Of course there was much continuity in New England from the Federalists to the Whigs to the Republicans. And much continuity in the South from the Democratic Republicans to the Democrats, from Jefferson through Jackson, Cleveland, Wilson, and Roosevelt.
But some people want to argue for a massive, monolithic, eternal conflict of Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians or Adamses and Jacksonians that leaves out most of the details in political history. So many people beat it into our heads "Good Jefferson, Bad Hamilton" or "Good Hamilton, Bad Jefferson" that it's not a bad thing to remember how porous party lines could be in the "Era of Good Feelings."
One has to make room somewhere for someone like Henry Clay, who started out as a Jeffersonian Democrat and became a Whig, or James Buchanan, who began as a Federalist and ended up a Democrat, or DeWitt Clinton, a stalwart Democratic-Republican who somehow became a Federalist nominee for president.
Obviously there were established Whig-Federalist and Jeffersonian-Jacksonian families and circles that continued down through the years, but the fact that the Opposition or Anti-Democrat forces picked the early name of Jefferson's own party for their own -- the Republicans -- suggests that the lines of descent were more complicated than some people believe.
Thanks. You appear to understand my point more clearly than I do.
It is perhaps interesting that both you and I are referring to the Whigs and Republicans as “the opposition,” when perhaps the greatest continuity in the “Democratic Party,” at least since the time of Jackson, is that it is a coalition of those who view themselves, accurately or not, as outside “the system,” and therefore opposed to it, while Whigs and Republicans have generally viewed themselves as being, or wanting to be, part of the controlling group.
Since Democrats have dominated politics in most of the last 75 years, this is an odd POV. But I think it is easy when looking at the way Democrats think and express themselves: feminists, liberals, enviros, union guys, blacks, hispanics, Jews, gays. The only thing they really have in common is opposition to what they view as The Man or The Establishment or whitey.
I would also like to point out that trying to project modern political POVs into the past, as if the Democratic Party of 1860 is somehow “the same” as the party of the same name in 2013 is an exercise in utter futility.
For instance, trying to turn the Democratic Party into a consistent bastion of what we now call Progressivism is just flatly untrue, and requires ignoring Teddy R. and all those other GOP Progressives.
In fact, I contend that the Democratic Party of today, almost excclusively “progressive,” versus the GOP of today, largely conservative, though not as exclusively as the Democrats are, is perhaps the starkest contrast in political parties, ideologically speaking, in American history.
I cannot figure out whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
Sherman Logan: "I would also like to point out that trying to project modern political POVs into the past, as if the Democratic Party of 1860 is somehow “the same” as the party of the same name in 2013 is an exercise in utter futility."
I doubt if many today could even describe the party platform differences between, say, a Federalist and a Jeffersonian Republican.
Let's see:
My point of view is: in terms of today's politics, all of our early Founding generations -- Federalists, Jefersonians, Jacksonians, Whigs, etc. -- all were small-government, small "r" republicans.
None in their worst nightmares, even Alexander Hamilton, could imagine the bloated monstrosity their Constitution today supports.
All intended the Federal government should be kept as limited as possible.
And from the Founding of the Republic until the Progressive era 100 years ago, under whatever political party was in charge, the Federal Government consumed on average circa 2.5% of GDP, plus whatever it cost to pay for the previous war.
For example: in 1913 President Wilson inherited a Federal budget that was 2.5% of GDP, a national debt under 10% of GDP and falling.
Today Federal Government consumes around 24% (this before Obama-care fully kicks in), while national debt is 100% of GDP and growing rapidly.
That's why I say, in terms of small-government "good guys" versus big-government "bad guys", Founders were all "good guys" from our jaded perspective.
But among those small-government "good guys", Democrats usually dominated, and until 1860 Democrats were always dominated by the Constitutionally sanctioned 3/5 represented Southern Slave-Power.
So, while Southern Democrat majorities remained relatively constant, Northern minority parties shifted and changed, trying to find some formula, some platform which might appeal to enough voters to carry the next election.
But until 1860 Northerners were very seldom successful, and succeeded in 1860 mainly because the Southern Slave-Power, in effect, committed political suicide in order to justify secession.