion. Bottom line: everything "Strict Constructionist" Democratics said they opposed under Federalist administrations, they eventually came to support, plus much more, when they themselves were in political power.

Sorry but the denial of it is a complete utter total 100% lie. You repeating these lies does not and will never make them true.

The reality is political disputes in the very early years of the Republic are irrelevant. The Democrat party did not even exist then. Also the federal government in say, 1800 is not even remotely comparable to the federal government in 1860 so much had it grown in size and scope 60 years later. Even many of the early Federalists would have been astonished to see the changes.

[FLT-bird]

There's no objective evidence that Republicans after 1860 were more or less corrupt that Democrats had been before 1860.

The Republicans were the party of government and of big business. It was a massively corrupt era - robber barons anyone? Of course the Republicans were more corrupt at that time. That's pretty much guaranteed whenever big government and big business have an incestuous relationship.

What's certainly true is that the media, the press, back then, as now, delighted in exposing Republican wrong-doing, while it more often covered up Democratic corruption.,/p>

LOL! Pure 100% BS. The vast majority of the media were in support of the Republican party back then.

There's no objective evidence that Big Business was more "in bed" with Republicans after 1860 than it had been with Democrats before 1860, or would become again with Democrats after 1932.

LOL! You can't be serious. Look at the railroads alone. Look at the massive land grants. Look at the wars of aggression against the Plains Indians to clear them out for benefit of the railroads. Look at the series of financial scandals etc. Pretty much all historians agree that this was a very corrupt era.

The general rule here is that business and corruption follow the party in power. Before 1860, that was almost entirely the Democrats.

The Democrats held the Presidency more often than not but they didn't hold Congress more often than not. After 1860 during the Occupation and thanks to the massive disenfranchisement of voters in the Southern states, the Republicans dominated until the 1930s.

There is no objective evidence that political power was "centralized" more under Republican administrations than it was under Democrats before 1860.

LOL! You can't be serious. The Leviathan broke the bonds placed on it by the Founding Fathers after 1860 and completely eviscerated the ability of the states to check its power. The federal government became massively more centralized after 1860.

The Trail of Tears -- 1830 to 1850 -- had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats. 1850s foreign interventions in Latin America, the Pacific, China and the Mediterranean had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats. So you can "what about" all you wish, you cannot turn Democrats before 1860 into isolationists, or humanitarians regarding American Indians.

Nobody said Democrats were perfect non interventionists. Its a question of degree. The US Federal government had a MUCH more aggressive/imperialist foreign policy and engaged in far more wars of aggression after 1860. Hell, the war itself was an imperialist war of aggression started by the Lincoln administration.

And once again, that was 100% Democrats. In Kansas, regarding their 1859 Wyandotte Constitution: So, it was always the Democrats.

No. It might be convenient for you to believe that but it just ain't so. The Republicans very much wanted to keep Blacks out. Look at the Black Codes in various Midwestern states designed explicitly to keep Blacks out. Republicans dominated there.

"Republicans admitted that large parts of the North were infected with racism. 'Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275) ". . .

"Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, (brother of William T. Sherman): “We do not like the Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…..The whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states.”

William Seward, inveterate moralizer and creator of the phrase “irrepressible conflict,” who, at a political rally in 1860, described the American black man as a “foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation…a pitiful exotic unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.”

the bottom line is that Southern Democrat President Jackson stood behind it and threated military action if South Carolina declared secession over it. I know... I know, how desperately you wish to blame Republicans for everything, but the facts are that nine times out of ten, it was really just the Democrats.

Except we're not talking exclusively about the Tariff of Abominations. We're talking about who was trying to impose a massive tariff again a generation later despite the evidence of how destructive this was to the economy of the Southern states and despite the fierce political opposition it evoked the last time. Guess what. That was 100% Republicans. I know, you have this childish little fantasy that Republicans always good and Democrats always bad and furthermore that the two parties always and forever supported the same policies/had the same ideology. The problem is, it just ain't so.

Hell, in the last generation we've gone from the Democrats being overwhelmingly supported by the working class and the Republicans being overwhelmingly supported by the Upper Middle Class/rich to the exact opposite today. The parties are not static. They do shift over time.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The reality is political disputes in the very early years of the Republic are irrelevant.
The Democrat party did not even exist then."

Thomas Jefferson was the first "Democratic" and he was there on Day One.
During the 1790s Jefferson's Democratics criticized Federalist policies on "Strict Construction" grounds, but once in power, after 1800, they did everything they'd previously condemned, plus much more.

Those are facts, deny them if you will.

FLT-bird: "Also the federal government in say, 1800 is not even remotely comparable to the federal government in 1860 so much had it grown in size and scope 60 years later.
Even many of the early Federalists would have been astonished to see the changes."

That is certainly true today, but it was not in 1860, or even in 1900.
Federal spending today is well over 20% of GDP, but that was not true in the early years.
Here are actual numbers, by president, of Federal spending % of US GDP:

1. 2% under Federalists Washington and Adams
2. 2% under Democrats Jefferson and Madison's first term
3. 4% under Democrat Madison 2nd term, War of 1812
4. 3% under Democrat Monroe, including war debts
5. 2% under Democrat JQ Adams
6. 2% under Democrats Jackson and Van Buren
7. 1.5% under Whigs Harrison and Taylor
8. 2% under Democrat Polk
9. 2% under Whigs Taylor & Filmore
10. 2% under Democrats Pierce and Buchanan
11. 10% under Republican Lincoln, Civil War
12. 5% under Democrat Johnson, post war
13. 4% under Republican Grant, war debts paid
14. 3% under Republicans Hayes, Garfield & Arthur
15. 3% under Democrat Cleveland
16. 3% under Republican McKinley
17. 2% under Republican Teddy Roosevelt.

So, paying off the Civil War debt kept Federal spending around 3% of GDP until the early 1900s, when under Teddy Roosevelt spending returned to the 2% it had been before the Civil War.

We didn't see permanently high spending rates until Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Those are the facts.

[FLT-bird]

Thomas Jefferson was the first "Democratic" and he was there on Day One.

The Democrat Party did not exist when Jefferson was active in politics.

blah blah blah

Irrelevant.

Those are facts, deny them if you will.

the facts are that the Democrat Party did not exist then. Try to deny that if you will.

That is certainly true today, but it was not in 1860, or even in 1900.

It was definitely true that by 1860 the Leviathan in Washington had already grown so much in size and scope, had already usurped so much power for itself that its not even remotely comparable to the early years of the Republic when the mere continued existence of a federal government was an open question.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Labour did the same thing in Britain, and admitted it.

[Toespi]

“Carlson suggested that immigrants were being brought to the United States to shift the electorate to the left.”

If possible, I think it is more sinister than this. I think they are creating a lefty domestic military that will eventually turn against white conservative America.

[KC Burke]

I also believe that the population of illegal immigrants is being increased to have a dependent class of second class population. Dependents and supplicants.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The Democrat Party did not exist when Jefferson was active in politics."

Jefferson's party's official name was Democratic-Republicans.
But they never called themselves that, they called themselves Democratics.

The Democratic party was "founded" in 1828 by Andrew Jackson (TN) and Martin Van Buren (NYC).
Both had previously been Democratic-Republicans --

"The modern Democratic Party emerged in the late 1820s from former factions of the Democratic-Republican Party, which had largely collapsed by 1824.[6]
It was built by Martin Van Buren, who assembled a cadre of politicians in every state behind war hero Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.[7][8]"

In reality, it was just the old Democratic-Republicans officially dropping the word "Republican" from their name, which in practice they had done decades before.

So answer me this -- why would you even bother to deny that 1828 Democratics were simply Jefferson's old Democratic-Republicans, having dropped the word "Republican" from their name?

FLT-bird: "the facts are that the Democrat Party did not exist then. Try to deny that if you will."

It was the same people, almost the same name.
But, if you want to quibble over words, then the "Democrat Party" doesn't exist now, never did exist.
It was always the Democratic Party.

But we're talking about the same people, from the time of Thomas Jefferson on.

FLT-bird: "It was definitely true that by 1860 the Leviathan in Washington had already grown so much in size and scope, had already usurped so much power for itself that its not even remotely comparable to the early years of the Republic when the mere continued existence of a federal government was an open question."

And that was after 60 years of Democratic, nearly single party, rule.
Republicans had nothing to do with it.

But, to be fair, by 1860 the United States had grown:

1. 3-times the size of 1790 in square miles.

2. 10-times the population of 1790.

3. 20-times the economic GDP in 1792.

4. 15-times the Federal spending as in 1792.

5. zero % increase in Federal spending, as a percent of GDP.

Certainly compared to today's Leviathan, the 1860 Federal government was a very model of lean and efficient government, consuming barely 2% of GDP.

After the Civil War, paying off the national war-debt took until Teddy Roosevelt's administration before Federal spending again fell to 2% of US GDP.
By 1905, under TR, the US GDP at ~$30 billion was seven times greater than in 1860.

FLT-bird: "...early years of the Republic when the mere continued existence of a federal government was an open question."

No, there was never an effort to abolish the US central government.
The issue in 1787 was whether central government should remain weak under the Articles of Confederation or grow more powerful under a new Constitution.

It took them some time to think it over, but eventually the states voted unanimously for a new Federal government.

[FLT-bird]

Jefferson's party's official name was Democratic-Republicans. But they never called themselves that, they called themselves Democratics.

Irrelevant. These were different political parties.

The Democratic party was "founded" in 1828 by Andrew Jackson (TN) and Martin Van Buren (NYC). Both had previously been Democratic-Republicans --,/p>

Irrelevant

"The modern Democratic Party emerged in the late 1820s from former factions of the Democratic-Republican Party, which had largely collapsed by 1824.[6] It was built by Martin Van Buren, who assembled a cadre of politicians in every state behind war hero Andrew Jackson of Tennessee.[7][8]"

Yes, it was a different party. Thanks for confirming that.

In reality, it was just the old Democratic-Republicans officially dropping the word "Republican" from their name, which in practice they had done decades before.

No, it was a new and different party. Just as the Whigs and the Republicans were different parties even though the Republicans were overwhelmingly former Whigs.

So answer me this -- why would you even bother to deny that 1828 Democratics were simply Jefferson's old Democratic-Republicans, having dropped the word "Republican" from their name?

Because they were a different party. I can see why you are desperate to call them the same party so you can try to attribute things to the Democrat party to claim they were hypocritical when in reality, the Democrat party did not exist at that time.

It was the same people, almost the same name. But, if you want to quibble over words, then the "Democrat Party" doesn't exist now, never did exist. It was always the Democratic Party.

Democrat party. Democrats. Same thing. Democratic-Republicans were a different animal than the Democrats. Just as the Federalists, the Whigs and the Republicans were 3 different parties even though many members carried over from one to the other.

But we're talking about the same people, from the time of Thomas Jefferson on.

See above.

And that was after 60 years of Democratic, nearly single party, rule. Republicans had nothing to do with it.

It was FAR from Democrat or single party rule.

". . . the Democrats in 1854 suffered grave reversals. Perhaps most stunning was the plurality the Republicans achieved in the new House of Representatives, where they were to hold 108 seats to 83 for the Democrats and 43 for the Know-Nothings. Indeed that new House, after two months of debate, would elect a Republican Speaker. . . ." (Catton, The National Experience, pp. 322-323)

"The election of 1858. . . . Southern Democrats . . . were no longer able to shape public policy." (Catton, editor, The National Experience, pp. 328-329)

But, to be fair, by 1860 the United States had grown:...

It was much more than just what percentage of GDP the federal government taxed and spent. By 1860, the federal government had usurped a lot of power that had been reserved to the states in the early years of the Republic.

No, there was never an effort to abolish the US central government.

Hartford Convention. Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, etc

The issue in 1787 was whether central government should remain weak under the Articles of Confederation or grow more powerful under a new Constitution. It took them some time to think it over, but eventually the states voted unanimously for a new Federal government.

None of the states in 1789-1790 had any intention that the federal government would ever grow as powerful as it later became. In fact, Madison and Hamilton argued over and over again in the federalist papers that it would not.

3 states including the two largest and leaders of their respective sections expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession when they ratified the constitution such was their concern about a federal government that would grow ever more powerful and usurp powers they never intended to imbue it with.

[DiogenesLamp]

Too much information. Won’t read.

[DiogenesLamp]

There are no "Rockefeller Republicans" now.

They are all Democrats.

Mitt Romney? Christie? Sununu? Jeb?

[BroJoeK]

"Mitt Romney? Christie? Sununu? Jeb?"

Are you sure those are Republicans?
Last time I checked, they didn't sound very Republican to me.

Rockefellers, we can be sure, are now Democrats, witness former West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, the "elite" northeastern limousine liberal wealth class moved over to the Democrats. I believe FDR started it.

Some still remain, but as of now, the Democrats are the party of the wealthy, and amoral corporate interests.

[Publius]

I believe FDR started it.

Woodrow Wilson. It was the Princeton connection.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Irrelevant. These were different political parties."

FLT-bird: "Irrelevant."

FLT-bird: "No, it was a new and different party.
Just as the Whigs and the Republicans were different parties even though the Republicans were overwhelmingly former Whigs."

Right, the old Federalists became Whigs who then became Republicans.
It was the same leaders with the same voters and the same basic ideology.

On the other side, the old anti-Federalists became Jefferson's anti-Administration faction, then officially "Democratic-Republicans" but calling themselves Democratics.
In due time, those same people, now led by Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson, officially dropped the "Republicans" from their name and continued to call themselves Democratics.

It was the same leaders with the same voters and the same basic ideology.

If you want to call them a different party, that's fine, but the only real difference was just the name change.

FLT-bird: "I can see why you are desperate to call them the same party so you can try to attribute things to the Democrat party to claim they were hypocritical when in reality, the Democrat party did not exist at that time."

Oh? Is that it? You think, if they changed the party's name, then we can't blame Andrew Jackson for anything Thomas Jefferson may, or may not have, done?

Well, rest assured, I fully understand the differences between Jefferson & Jackson.
They were two very different men who lived in very different times, though Jackson was a boy in the Revolutionary War, so they did share some experiences.

I'm a huge admirer of both Jefferson and Jackson, different men, but they had the same voters and ran on pretty much the same issues.
One difference was that Jackson was more like Tump -- he did what he promised he would do.

FLT-bird: "Democrat party. Democrats. Same thing. Democratic-Republicans were a different animal than the Democrats.
Just as the Federalists, the Whigs and the Republicans were 3 different parties even though many members carried over from one to the other."

Same leaders, same voters, same platforms.
Only the names changed, and for Democratics, that wasn't much of a change.

FLT-bird: "It was FAR from Democrat or single party rule.
". . . the Democrats in 1854 suffered grave reversals.
Perhaps most stunning was the plurality the Republicans achieved in the new House of Representatives, where they were to hold 108 seats to 83 for the Democrats and 43 for the Know-Nothings. "

The 1854 mid-term election was for the 34th Congress, which served from 1855 to 1857.
As is common these days, in the 1854 mid-term elections, the party in power lost seats.
So Democrats still held the Senate, but the House elected a former Democrat, now American (Know Nothing), Nathaniel Banks as speaker.
In 1859 Banks ran for Massachusetts governor as a Republican.

In the Presidential election of 1856, Democrats swept the Senate, the House and Presidency.
Then again in the 1858 mid-terms they lost the House, but not the Senate, and of course they had a solid majority in the Supreme Court.

FLT-bird: "Indeed that new House, after two months of debate, would elect a Republican Speaker. . . ." (Catton, The National Experience, pp. 322-323)"

No, not in 1854 or 1855.
Nathaniel Banks was elected speaker of the 34th Congress in 1855.
Banks was a former Democrat who became an American (Know Nothing) in 1854.
In 1857 he ran for Massachusetts Governor as a Republican.

FLT-bird: ""The election of 1858. . . . Southern Democrats . . . were no longer able to shape public policy." (Catton, editor, The National Experience, pp. 328-329)"

In the 36th Congress (1859-1861) Democrats still held a solid majority in the Senate, Republicans were the House majority. Democrats still had the President and Supreme Court.

FLT-bird: "It was much more than just what percentage of GDP the federal government taxed and spent.
By 1860, the federal government had usurped a lot of power that had been reserved to the states in the early years of the Republic."

Whatever "usurping" was done, was done by Democrats who ruled almost continuously from 1800 until secession in 1861.

FLT-bird: "3 states including the two largest and leaders of their respective sections expressly reserved the right to unilateral secession "

Every Founder believed in a "right of secession" when made necessary by "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..."

They also believed in secession "at pleasure", such as they did in 1788 "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation, but then only by mutual consent.

No Founder ever proposed or supported a unilateral declaration of secession "at pleasure".

[FLT-bird]

Right, the old Federalists became Whigs who then became Republicans. It was the same leaders with the same voters and the same basic ideology.

These were different parties and they had different ideologies.

blah blah blah It was the same leaders with the same voters and the same basic ideology.

No. These were different parties and they had different ideologies.

If you want to call them a different party, that's fine, but the only real difference was just the name change.

If this were true they never would have bothered with the name change or with breaking up and forming a new party.

Oh? Is that it? You think, if they changed the party's name, then we can't blame Andrew Jackson for anything Thomas Jefferson may, or may not have, done?

I think they're different parties with different ideologies and the issues in the 1830s were significantly different than they'd been 30 years earlier.

I'm a huge admirer of both Jefferson and Jackson, different men, but they had the same voters and ran on pretty much the same issues. One difference was that Jackson was more like Tump -- he did what he promised he would do.

I admire both but Jefferson was wealthy from early on and was part of the Virginia Aristocracy. Jackson was an outsider and was a lot more rough in his mannerisms and was from a rougher, tougher place in his youth than the more settled Virginia of Jefferson's youth. As such, Jackson was more of a populist.

Same leaders, same voters, same platforms. Only the names changed, and for Democratics, that wasn't much of a change.

I don't agree that only the names changed.

As is common these days, in the 1854 mid-term elections, the party in power lost seats. So Democrats still held the Senate, but the House elected a former Democrat, now American (Know Nothing), Nathaniel Banks as speaker. In 1859 Banks ran for Massachusetts governor as a Republican. In the Presidential election of 1856, Democrats swept the Senate, the House and Presidency. Then again in the 1858 mid-terms they lost the House, but not the Senate, and of course they had a solid majority in the Supreme Court.

The point being, it was far from one party rule. There was lively opposition.

Whatever "usurping" was done, was done by Democrats who ruled almost continuously from 1800 until secession in 1861.

Not true as I've outlined already. The Democrats weren't around until 1828. From then until 1860, there was Adams,, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore and of course, lots of Senators and Congressmen who were not Democrats

Every Founder believed in a "right of secession" when made necessary by "...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism..." They also believed in secession "at pleasure", such as they did in 1788 "seceding" from the old Articles of Confederation, but then only by mutual consent. No Founder ever proposed or supported a unilateral declaration of secession "at pleasure".

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

Nowhere in there do you see them say anything about needing permission from any other state to "resume the powers of government".

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "These were different parties and they had different ideologies."

You will refute your own argument if you just consider, what were the major issues back then?

1. A national bank, proposed by Federalists and supported by Whigs, officially opposed by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (though renewed by Pres. Madison) and finally abolished by Democrat, Andrew Jackson.

2. Import tariffs to provide not only revenues for Federal government, but also to protect American producers, supported by Federalists, Whigs and Republicans, opposed, especially after 1816 by Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and Jackson Democratics.
   Yes, I agree that both Democratic-Republicans and Democratics had a... ah... "complicated" relationship to import Tariffs.
   Of course, they all wanted Southern products protected, such as cotton, sugar and tobacco.
   But even in the 1790s they didn't much like paying high tariffs on Northern products, and after 1816 became strongly opposed to every increase.
   The notable exception was Andrew Jackson, who supported the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", because, I believe, Jackson wanted to maximize Federal revenues so he could pay off the national debt -- that's pay off, not just pay down.

3. Internal Improvements (aka infrastructure), what's consistent here is that Democratic-Republicans and Democratics opposed Federalist & Whig proposals, while supporting their own projects.

4. International adventurism -- John Quincy Adams was a personal friend of Thomas Jefferson and in 1809 left his father's Federalist party for Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, and as such John Quincy became President in 1825.
   By 1828, the old Democratic-Republicans were defunct, and so John Quincy Adams eventually became a Whig.
   I mention all this because of Adams' famous quote: "America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy" dated July 4, 1821.

   That quote was spoken like the Federalist Adams had been, and the Whig he would later become, because Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats had remarkably more "robust" internationalist policies.
   Here is a list of American military actions, beginning in 1775 through today.
   You'll notice that under Federalists, from 1788 to 1800, US military actions were limited to fighting Indians and suppressing rebellions -- Shay's, Whiskey & Fries Rebellions, plus the undeclared, purely defensive "Quasi War" with France.

   Plus if you look at later Whig administrations (1841-1844 & 1849-1852) you'll see that they were remarkably peaceful, at home and abroad, with a notable exception of the 1843 naval actions in Africa to suppress slavery.

   By stark contrast, both Democratic-Republicans (D-Rs) before 1828 and Democratics after 1828 conducted "robust", even aggressive, military operations to protect American interests from China and the Far East to the Barbary Coast in the Mediterranean, to Central and South America.
   And that was on top of D-Rs & Dems two major declared wars of choice -- the War of 1812 ("Madison's War") and the Mexican War ("Mr. Polk's War").
   So Democratic-Republicans and Democratics did indeed go "...abroad, in search of monsters to destroy"

   Of course, if they could accomplish their goals peacefully, even if unconstitutionally, so much the better -- hence Jeffrerson's Louisiana Purchase from France and Jefferson Davis' Gadsden Purchase from Mexico.
   Also, Democrats' proposed purchase of Cuba in their 1860 platform.

   Federalists, Whigs and Republicans were much more circumspect internationally.

5. Slavery -- Lincoln was the first openly anti-slavery president ever elected, but earlier there were a few "closet abolitionists", most notably Federalists / Whigs John Adams, John Quincy Adams & Millard Fillmore.
   Of course, all of the Founders were officially anti-slavery, wanting it to be gradually abolished.
   Thomas Jefferson even supported abolition in the Northwest Territories and International Slave Trade, as well as proposing Federally compensated national abolition.
   But that last proposal went nowhere, and Jefferson did not try to abolish slavery in his home state of Virginia.

   Bottom line on slavery -- Democratic-Republicans and Democratics were far more friendly to slavey than Federalists, Whigs or Republicans.

Bottom line on continuity of policies -- when Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (D-Rs) changed their party's name to Jacksonian Democratics, they kept most, or all, of the old D-R policies and priorities -- same voters, same leaders, same policies and priorities, slightly different party names.

Likewise, when the old Federalists changed their name to Whigs and later Republicans, they kept most, or all, of the old party's policies and priorities -- same voters, same leaders, same policies, different party names.

[FLT-bird]

You will refute your own arguments if you just consider the major issues back then

When a party would fall apart and a successor party came along to replace it, they would often fill a similar political niche and often took similar positions on some issues. Still, that doesn't mean they were perfectly aligned on all issues. Often there would be significant differences between the old party and the successor party. Look no further than our own time when the Populist-Nationalists are taking over from the old Republican party Establishment. They agree on many issues but there are others they vehemently disagree over. It was the same in the past when one party replaced another. They were different animals.

Yes, I agree that both Democratic-Republicans and Democratics had a... ah... "complicated" relationship to import Tariffs. Of course, they all wanted Southern products protected, such as cotton, sugar and tobacco.

Southern products like Cotton, Sugar and Tobacco didn't need protection. There was no competitor threatening to undercut them on price. Britain industrialized first followed soon thereafter by France. They both had colonial empires/captive markets. Thus with first mover advantages and large markets to sell to, their factories became established and large. Northern manufacturers in the US were comparatively small, undercapitalized and far less efficient. They were constantly screaming for protection because they knew they couldn't compete with Britain or France on price.

Internal Improvements (aka infrastructure), what's consistent here is that Democratic-Republicans and Democratics opposed Federalist & Whig proposals, while supporting their own projects.

What's consistent here is that the Northern states got a LOT more federal money for infrastructure projects. That was due to them having a larger population and thus more US Representatives. Being more industrialized, they also got a lot more corporate subsidies.

Federalists, Whigs and Republicans were much more circumspect internationally.

That certainly changed once the Federal government had consolidated power and stripped the states of much of their sovereignty after 1865. The Republicans were only too happy to wage aggressive wars of empire.

Democratic-Republicans and Democratics were far more friendly to slavey than Federalists, Whigs or Republicans.

Federalists and Whigs were quite friendly to slavery arguing for a 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution so they could officially continue the slave trade which was making New England so much money. Of course even after 1810 lots of slaving voyages out of New England took place with the appropriate winks and nods from local and federal officials. John Adams vigorously pushed for England to have to return the colonial slaves they had freed during the war of secession from the British Empire.

Bottom line on continuity of policies -- when Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans (D-Rs) changed their party's name to Jacksonian Democratics, they kept most, or all, of the old D-R policies and priorities -- same voters, same leaders, same policies and priorities, slightly different party names.

No, not all. They were differences though as the successor party, they basically stepped in the shoes of the Democratic-Republicans and thus took many of the same positions. Still, the different parties are different entities and its intellectually lazy/sloppy to pretend each successor party is nothing more than the previous party with a new name.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "When a party would fall apart and a successor party came along to replace it, they would often fill a similar political niche and often took similar positions on some issues.
Still, that doesn't mean they were perfectly aligned on all issues.
Often there would be significant differences between the old party and the successor party.
Look no further than our own time when the Populist-Nationalists are taking over from the old Republican party Establishment."

Obviously, that's all true, at least up to a point, no dispute there.
And, for one reason: over time front-burner issues can change, so what was of utmost importance, say, 50 years ago is now mute or settled and other issues come to the front.

On the other hand, some basics don't change and the five issues I listed -- national bank, import tariffs, internal improvements (infrastructure) and slavery -- were all important in both 1790 and 1840.
And 1790 Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans lined up the same as 1840 Whigs vs. Democratics.

Indeed, I could easily argue that today's "Populist-Nationalists" are actually a throw-back to original Republican values of 1860, pre-Civil War.
Like Trump today, 1860 Republicans wanted to Put Americans First and Make America Great by encouraging American manufacturers and middle-income jobs.
Also, 1860 Republicans advocated a massive giveaway of western territory lands to settlers who would farm them, and vote Republican, of course.

And, they are also returning to our Old Federalist roots with Pres. Washington's no more "entangling alliances" and Pres. JQ Adams, no more adventuring "abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

By now we've almost forgotten how 1930s era isolationist Republicans became 1960s to 1990s era internationalists -- it was to contain Communism, then considered the greatest threat mankind had ever seen -- considered so by conservative, free market, private enterprise Republicans, not so much by Democrats.

Democrats in those days did not see Communism as a threat so much as their ally and so were eager to accommodate Communist dictators.
The political game ended when Pres. Reagan called the Communists what they were -- an Evil Empire -- and the walls came tumbling down...

With the Communist threat gone, Republicans began, slowly, returning to our more "isolationist" roots, though few today will admit to being Old-Time Isolationists.
We all know the world is important for many reasons, but we don't think the USA should be the "world's policeman" or get involved in every little dispute among distant countries.
This is how 1980s staunch anti-Communists can say of the Russia-Ukraine war, "it's not our fight".
At the same time, Democrats have returned to their Democratic-Republican roots, favoring adventures abroad, whether those be Barbary Pirates under Democratic-Republican Pres. Jefferson or Chinese revolutionaries under Democratic Pres. Pierce, or a Uruguayan dictator under Democratic Pres. Buchanan.

FLT-bird: "Southern products like Cotton, Sugar and Tobacco didn't need protection.
There was no competitor threatening to undercut them on price."

Oh, but they did, and there was.
US produced sugar, especially required very high tariffs (24% under Democrats' 1857 rates) to prevent cheaper central American sugar from taking over the US market.

Cotton also was protected by tariffs (19% as of 1857) to prevent New England textile mills from importing cheaper cotton originating in, say, Egypt.
But they did anyway, despite the 19% tariff, cotton in 1860 was the US's number three import, after woolens (from Europe, 24% tariff) and brown sugar (from the Caribbean 24% tariff).

So Democrats were totally in favor of high tariffs on their own products, but they hated paying 24% tariffs on iron manufactures (5th largest import) or 30% on French wines (10th largest import).

FLT-bird: "Northern manufacturers in the US were comparatively small, undercapitalized and far less efficient.
They were constantly screaming for protection because they knew they couldn't compete with Britain or France on price."

In 1860, US domestic textile mills consumed about 25% of US cotton production.
Of that, about 90% came from Southern states, and 10% came from foreign sources, making cotton our number three foreign import.
The balance of Southern cotton was exported, mainly to Great Britain, and accounted for something like 80% of British supplies.
Southerners had good reason to think King Cotton would make the UK a solid ally of Confederates.

In 1860, Northern "exports" of cotton manufactures -- cloth, clothing, etc. -- to the South accounted for around 25% of all Northern "exports" to the South.

FLT-bird: "What's consistent here is that the Northern states got a LOT more federal money for infrastructure projects.
That was due to them having a larger population and thus more US Representatives.
Being more industrialized, they also got a lot more corporate subsidies."

That's only remotely true if, by "the Northern states" you mean every state north of South Carolina.
But if, by "the South", you mean every state south of the Mason-Dixon line, then it's not at all true.
By 1860, the South's population (including slaves) had fallen to 40% of the US total, and the South received about 42% of Federal infrastructure spending.
It also received 53% of fortification spending and 41% of lighthouses, plus 52% of hospitalization spending.

Overall, in 1860, with 40% of US population, including slaves, Southern states received 49% of Federal spending, not including pensions.

FLT-bird: "That certainly changed once the Federal government had consolidated power and stripped the states of much of their sovereignty after 1865.
The Republicans were only too happy to wage aggressive wars of empire."

By which you mean to say that after 1865 Republicans began acting more like Democratic-Republicans and Democrats before 1861, right?
Between Andrew Johnson and Woodrow Wilson there was only one Democrat president, Grover Cleveland.
Cleveland's international adventures included navy and marine landings in Korea, Haiti, Samoa, Nicaragua, China and Columbia.
So, clearly, Democrat Cleveland was no isolationist.

Your term, "aggressive wars of empire" well describes the Democratic-Republicans' War of 1812 and the Democrats' Mexican War, as well as the Republicans' Spanish-American War.

In the Spanish-American war, it's interesting to note the Democrat media pushed a reluctant Republican president to make war on Spain, while Republican business leaders opposed the war.
The Republican president, McKinley, also opposed war with Spain until the sinking of the USS Maine in Havanah Harbor, after which McKinley felt he had no choice.

Which brings us to the World Wars and Democrat Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
Are we seeing a historical pattern here?

FLT-bird: "Federalists and Whigs were quite friendly to slavery arguing for a 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution so they could officially continue the slave trade which was making New England so much money."

During those years, under mostly Federalist control, every state north of the Mason-Dixon line began to gradually abolish its own slavery.
The Constitution prohibited abolishing slave imports before 1808, but Congress did so on the first day they were authorized to.

FLT-bird: "Of course even after 1810 lots of slaving voyages out of New England took place with the appropriate winks and nods from local and federal officials."

Something was going on during the 1850s, as admitted to by Democrtatic Senator Stephen Douglas, in a debate with Abraham Lincoln:

"In regard to the slave trade, Mr. Douglas stated that there was not the shadow of doubt but that it had been carried on quite extensively for a long time back, and that there had been more slaves imported into the Southern States during the last year [1858] than had ever been imported before in any one year, even when the slave trade was legal.
It was his confident belief that over 15,000 slaves had been brought into this country during the past year.
He had seen, with his own eyes, three hundred of these recently-imported, miserable beings, in a slave-pen in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and also large numbers at Memphis, Tennessee.[219]"

So, it's claimed that New Yorkers were involved in importing slaves after 1808, but the last known slave ship, the Clotilda, was built, owned and operated out of Mobile, Alabama, not New York.

FLT-bird: "John Adams vigorously pushed for England to have to return the colonial slaves they had freed during the war of secession from the British Empire."

Or so he once claimed he would do, in the future, but there's no evidence he ever did, and no freed slave was ever returned, or slaveholders paid compensation by the British.

FLT-bird: "No, not all.
They were differences though as the successor party, they basically stepped in the shoes of the Democratic-Republicans and thus took many of the same positions.
Still, the different parties are different entities and its intellectually lazy/sloppy to pretend each successor party is nothing more than the previous party with a new name."

Sure, even within the same party, with the same leadership and voters, positions change over time, as we can well see today.

However, some basic things don't really change that much, even over very long time periods.
In the years before 1861, there was a great continuity of outlooks and policies among Old Federalists, Whigs and the new Republicans.
Likewise, among Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and the Van Buren/Jackson Democratics, much more stayed the same than changed when their name changed.