How the Democratic Party Really Got Its Name-Exclusive excerpt from Daniel Greenfield's acclaimed new book, 'Domestic Enemies'

To: Navy Patriot; All

How much do they pay you in your Moscow-based troll farm?
Trying to sow division among allies as you do is and old KGB trick. It won’t work anymore.

21 posted on 05/24/2024 11:39:35 AM PDT by USA-FRANCE

Frontpage says Lying, Anti American Frogs threw in with Lying Racist Democrats in attempts to destroy the United States.

It Fits, Froggy!

22 posted on 05/24/2024 11:49:36 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Celebrate Decivilization)

I fear you don't know your history. The various societies/clubs/committees, there were many, were pretty much gone by the turn of the 19th century, long before there was a Democrat party. I've sometimes made comparisons between modern, not 19th century, Democrats and the revolutionaries in France, particularly tactics. But the idea that the Democrat Party, defender of slavery, is was an extension of the ideals of the French Revolution, rabid abolitionists banning slavery the same year as the Whiskey Rebellion, is absurd. There are similarities between the two nihilist movements today, not in the early 19th century.

Calling me a weasel doesn't make much of a point.

23 posted on 05/24/2024 12:03:15 PM PDT by SJackson (There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them Churchill)

Democrat Party, defender of slavery, is was an extension of the ideals of the French Revolution, rabid abolitionists banning slavery the same year as the Whiskey Rebellion, is absurd

says you

i believe the author over you

sorry not sorry

and i still think you are a weasel
/-)

24 posted on 05/24/2024 12:06:59 PM PDT by cuz1961

You're obviously highly intelligent. Literate too.

Fun talking to you. Don't waste my time.

25 posted on 05/24/2024 12:22:55 PM PDT by SJackson (There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, and that is fighting without them Churchill)

passive aggressive , how progressive of you. pffft. honor roll all through school

enlisted uscgr at 17

after the commie owl put all silviculturists out of work i went to college

i quit being “ literate” in college after my 4.0.was reduced by an english piled high and deep english teacher over an english paper defending clarence thomas from anitta hill. not from grammar or punctuation but cuz she didnt like conservatives like clarence and i.

since then i call upon my inner red neck and fart in you and all your condescending pukes general direction.

glad you choke on it. . /-)

26 posted on 05/24/2024 1:23:04 PM PDT by cuz1961

To: x; SJackson; BroJoeK

Unfortunately, it isn’t true.

The Declaration of Independence states in grievance #10:

“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance”

Oh, well see there you have it. King George III was a progressive!

...

No. Just no. Can we please stop the insanity? This fudging of history is bad enough when progressives do it, it’s terrible when anybody against progressives (from our side), Daniel Greenfield or anybody else, does the same.

Progressivism starts in the 20th century. The machinery that was setup by Wilson, setup by the Roosevelts, setup by LBJ, and many others. None of it existed in the 1870s. None of it existed in the 1880s, and even into most of the 1890s.

We have a full two decades minimum there that couldn’t be more clear.

We do not need a “living and breathing” history. If that’s the case, then there is no George Washington.

27 posted on 05/24/2024 9:13:06 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (The historians must be stopped. They're destroying everything.)

To: SJackson; x; ProgressingAmerica; USA-FRANCE; cowboyusa; DiogenesLamp; jmacusa; laplata; ...

SJackson: "In fairness, they were referred to as Democratic-Republican societies, not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of the same name.
The Whig Party emerging from the “Republican” side.
The Democrat Party emerged from the left over stub of the Democratic-Republican Party under Jackson."

This is one of my favorite subjects and the author here -- Daniel Greenfield -- is singing my song!
Yes, the roots of the Democrat Party go all the way back to almost Day One of our 1787 Constitutional republic.
That's because:

Jeffersonian Democrats were, first and foremost, anti-Federalists, named as such by those "Federalists" who supported ratification of their new Constitution in 1788.
Of course, to a man, 1788 anti-Federalists were not French style social revolutionaries, but Jefferson himself was:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure...
...god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion...
what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith on November 13, 1787 -- in reference to the 1786-7 Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts
Unlike Founders Washington, Adams, Hamilton and Madison -- who responded to Shay's Rebellion in 1786 with a new Constitution to replace the ineffective Old Articles of Confederation -- Jefferson thought the French Revolution was a good idea and did not endorse the proposed new US Constitution in 1788.
After ratification in 1788 and Washington's election as President, Jefferson created the Anti-Administration Faction (1790), which, when joined by James Madison and others became Jeffersonian republicans (1792).
"Republican" was Jefferson's term for himself, but Federalists like Washington & Hamilton noticed Jefferson's fondness for the French Revolution's "democrats" and so Federalists labeled Jefferson's party "Democratic Republicans", the "Democratic" referring to the French Revolution.
Jeffersonians had no problem with the term "Democratic Republicans" and rather quickly dropped the "republican" part -- just calling themselves the "Democratic Party".

cowboyusa #14: "The Democratic- Republicans, and the Democrats were the small government working class party.
The Federalists and Whigs were the big government party."

SJackson #23: "But the idea that the Democrat Party, defender of slavery, is was an extension of the ideals of the French Revolution, rabid abolitionists banning slavery the same year as the Whiskey Rebellion, is absurd.
There are similarities between the two nihilist movements today, not in the early 19th century."

Not to belabor the obvious, but Thomas Jefferson was a... ah... "complicated" man, arguably the greatest genius to ever occupy the office of President.
He could and did hold to seemingly contradictory views, on slavery, for example.

However, in all fairness, what Jefferson's defenders might call "complicated", less sympathetic observers might just as accurately call "lying out of both sides of his mouth".

I am much more sympathetic, however we can still notice that:

Pres. Jefferson's Gallitin Plan for Internal Improvements:

While Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans claimed to be small government and strict-construction when they were out of power, after winning control of Federal government in the 1800 election, they soon enough did everything they'd accused the Old Federalists of wanting, and much more.
Democrats double-standard began with Jefferson.
In that they were identical to today's Democrats who insist that Republicans follow constitutional law to the letter, but just define whatever Democrats themselves want to do as "constitutional".
Yes, Jefferson's Democratics were a "working class party", who championed extending voting privileges to every man who was "free, white and 21".
As such, Jefferson's alliance with Big City immigrant bosses (i.e., NYC's Tammany Hall) is how he defeated John Adams in the 1800 election -- and how Democrats kept their majorities until 1861, and since 1932, to today.
However, "free, white and 21" now excluded many who could previously vote, notably property owners who were women or freed-blacks.
How "democratic" was that?
Finally, in all of American history there were no more aristocratic presidents than Democratic Republicans -- Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and John Quincy Adams.

Yes, Democratic Andrew Jackson is a much different story, but still, as our French friends and allies like to say:

“plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”

28 posted on 05/26/2024 12:23:22 AM PDT by BroJoeK (future DDG 134 -- we remember)

The Colonel’s Wife and I watched “free state of Jones ““last night. Boy does it accurately skewer the Democratic Party during an after the Civil War.

29 posted on 05/26/2024 9:39:24 AM PDT by jagusafr ( )

Thanks Joe, Nicely Done.

Agree Jefferson was a good guy genius and intellectual that understood and observed contrary ideas and theories in the bigger picture for America.

30 posted on 05/26/2024 10:05:14 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Celebrate Decivilization)

You on the wrong forum, lad?

31 posted on 05/27/2024 7:17:15 AM PDT by metesky ("Leave us go amongst them." - Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton- Ward Bond, The Searchers)

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; BraveMan; cardinal4; ...

32 posted on 05/27/2024 5:24:43 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Putin should skip ahead to where he kills himself in the bunker.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794