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.

[x]

Barack or Moochelle said some progress would only happen as whites died off.

I think that was Oprah.

Also, that it's been taken out of context.

[wardaddy]

Radical republicans of that era

[wardaddy]

Whatever Boothes reason it harmed the south and paved the way for those much less magnanimous than Lincoln seems to me

[DiogenesLamp]

We were concerned that the secessionist slaveowners who had started the war would return to power in the South.

They didn't start the war, Lincoln did with Major Anderson's help. And the Southern states seceded because they didn't have a big enough vote in the congress to stop legislation that was unfair to them from being passed.

Giving the vote to the freed slaves was seen as a way to prevent that.

You mean they couldn't keep the army occupying the place forever, denying people the right to vote? Maybe the problem is they didn't want people to express free will and they just wanted them to shut up and do what Washington DC orders them to do?

Modern liberals want us all to shut up and just let Washington keep taxing us and spending the money on everything but what is best for us. They shouldn't have that right today, and they should not have had that right in 1865.

Sometimes, cynicism can be very close to naivete. I don’t think you have a greater insight into how people thought 150 years ago than the people at the time did.

I have something much closer to a God's eye view of what happened, because I have information that they may never have known about. I can see the larger picture than they could have done while they were so much closer to the action. I have hindsight.

Also, your hijacking threads and turning them into civil war arguments may be irritating some people.

I think it irritated BroJoeK. My thinking is that after the initial few days, few people regularly return to a thread, and so the majority never realizes the topic has been steered in another direction, and therefore most don't care.

For me, I see connections between so many different issues, and when I interject a connection I see into a thread, it's just a variation on the initial topic.

My post in message 12 showed the similarity between what is happening now, and what was happening in the 1860s, and that it was for exactly the same reason. To keep liberals in power.

[wardaddy]

I appreciate your efforts here DL

Don’t know if you hear it enough

Many have come and go like nolu and txgopcap etc but you’ve persevered

I wonder which of these neo abolitionists might be Charles CW Cooke of national review

Id bet my (fill in the blank) that we’ve had a few NRO neocons on these threads over the years

Bnblflag RIP

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever Boothes reason it harmed the south and paved the way for those much less magnanimous than Lincoln seems to me

That's what i've always been told. Of course I had always been told a lot of things about the civil war, and I keep finding out that things I was told were misleading, not illuminating.

But the idea that Lincoln would have been better for the South than those who replaced him seems reasonable to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

I appreciate your efforts here DL

Well thank you. It makes me happy to think that people appreciate my efforts.

Many have come and go like nolu and txgopcap etc but you’ve persevered

I believe Nolu Chan was suspended for posting the Illinois "black codes". I believe I ran across that information some years ago. I am not familiar with txgopcap.

I do know I have found a lot of good information in some of those old threads, especially from Nolu Chan.

I'll have to look for txgopcap.

Id bet my (fill in the blank) that we’ve had a few NRO neocons on these threads over the years

I wouldn't be surprised. I think Trump has people keeping an eye on this website. I doubt he reads it himself, but i'm sure some people in his circle did.

[FLT-bird]

Of course, you realize, don't you, that Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic" party got its name because Jefferson was all in favor of expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners -- which had enfranchised women and freed-blacks -- but all men "free, white and 21". Jefferson's new laws which expanded the vote to all adult men also disenfranchised property owning women and African Americans. And Jefferson was 100% successful in that his Democratic Party dominated US national politics until they declared secession and war on the United States in 1861. My point is that this idea of guaranteed election victories by adding more of your own voters to the rolls is as old as the Republic itself. Jefferson's "Democratics" played that game successfully from 1800 to 1860, then lost it when Republicans were able to fill western states & territories with anti-slavery immigrant farmers, until 1932, when the Great Depression caused many of them to remember their European socialist roots and vote for the closest thing they could find here, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Democrats have always been an alliance of Big City immigrants with globalized Big Business, which back in the Old Days was King Cotton.

You supposedly teach history? No wonder kids are so ignorant about history today.

Thomas Jefferson of course did not found the Democrat Party. That would be Andrew Jackson in 1828. Jefferson had founded the Democratic-Republicans a generation earlier.

The Democrat party was not at the start a party of big cities. It drew substantial support from the countryside throughout the South and had a decent amount of support in the Midwest as well.

[FLT-bird]

The ideology definitely has. The 1860s Republicans were very similar in ideology to modern Democrats, and vice versa.

This is 100% true but some of the ignoramuses here will go ape feces when they read that. The Republicans of that era wanted high taxes, massive corporate welfare, the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and greatly centralized and expanded government power. The Democrats wanted decentralized power (states' rights), less government, balanced budgets and no corporate welfare. The Republicans dominated the Northeast and the Democrats dominated the South. Today the parties have switched ideologically and the regions they dominate has switched.

Notice how the South still wants decentralized power, limited government, balanced budgets, low taxes and does not want the government picking winners and losers....or being in bed with big business....ie Corporatism....ie Fascism. The Northeast still supports that.

[rustbucket]

I perceive you must be quite a bit older than I am. :)

Yep. I knew one of my ancestors who was born in the Civil War. There were still Indian raids in his part of Texas when he was a young boy. He climbed a tree to hide from an Indian (either a Comanche or a Kiowa, I forget which) who was passing through their farm.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "Parties have switched"

DiogenesLamp: "The ideology definitely has.
The 1860s Republicans were very similar in ideology to modern Democrats, and vice versa."

FLT-bird: "This is 100% true but some of the ignoramuses here will go ape feces when they read that.
The Republicans of that era wanted high taxes, massive corporate welfare, the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace, and greatly centralized and expanded government power.
The Democrats wanted decentralized power (states' rights), less government, balanced budgets and no corporate welfare."

All that is total 100% horse cr*p.
The truth is:

1. Democrats in 1860, just as today, demanded strong centralized Federal government to support their priorities -- slave catchers, for example.
   The Democrats' 1850 Compromise made slave-catching a Federal, not states, responsibility.

2. Democrats in 1860, just as today, spent wildly on their own priorities, doubling the national debt under Democrat President Buchanan.

3. Democrats in 1860, just as today, were corrupt to the core.
   That's why the 1860 Republican platform, plank #6, said:
   "6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded."

4. Democrats in 1860, just as today, were foreign and domestic interventionists, willing to start wars anywhere and everywhere.
   They supported:
   • Sending a massive war-fleet, commanded by SC Admiral Shubrick, to conduct gunboat diplomacy against Paraguay (1859).
   • Sending the US Army, led by VA LtCol. RE Lee, to suppress Indians in Texas (1856).
   • Sending the US Army, commanded by KY Gen. Albert S. Johnson, to suppress Mormons in Utah (1858).
   • Sending the US Army, led by VA Capt. George Pickett, to wage war against the British in Washington state, called the Pig War (1859).

   • Sending the US Navy, commanded by RI Commodore Perry, to force trade with Japan (1853).
   • Sending the US Navy to fight pirates and protect Americans in Hong Kong and Shanghai, China (1854)
   • Sending a US Navy landing force to the Fiji Islands to demand reparations for damage to an American's property (1855).
   • Sending the US Navy to protect Americans in Uruguay (1855)
   • Sending a US Navy landing force to protect Americans in Panama (1856)
   • Sending a US Navy landing force to protect and avenge Americans in Canton, China (1856).
   • Sending a US Navy landing force to protect Americans in Uruguay (1858).
   • Sending a US Marine expedition to Fiji to attack & kill Fijians in retaliation for the murder of two Americans there (1858).
   • Sending the US Navy in a show of force against the Ottoman Empire, after the murder of Americans in Jaffa, in the Levant (1859).
   • Sending the US Army to suppress John Brown's revolt at Harper's Ferry, VA (1859)
   • Sending the US Navy back to Shanghai, China, to protect Americans there (1859)
   • Sending the US Army, commanded by VA LtCol RE Lee, to invade Mexico to capture banditti there (1860).
   • Sending the US Navy back to Panama to protect Americans there (1860).

5. Democrats in 1860 turned a blind eye to illegal "filibusters" in Central America and wanted to annex Cuba.

6. Democrats in 1860, just as today, supported globalized Big Business, especially that in service of King Cotton.
   They put their foreign trading partners interests ahead of encouraging American domestic manufacturing.

7. Democrats in 1860, just as today, refused to Make America Great or Put Americans First.

8. Democrats in 1860, just as today, had highly sympathetic Federal courts and so in 1860 wanted to use the Supreme Court to nationalize slavery in the territories and, via Dred Scott type rulings, in non-slave states.

9. Democrats in 1860, just as today, relied on massively corrupt Big City political machines -- i.e., Tammany Hall in NYC -- to manufacture votes from poor immigrants and so overwhelm average Republican middle-class voters in suburbs, small towns and farms.

10. Democrats in 1860, just as today, favored Federal support for massive infrastructure projects, such as the transcontinental railroad.
    So did Republicans, but they differed on the best route.
    Democrat Senator / Secretary of War Jefferson Davis wanted a route which went past his home in Mississippi.

11. Democrats in 1860, just as today, wanted to "transform America" into a virtual slaveocracy and they threatened violence if Republicans didn't submit to them.

12. Republicans in 1860 favored states' and territories' rights to abolish and control slavery within their own borders, and no, Corwin didn't change that.

13. Republicans in 1860 wanted to Make America Great and Put Americans First by using import tariffs to encourage American manufacturing.
    Democrats also wanted high tariffs on their products -- i.e., Cotton, tobacco and sugar -- but not on products more often produced by Northerners, like iron stoves.

14. Republicans in 1860, just as today, promised to clean up the Democrats' corruption in Washington, DC.

15. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' plans to import massive numbers of effectively enslaved workers from third world countries.

16. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' schemes to "transform America", in 1860 by corruptly imposing slavery on US territories like Kansas.

17. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' threats and use of violence to accomplish their political goals.

18. Republicans in 1860, just as today, were the party of patriotic, freedom loving, traditional values, law abiding, small business, middle-income, non-Big City dwelling voters.

Republicans in 1860 opposed secession and civil war, but would accept (and win!) war against Democrats, if that was necessary to preserve the Union.

Democrats' vision of the ideal Americas:

[linMcHlp]

bkmk

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Then there was the election of 1860, where some northern states let non-citizen immigrants vote if they promised to seek citizenship in the future."

Most poor immigrants in 1860, just as today, lived in Big Cities and voted for Democrats.

It had nothing to do with Republicans.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I think the Rockefeller Republicans like the effect it has on the labor market, and I think the Democrats like the effect it has on their hold on power."

There are no "Rockefeller Republicans" now.

They are all Democrats.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Thomas Jefferson of course did not found the Democrat Party.
That would be Andrew Jackson in 1828.
Jefferson had founded the Democratic-Republicans a generation earlier."

They were the same thing, same people, same ideas:

1. In 1788, Thomas Jefferson's faction / party began as anti-Federalists, opposed to ratifying the new Constitution.

2. In 1789, previous anti-Federalists coalesced around Thomas Jefferson to form the new anti-Administration faction / party.

3. In 1792, Jefferson's anti-Administration faction began calling themselves a "party" though originally with no consistent name.
   Jefferson called himself a small-r republican, but his Federalist opponents saw him as:
   "The Federalists called Jefferson’s faction the Democratic-Republican Party in an attempt to identify it with the disorder spawned by the “radical democrats” of the French Revolution of 1789."

   "Although the Federalists soon branded Jefferson’s followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798.
   The Republican coalition supported France in the European war that broke out in 1792, while the Federalists supported Britain (see French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars)."

   "... the opposing Federalist Party, whose members supported a strong federal government, mocked Jefferson’s party as the “Democratic–Republican Party” in reference to the “democratic” radicals of the French Revolution.
   After losing the election of 1796, Jefferson’s party would officially take the name of the Democratic–Republican Party."

4. 1798, Jeffersonians liked that word "Democratic", so they kept it and usually dropped "Republican":
   "Historians use the term "Democratic-Republican" to describe these new organizations, but that name was rarely used at the time.
   They usually called themselves "Democratic," "Republican," "True Republican," "Constitutional," "United Freeman," "Patriotic," "Political," "Franklin," or "Madisonian."[26"

   In fact, those True Republicans or Old Republicans were a distinct group separate from Jeffersonian "Democratics".
   The Old Republicans of Jefferson's time remained strict constructionists of the Constitution and so opposed, for example, to Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase.
   Old Republicans were led by men like Virginia's John Randolf.

   Jeffersonians called themselves "Democratics" and, sometimes, "The Democracy".

5. 1814, when the Federalist Party weakened & collapsed, Democratics ruled as a one-party state for several years, until people who had been Federalists broke away to form the National Republicans in 1824, becoming the Whigs in 1834.

6. 1834, at the same time that Federalists were renamed as Whigs, Jeffersonian Democratics became Jacksonian Democratics.
   It was the same people, same policies, same name, same party.

In summary:

• 1788 anti-Federalists opposed Constitution, later became
• 1791 Jeffersonian anti-Administration faction, opposed Pres. Washington, later became
• 1792 Jeffersonian Democratics, opposed to Hamilton, later became
• 1834 Jacksonian Democratics, aka "The Democracy", opposed to Whigs, then Republicans.

The term "Democratic Republicans" is a name applied today by historians.
It was not generally used at the time by Jeffersonians.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The Democrat party was not at the start a party of big cities.
It drew substantial support from the countryside throughout the South and had a decent amount of support in the Midwest as well."

Federalist influence in big cities was very short-lived:

"Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was an American political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789, as the Tammany Society.
It became the main local political machine of the Democratic Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics, and helped immigrants, most notably the Irish, rise in American politics into the 1960s."

Since 1801, Democrats have elected two mayors in New York City for every one from a different party.

Martin Van Buren, Pres. Jackson's Vice President, is recognized as the first NYC Democrat machine politician who locked in the alliance of Big City Democrats with Southern plantation Democrats, in the early 1820s, though big cities like NYC had regularly voted Democrat since 1801.

In 1844, both presidential candidates were Southerners, the election was very close, and Whigs carried almost as many Southern counties as the winning Democrats.

[FLT-bird]

All that is total 100% horse cr*p. The truth is: Democrats in 1860, just as today, demanded strong centralized Federal government to support their priorities -- slave catchers, for example. The Democrats' 1850 Compromise made slave-catching a Federal, not states, responsibility. Democrats in 1860, just as today, spent wildly on their own priorities, doubling the national debt under Democrat President Buchanan. Democrats in 1860, just as today, were corrupt to the core. That's why the 1860 Republican platform, plank #6, said: "6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded." Democrats in 1860, just as today, were foreign and domestic interventionists, willing to start wars anywhere and everywhere. They supported: Sending a massive war-fleet, commanded by SC Admiral Shubrick, to conduct gunboat diplomacy against Paraguay (1859). Sending the US Army, led by VA LtCol. RE Lee, to suppress Indians in Texas (1856). Sending the US Army, commanded by KY Gen. Albert S. Johnson, to suppress Mormons in Utah (1858). Sending the US Army, led by VA Capt. George Pickett, to wage war against the British in Washington state, called the Pig War (1859). Sending the US Navy, commanded by RI Commodore Perry, to force trade with Japan (1853). Sending the US Navy to fight pirates and protect Americans in Hong Kong and Shanghai, China (1854) Sending a US Navy landing force to the Fiji Islands to demand reparations for damage to an American's property (1855). Sending the US Navy to protect Americans in Uruguay (1855) Sending a US Navy landing force to protect Americans in Panama (1856) Sending a US Navy landing force to protect and avenge Americans in Canton, China (1856). Sending a US Navy landing force to protect Americans in Uruguay (1858). Sending a US Marine expedition to Fiji to attack & kill Fijians in retaliation for the murder of two Americans there (1858). Sending the US Navy in a show of force against the Ottoman Empire, after the murder of Americans in Jaffa, in the Levant (1859). Sending the US Army to suppress John Brown's revolt at Harper's Ferry, VA (1859) Sending the US Navy back to Shanghai, China, to protect Americans there (1859) Sending the US Army, commanded by VA LtCol RE Lee, to invade Mexico to capture banditti there (1860). Sending the US Navy back to Panama to protect Americans there (1860). Democrats in 1860 turned a blind eye to illegal "filibusters" in Central America and wanted to annex Cuba. Democrats in 1860, just as today, supported globalized Big Business, especially that in service of King Cotton. They put their foreign trading partners interests ahead of encouraging American domestic manufacturing. Democrats in 1860, just as today, refused to Make America Great or Put Americans First. Democrats in 1860, just as today, had highly sympathetic Federal courts and so in 1860 wanted to use the Supreme Court to nationalize slavery in the territories and, via Dred Scott type rulings, in non-slave states. Democrats in 1860, just as today, relied on massively corrupt Big City political machines -- i.e., Tammany Hall in NYC -- to manufacture votes from poor immigrants and so overwhelm average Republican middle-class voters in suburbs, small towns and farms. Democrats in 1860, just as today, favored Federal support for massive infrastructure projects, such as the transcontinental railroad. So did Republicans, but they differed on the best route. Democrat Senator / Secretary of War Jefferson Davis wanted a route which went past his home in Mississippi. Democrats in 1860, just as today, wanted to "transform America" into a virtual slaveocracy and they threatened violence if Republicans didn't submit to them. Republicans in 1860 favored states' and territories' rights to abolish and control slavery within their own borders, and no, Corwin didn't change that. Republicans in 1860 wanted to Make America Great and Put Americans First by using import tariffs to encourage American manufacturing. Democrats also wanted high tariffs on their products -- i.e., Cotton, tobacco and sugar -- but not on products more often produced by Northerners, like iron stoves. Republicans in 1860, just as today, promised to clean up the Democrats' corruption in Washington, DC. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' plans to import massive numbers of effectively enslaved workers from third world countries. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' schemes to "transform America", in 1860 by corruptly imposing slavery on US territories like Kansas. Republicans in 1860, just as today, opposed Democrats' threats and use of violence to accomplish their political goals. Republicans in 1860, just as today, were the party of patriotic, freedom loving, traditional values, law abiding, small business, middle-income, non-Big City dwelling voters. Republicans in 1860 opposed secession and civil war, but would accept (and win!) war against Democrats, if that was necessary to preserve the Union. Democrats' vision of the ideal Americas:

More of the usual antihistorical BS from you I see.

The truth is both sides were hypocritical at times regarding states' rights or centralized power when they perceived one or the other to be in their interests. In general however, the South and the Democrat Party favored states' rights, balanced budgets, limited government and low taxes/tariffs. The North/Republicans favored more centralized power, massive corporate welfare, high tariffs, and the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

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.

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 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. 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.

[FLT-bird]

They were the same thing, same people, same ideas:

They were not

It was the same people, same policies, same name, same party.

No, it wasn't. Parties and politics in the early Republic had been topsy turvy. Parties had not solidified as they later did and were known by various names. Factions within parties shifted more frequently. By 1828, the political issues were quite different to those of 30 years earlier and of course the coalitions had shifted about. The Democrat Party of 1828 was not the same as the Democratic Republicans of 1798.

In summary: The term "Democratic Republicans" is a name applied today by historians.

Yes I'm well aware of that but it is a good general catch all term historians have used to describe Jefferson's party.

[FLT-bird]

Federalist influence in big cities was very short-lived: "Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was an American political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789, as the Tammany Society. It became the main local political machine of the Democratic Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics, and helped immigrants, most notably the Irish, rise in American politics into the 1960s." Since 1801, Democrats have elected two mayors in New York City for every one from a different party. Martin Van Buren, Pres. Jackson's Vice President, is recognized as the first NYC Democrat machine politician who locked in the alliance of Big City Democrats with Southern plantation Democrats, in the early 1820s, though big cities like NYC had regularly voted Democrat since 1801. In 1844, both presidential candidates were Southerners, the election was very close, and Whigs carried almost as many Southern counties as the winning Democrats.

Yes, I know about Tammany Hall and later the Tweed Ring. You said though that the Democrats were the party of Big Cities. That's not true. They dominated the countryside too in the Southern States and in the West.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "The truth is both sides were hypocritical at times regarding states' rights or centralized power when they perceived one or the other to be in their interests. "

Fair enough, but not exactly correct.

FLT-bird: "In general however, the South and the Democrat Party favored states' rights, balanced budgets, limited government and low taxes/tariffs.
The North/Republicans favored more centralized power, massive corporate welfare, high tariffs, and the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace."

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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?
   

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.