WHERE IS OUR MODERN JACKSON?

______________________________________________________________
I’m teaching a new course (for me) on The Presidency. I’d rather be offering a new course on The Politics of Drugs and/or The Politics of Oil, but times are tough in the CSU system. Last week we started discussing President Andrew Jackson. Below I provide more information for my students. I start with a brief introduction on the party system that Jackson helped shape. The rest is drawn and edited from the Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. prize-winning classic, The Age of Jackson.
_______________________________________________________

Led by Thomas Jefferson, the emerging Anti-Federalist party (soon to be Democratic-Republicans and, later, simply “Democrats”) originally drew their support from small farmers who didn’t want the federal government intervening in their affairs. This helps explain why the south, filled with slave-holders, embraced states’ rights and the idea that commerce - whether it was guided by slavery or not - was the special province of the trader.

Later, southerner and war hero, Andrew Jackson would unite southern farmers and urban workers under a party that was energized by new laws that extended the franchise to all white males (and not just property owners). This was a group primed to be organized, and ready for a populist message. Machine politics and city patronage would emerge, and would grow significantly as immigrants streamed into east coast cities. And General Andrew Jackson would be at the forefront of this American revolution.

With his personal style and military history attracting humble newcomers, westerners and advocates for the “New Frontier” (Manifest Destiny, and all that) gravitated to Jackson, which allowed him to pull together a number of disparate interests into a strong Democratic party.

On the Federalist side things weren’t going so well. In fact, Andrew Jackson had grown so popular that opposition to Jackson was the real driving force behind the Whig party. In fact, the Whig party derives its name from the derisive references to Andrew Jackson as “King Andrew I” by his opponents (the Whig party represented the constitutional monarchists in England), who abhorred his aggressive approach to governing.

But what really got his opponents upset was how Jackson used his populist appeal to defeat his arrogant, and very well financed, political opponents over “the bank” issue.

THE BANK ISSUE
It was 1830 and President Andrew Jackson was being pushed on whether he would support the Second Bank of the United States when its charter came up in 1836.

Opposed to the bank because he believed it worked against the interests of the “humble members” of society – Jackson was particularly disturbed by the conditions of the Second Banks charter. Specifically:

* While the bank was a repository of public funds - courtesy of the U.S. government – it could draw on the funds to use at its discretion without paying interest.

* As a private corporation doing the nation’s banking business, the bank was exempt from paying taxes to the states.

* The bank had a virtual monopoly on its services to the U.S. government, and couldn’t be challenged by other banking institutions.

* The bank could create currency, and did so through the clever use of branch drafts, which gave it tremendous power over the ebb and flow of economic activity in the nation.

But what really cut at Jackson’s nerve was the conduct and attitude of the second Bank’s President, Nicholas Biddle.

Made president of the bank at the age of 37 Biddle rarely consulted with the banks Board of Directors, governed largely by fiat, and ignored requests for information from federal authorities, all of which compelled one government (and President-appointed) board member to quip:

“We know absolutely nothing. There is no consultation, no exchanges of sentiments … We are perfect cyphers.”

Worse, Biddle went on record saying that the government and, specifically, the President of the United States had no business interfering in the affairs of his bank. He wrote flatly:

“… no officer of the Government, from the President downwards, has the least right, the least authority, the least pretence, for interference in the concerns of the bank.”

But Biddle really drove home his point by pointing out that the officers of the bank should be prepared to “execute the orders of the board, in direct opposition, if need be, to the personal interests and wishes of the President and every officer of the Government.” The Second Bank, after all, was a private institution that had to answer to its share holders.

Biddle’s cause gained the support of Congress, in part because of the powerful political players working for him – especially Kentucky’s powerful representative Henry Clay (pictured) and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster. Webster's support was assured, in part, because of the money he secured from the bank on a regular basis. He once wrote to a contemporary: “If it be wished that my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send the usual retainers."

Biddle’s hand was also strengthened by the fact that he had 2/3 of the nation’s newspapers on his side (due, in part, to the amount of ads placed by the bank and its clients).

When Henry Clay became his party’s presidential nominee in 1832 - with John Sawyer, a lawyer for the Second Bank, as his running mate – the stage was set for confrontation. Nicholas Biddle was ready to force the recharter issue, and show everyone who really ran the country.

Looking at the political horizon, President Jackson replied to his Secretary of State (and future president), Martin Van Buren, “The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”

JACKSON’S BATTLE: “Either the state is sovereign …”
President Jackson’s passion on the bank issue, however, was not driven solely by political self-preservation. He firmly believed that the moneyed elite should have no special claim over government privileges and benefits. They were already blessed. Similarly he was of the opinion that the state existed to serve the humble members of society:

“It is to be regretted, that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinction in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, or education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions … [still] every man is equally entitled to protection by law …”

It’s at this point that Andrew Jackson’s position rises to a level that separated him from his contemporaries, and from almost all of those who would succeed him in the White House. Touching on the moral sentiments that Adam Smith embraced when he wrote about the “laws of justice” in The Wealth of Nations (1776), Jackson added:

“… but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages … to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society - the farmers, mechanics, and laborers - who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.”

For President Jackson the battle lines were real. While people like Daniel Webster believed that those with money and property should control the state, Jackson argued that the state existed to prevent the rich from abusing the people, and their position. As labor leader Theophilus Fisk put it at the time, “Either the state is sovereign or the banks are” (124).

“I WILL FIX THEIR HEADS ON THE IRON PALISADES …” (109)
At the end of the day Jackson vetoed the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States, and against all odds went on to win a second term as president. His opponents had failed to understand the depth of Jackson’s popularity, and how he had struck a chord with America’s newly enfranchised electorate (all white males, and not just property owners could vote).

Jackson’s decision was viewed as such a stunning rebuke of America’s moneyed elite that the Boston Globe would equate his actions to Jesus expelling the money changers from the temple.

Still, there were three years left on the banks charter. And Nicholas Biddle was in no mood to go quietly. He promptly withheld credit, made money more expensive, and started calling in loans – all in the name of “winding down business.” But his real goal, as time would show, was to induce a panic and force Congress and the President into saying “I guess we really need you – here’s your charter back” (a lesson for modern presidents).

But Jackson wouldn’t budge.

Soon, a mob threatened to camp on Capitol Hill, to protest removing the U.S. government’s deposits from Biddle’s bank. Again, Jackson was unmoved. When a group of “quaking” Congressmen arrived to ask what should be done about the mob, the old General reassured them:

“Gentlemen, I shall be glad to see this federal mob on Capitol Hill. I will fix their heads on the iron palisades around the square to assist forever all attempts to control the legislation of the Congress by intimidation and design.”

No doubt recalling Jackson’s record against the British, his almost superhuman brushes with death (he fought in 13 duels), and how he had just beaten the odds against America’s most powerful moneyed elite, the mob disappeared over time.

My question to our politicians today is: Where is our modern Jackson?

- Mark

Addendum: Click here for my President's Day post on Andrew Jackson.

A JACKSONIAN LESSON ON PRESIDENT'S DAY

_______________________________________________________
In my American Politics class I'm going to discuss the relationship between Wall Street and Washington once we hit the section on Economic Policy. This piece, which I originally posted in longer form when President Obama was "president-elect" Obama, will fit right in with our discussion on economic policy making.
_______________________________________________________

Should President Obama pursue an Andrew Jackson-like showdown with America’s principle money and credit institutions? I think so. Here's why ...

Andrew Jackson's Battle for Democracy
Arthur M. Schlesinger, author of The Age of Jackson, points out that when Andrew Jackson entered the White House (1829-1837) he was appalled by the amount of power that the premier money creating institution in the land, the Bank of the United States, had accumulated. Run by Nicholas Biddle, the Bank of the United States pursued policies that reflected his view, and ran counter to the larger interests of the nation.

Specifically, the (Second) Bank of the United States operated its affairs as if it did not have an obligation to either the U.S. government or its citizens. The Bank’s obligations, according to Biddle, lied with its shareholders.

As a result, the Bank of the United States used its authority to create money (or “issue notes”) to speculate, to challenge the authority of the U.S. government, and to help investors and the “moneyed aristocracy” systematically exploit the “humble members of society.”

With this, the Bank’s power was at once economic, political, and social. This, in part, explains why Andrew Jackson decided to close the Bank of the United States.

Naturally, Nicholas Biddle was upset with Jackson for going after his bank. So he induced an economic panic by deliberately withholding credit (sound familiar?) between 1833 and 1834. Biddle claimed his policies had nothing to do with politics. But history (and common sense) suggests otherwise.

By holding the nation's economy hostage Biddle's actions also proved that Jackson was correct about the banks power, and its capacity to abuse its power.

Financial Institutions, Then and Now
This is important for us to understand today because America's financial institutions are sitting on money and profits provided to them by the U.S. taxpayer, and are holding back on credit precisely when it is needed most. Because we have done little to curtail or regulate their power we are allowing them to act like Biddle’s bank.

In fact, by providing a continuous flow of bailout money with no strings attached, we have created a hydra-headed financial monster that President Obama should fear as much as President Andrew Jackson did during his time: an institution that could both lend and create money at will, while drawing on the resources of the state to make itself bigger and stronger.

Today, financial institutions are drawing on state resources while maintaining previous authorities and protections. In the process, they are leaving the American consumer (and taxpayer) out in the cold. Nicholas Biddle would have been proud.

Worse, our nation's financial institutions – in Nicholas Biddle-like fashion – are now telling the world that they don’t have to maintain credit lines in spite of the fact that the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer are the genesis of their life support system. After wrecking the economy, and securing taxpayer backed bailout funds, they must protect their shareholders first.

I say if we are going to hand over trillions of dollars to save the financial system they should be forced to help the government fix the mess they helped create. While I don’t see President Obama recreating the financial system like Jackson did when he closed the Bank of the United States, I still think he should pursue a Jackson-like confrontation.

He should begin by forcing the financial institutions who benefit from the U.S. taxpayer bailout to renegotiate mortgage loan contracts, and/or reduce credit card interest rates.

Just a thought, for President's Day.

- Mark

Addendum: This list of ridiculous things our presidents have done is a light read for President's Day.

Addendum II: For addtional information on Andrew Jackson, which I put together for my Presidency course, click here.

POLITICAL PARTIES IN AMERICA

My Introduction to American Politics class is having a mid-term tomorrow night. I told them that I would post a brief overview of my lecture on political parties here on my blog. What I present below is also from an earlier, more contentious, post.

************************************************************

************************************************************

The history of the two major political parties in America is not well known and often misunderstood. Up front we need to understand that political parties are nothing more than a coalition of interests. On their own these interests are often categorized simply as interest groups (among other names). As interests and groups change so do coalitions and alliances. This is an all too brief history of political parties in America.

************************************************************

IN THE BEGINNING … POST REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
A brief introduction to the history of the republican and democratic parties requires that we understand two basic points about each party. First, what we see as the Democratic Party was founded largely by anti-federalist, state’s rights supporters, and led initially by Thomas Jefferson. Since most of America was dominated by small farmers it should come as no surprise that the Anti-Federalists were early supporters of small farmers, local political issues, and states’ rights. This was the forerunner of the Democratic-Republican Party, which would become simply the Democratic Party.

The modern Republican Party, on the other hand, is a product of industrial Northern interests who were partial to the Federalists. This group was originally led by Alexander Hamilton. They focused on the need for a strong federal government to help deal with emerging industrial and growing business interests (like the value of money, tariffs, etc.).

In the first phase of party growth you generally had the Jeffersonians (anti-Federalist, small farmer supporters) and the Hamiltonians (Federalists, business supporters). Because the South was dominated by slave trading farmers, and the north was the home of emerging industrialists, we begin to see the basic contours of our current Democratic-Republican-party split: Democrats supporting local interests and small players, Republicans supporting money and business interests.

EARLY HISTORY … PARTY CONSOLIDATION
Led by Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists (soon to be Democratic-Republicans and, later, simply “Democrats”) focused on small farmers who did not want the federal government intervening in their affairs or undermining their sovereignty. This helps us understand why the south, filled with slave-holders, would embrace states rights and gravitate to “Jefferson’s Party.” Later, southerner and war hero Andrew Jackson united southern farmers and urban workers under a party that focused on a populist message, emerging machine politics, and city patronage (which grew significantly as immigrants streamed into the east coast’s cities). His personal style attracted newcomers, while westerners and the “New Frontier” advocates (Manifest Destiny, and all that) gravitated to Jackson, which allowed the party to consolidate a number of disparate interests into a strong Democratic party.

On the Federalists side things weren’t going as well. In fact, Jackson was so popular that opposition to Jackson was the real driving force behind the emergence of the Whig Party (the immediate predecessor to the Republican Party). The Whig Party broke down and reemerged as the Republican Party, putting together enough supporters from industrialists, Whig hold-overs, and Northern Democrats opposed to slavery. This coalition – and not simply the Republican party – got Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860.

And here lies a key point. First, Lincoln’s majority was really a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs, emerging business interests, and anti-slavery Democrats. Second, it was at this point that the Democratic Party began to split along two lines. Those who supported slavery (the south) and those who opposed it (the north), choosing instead to focus on machine politics, patronage, populist policies, the working class, etc.

POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD
The Republican Party begins its history after the Civil War as a supporter of the business class (the northern industrial elites) and, when it suited them, opposition to emerging Jim Crow laws in the Democratic, slave-holding south. I say this because people often forget – or never learn – it was the Republican Party that agreed in 1876 to sign away the protective Reconstruction Troops placed throughout the south in the post-Civil War era. They did this so that they could get southern Democrats to concede the contested 1876 presidential election and get the incompetent Rutherford B. Hayes in office.

With the removal of federal troops from the post-civil war south the region was free to create its own social system. Jim Crow was on his way, as the Black Codes became a part of the southern law and culture (e.g. it was illegal for black men to be unemployed in some states, black men could not look at white women, etc.). It was at this time that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1870s (yes, there was a Civil Rights revolution then) was either ignored or broken down by the push for state’s rights in the south. Once established, Jim Crow pushed to every part of the country, and the southern caste system was generally accepted by the early 1900s (Democrat Woodrow Wilson was especially no help).

Southern Democrats continued to remain an integral part of the larger Democratic Party not because the party embraced their view on race (as did the Republicans), but because the party sided with southern farmers on the issue of tariffs and prices. Tariffs were key because northern industrialists needed them to keep out competition, which Republicans supported. But tariffs also hurt southern interests as importers of southern farm goods also kept tariffs artificially high, thus blocking out or reducing the profits of farmers.

It is at this time that the Republican Party becomes entrenched as the party of Big Business. Placing high tariffs on imports, the United States had the highest overall tariffs in the industrial world from the mid-1800s through World War I. At the same time, Republicans create a larger economic and political environment that was so industry friendly that regulations and codes were willfully ignored, while labor rights were ignored or put up for sale.

FDR AND THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Corruption became rampant throughout the political system, as state legislatures were regularly bought and sold (some of the stories of former California Governor Leland Stanford are quite interesting). This is one of the reasons a populist backlash emerged, which allowed progressives like Hiram Johnson in California, and Teddy Roosevelt nationally, to become popular, at least for a time (corruption was so rampant it was at this time that California got its referendum, recall, and initiative process). This Progressive Era subsided, but returned with a vengeance after the market collapse of 1929. It is at this time coalitions within parties begin to switch, or become uncomfortable where they are.

But before this happens a political tidal wave ushered in an anti-business environment, which led to the regulatory capitalism of the post-war era. Republican industrialists retrenched, while FDR wove together a coalition of organized labor, southern farmers, Big City machines (who weren’t wiped out by the progressive movement in the early 1900s), and northern liberals. By the 1960s, however, southern farmers were not happy with the emerging civil rights legislation and other “liberal” ideas associated with “northern elites.” Simply put, they threatened the cultural status quo of the south.

NIXON, REAGAN, AND THE MODERN G.O.P.
After Barry Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 presidential elections Richard Nixon, coming off his own defeat in 1960 (where, yes, JFK won with corrupt political bosses), he saw a political opening in the south. Disgruntled southerners opposed federal legislation, and argued for state’s rights, because they were opposed to emerging civil rights legislation (and other liberal ideas like women’s rights, labor rights, etc.) that would undo almost a century of Jim Crow.

Embarking on what would become known as his “southern strategy” Nixon deliberately played to the cultural fears of the south; e.g.. the "dangers" brought by civil rights and liberal thinkers which threatened to undermine a culture and a lifestyle. This attracted southern democrats to the Republican Party which, by this time, was also known as the Grand Old Party, or G.O.P. Southern Democrats who supported the Republican Party at this time became known as “dixiecrats,” were pandered to by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and eventually became – along with big business and, later, the religious right (another story for another day) – the base of the modern Republican Party.

- Mark

TIME FOR A JACKSONIAN CONFRONTATION?

Could we be on the verge of another Andrew Jackson-like showdown with America’s principal money and credit institutions? I hope so. Stay with me here while I set this up . . .

UNSCRUPULOUS & HYPOCRITICAL INSTITUTIONS
With America’s financial institutions continuing to sit on trillions of dollars in bailout money, the credit card industry is now saying they’re looking to cut $2 trillion in credit lines. It may be happening already. This is both mind-numbing and a slap in the face to the American taxpayer.

The financial industry’s threat is a big problem, for two reasons.

First, the financial institutions that are threatening to cut credit lines are the same institutions that the federal government is bailing out – with taxpayer dollars.

Think about it. At the same time the federal government is throwing a life raft to a greedy and inept set of financial institutions – with the goal of injecting money into the system – we have Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan-Chase threatening to act like Titanic lifeboat survivors (who wouldn’t row back to save others in the water) by closing accounts, cutting credit lines, and raising interest rates (and, no, just because the credit card companies are “subsidiaries” does not make them independent firms in this mess).

Second, credit cards are the second key source of money for American consumers, right behind jobs. Millions of Americans are up-side down on their home loans (they owe more than they're worth), and millions more will soon be unemployed.

In this environment not having access to credit will only make things worse. How bad, you ask? As Meredith Whitney, credit analyst for Oppenheimer & Co, noted, "… we expect available consumer liquidity in the form of credit-card lines to decline by 45 percent." This is akin to throwing those in the water an anchor.

The industry’s rationale is simple - and self-serving. They want protection from themselves (they don’t trust each other) and they want protection from an unemployment rate that’s expected to hit 9% (they fear future bankruptcies).

OK, now back to the Andrew Jackson-U.S. Bank showdown …

ANDREW JACKSON'S BATTLE FOR DEMOCRACY
Arthur M. Schlesinger, author of The Age of Jackson, points out that when Andrew Jackson entered the White House (1829-1837) he was appalled by the amount of power that the premier money creating institution in the land, the Bank of the United States, had accumulated. Run by Nicholas Biddle, the Bank of the United States pursued policies that reflected his views. Specifically, the Bank of the United States operated its affairs as if it did NOT have an obligation to either the U.S. government or its citizens. The Bank’s obligations, according to Biddle, lied with its shareholders.

As a result, the Bank of the United States used its authority to create money (or “issue notes”) to speculate, to challenge the authority of the U.S. government, and to help investors and the “moneyed aristocracy” systematically exploit the “humble members of society.”

With this, the Bank’s power was at once economic, political, and social. This, in part, explains why Andrew Jackson decided to close the Bank of the United States.

Naturally, Nicholas Biddle was upset with Jackson for going after his bank. So he induced an economic panic by deliberately withholding credit between 1833 and 1834. Biddle claimed his policies had nothing to do with politics, but history (and common sense) prove otherwise. By holding the nation's economy hostage Biddle's actions also proved that Jackson was correct about the banks power, and its capacity to abuse its power.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, THEN AND NOW
This is important for us today because financial institutions are sitting on money provided to them by the U.S. taxpayer, and are now threatening to pull back on credit precisely when it is needed most. Because we have done little to curtail or regulate their power we are allowing them to act like Biddle’s bank. In fact, by providing bailout money with no strings attached, we have created a hydra-headed financial monster that President Andrew Jackson feared most of all: an institution that could both lend and create money at will, while drawing on the resources of the state to make itself bigger and stronger.

Today, financial institutions are drawing on state resources while maintaining previous authorities and protections. In the process, they are leaving the American consumer (and taxpayer) out in the cold. Nicholas Biddle would have been proud.

Worse, the credit card industry – in Nicholas Biddle-like fashion – is now telling the world that they don’t have to maintain credit lines in spite of the fact that the U.S. government and the U.S. taxpayer are the genesis of their life support system. They must protect their shareholders first.

I say if we are going to hand over trillions of dollars to save the financial system they should be forced to help the government fix the mess they helped create. While I don’t see president-elect Obama recreating the financial system like Jackson did when he closed the Bank of the United States, he should at least pursue a Jackson-like confrontation. He should begin by forcing the financial institutions who benefit from the U.S. taxpayer bailout to renegotiate mortgage loan contracts, and/or reduce credit card interest rates.

I’ll have more to say about both of these proposals in future posts.

- Mark

A (kind of) SHORT HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, AND RACE IN AMERICA

*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************
So I was watching FOX News a few days back (I know, I know …) and the host was interviewing an individual that had written a book explaining the role of the Democratic Party in keeping slavery and Jim Crow alive in the south. Implied in the FOX News interview was that (surprise, surprise) today's Democratic Party is to blame for much of the ugliness that resulted from slavery.

The segment, no doubt, is part of a larger effort to confuse voters on the issue of race during the presidential campaign. It's all tied to Obama, so we'll see more of this nonsense. The tone of the interview also reminded me of a post I read and responded to a few years back on our campus Political Forum. I’ve made a few minor adjustments to what I posted back then, but the story below is the same.

For those of you who don’t have the time to read the post, the MORAL OF THE STORY is this: Elements of the Democratic Party that FOX News drags through the mud were never fully embraced by Progressive Northern Democrats (i.e. its Liberal Wing), eventually abandoned the party and, perhaps more importantly, are now the base of today's Republican Party.

If you want specifics, and the facts, here’s my post from a few years back with minor modifications.

****************************************************************************
Dear ____________.

Your information on race and political parties is largely uniformed and misleading. Because it lacks context (on the larger history of political parties) what you present is the type of information that reflects incomplete thinking and leads to ignorant statements. I won’t address each specific point in your post (primarily because it would suggest the context is sound) but you should consider the following when you post or discuss political parties, race, and political interests in America.

First we need to understand that political parties are nothing more than a coalition of interests. As interests change so do coalitions and alliances. But first a brief history on parties in America.

IN THE BEGINNING … POST REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD
A brief introduction to the history of the republican and democratic parties requires that we understand two basic points about each party. First, what we see as the Democratic Party was founded largely by anti-federalist, state’s rights supporters, and led initially by Thomas Jefferson. Since most of America was dominated by small farmers it should come as no surprise that the Anti-Federalists were early supporters of small farmers, local political issues, and states’ rights. This was the forerunner of the Democratic-Republican Party, which would become simply the Democratic Party.

The modern Republican Party, on the other hand, is a product of up can coming industrial Northern interests who were partial to the Federalists. This group was originally led by Alexander Hamilton. They focused on the need for a strong federal government to help deal with emerging industrial and growing business interests (like the value of money, tariffs, etc.).

In the first phase of party growth you generally had the Jeffersonians (anti-Federalist, small farmer supporters) and the Hamiltonians (Federalists, business supporters). Because the South was dominated by slave trading farmers, and the north was the home of emerging industrialists, we begin to see the basic contours of our current Democratic-Republican-party split: Democrats supporting local interests and small players, Republicans supporting money and business interests.

EARLY HISTORY … PARTY CONSOLIDATION
Led by Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists (soon to be Democratic-Republicans and, later, simply “Democrats”) focused on small farmers who did not want the federal government intervening in their affairs or undermining their sovereignty. This helps us understand why the south, filled with slave-holders, would embrace states rights and gravitate to “Jefferson’s Party.” Later, southerner and war hero Andrew Jackson united southern farmers and urban workers under a party that focused on a populist message, emerging machine politics, and city patronage (which grew significantly as immigrants streamed into the east coast’s cities). His personal style attracted newcomers, while westerners and the “New Frontier” advocates (Manifest Destiny, and all that) gravitated to Jackson, which allowed the party to consolidate a number of disparate interests into a strong Democratic party.

On the Federalists side things weren’t going as well. In fact, Jackson was so popular that opposition to Jackson was the real driving force behind the emergence of the Whig Party (the immediate predecessor to the Republican Party). The Whig Party broke down and reemerged as the Republican Party, putting together enough supporters from industrialists, Whig hold-overs, and Northern Democrats opposed to slavery. This coalition – and not simply the Republican party – got Abraham Lincoln elected in 1860.

And here lies a key point. First, Lincoln’s majority was really a coalition of anti-slavery Whigs, emerging business interests, and anti-slavery Democrats. Second, it was at this point that the Democratic Party began to split along two lines. Those who supported slavery (the south) and those who opposed it (the north), choosing instead to focus on machine politics, patronage, populist policies, the working class, etc.

POST-CIVIL WAR PERIOD
The Republican Party begins its history after the Civil War as a supporter of the business class (the northern industrial elites) and, when it suited them, opposition to emerging Jim Crow laws in the Democratic, slave-holding south. I say this because people often forget – or never learn – it was the Republican Party that agreed in 1876 to sign away the protective Reconstruction Troops placed throughout the south in the post-Civil War era. They did this so that they could get southern Democrats to concede the contested 1876 presidential election and get the incompetent Rutherford B. Hayes in office.

With the removal of federal troops from the post-civil war south the region was free to create its own social system. Jim Crow was on his way, as the Black Codes became a part of the southern law and culture (e.g. it was illegal for black men to be unemployed in some states, black men could not look at white women, etc.). It was at this time that the Civil Rights legislation of the 1870s (yes, there was a Civil Rights revolution then) was either ignored or broken down by the push for state’s rights in the south. Once established, Jim Crow pushed to every part of the country, and the southern caste system was generally accepted by the early 1900s (Democrat Woodrow Wilson was especially no help).

Southern Democrats continued to remain an integral part of the larger Democratic Party not because the party embraced their view on race (as did the Republicans), but because the party sided with southern farmers on the issue of tariffs and prices. Tariffs were key because northern industrialists needed them to keep out competition, which Republicans supported. But tariffs also hurt southern interests as importers of southern farm goods also kept tariffs artificially high, thus blocking out or reducing the profits of farmers.

It is at this time that the Republican Party becomes entrenched as the party of Big Business. Placing high tariffs on imports, the United States had the highest overall tariffs in the industrial world from the mid-1800s through World War I. At the same time, Republicans create a larger economic and political environment that was so industry friendly that regulations and codes were willfully ignored, while labor rights were ignored or put up for sale.

FDR AND THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Corruption became rampant throughout the political system, as state legislatures were regularly bought and sold (some of the stories of former California Governor Leland Stanford are quite interesting). This is one of the reasons a populist backlash emerged, which allowed progressives like Hiram Johnson in California, and Teddy Roosevelt nationally, to become popular, at least for a time (corruption was so rampant it was at this time that California got its referendum, recall, and initiative process). This Progressive Era subsided, but returned with a vengeance after the market collapse of 1929. It is at this time coalitions within parties begin to switch, or become uncomfortable where they are.

But before this happens a political tidal wave ushered in an anti-business environment, which led to the regulatory capitalism of the post-war era. Republican industrialists retrenched, while FDR wove together a coalition of organized labor, southern farmers, Big City machines (who weren’t wiped out by the progressive movement in the early 1900s), and northern liberals. By the 1960s, however, southern farmers were not happy with the emerging civil rights legislation and other “liberal” ideas associated with “northern elites.” Simply put, they threatened the cultural status quo of the south.

NIXON, REAGAN, AND THE MODERN REPUBLICAN PARTY
After Barry Goldwater was crushed in the 1964 presidential elections Richard Nixon, coming off his own defeat in 1960 (where, yes, JFK won with corrupt political bosses), he saw a political opening in the south. Disgruntled southerners opposed federal legislation, and argued for state’s rights, because they were opposed to emerging civil rights legislation (and other liberal ideas like women’s rights, labor rights, etc.) that would undo almost a century of Jim Crow.

Embarking on what would become known as his “southern strategy” Nixon deliberately played to the cultural fears of the south (i.e. the dangers brought by civil rights and liberal thinkers that threaten to undermine a culture and a lifestyle) and began attracting southern democrats to the Republican Party. Southern Democrats who supported the Republican Party at this time became known as “dixiecrats,” were pandered to by Ronald Reagan in 1980, and eventually became – along with big business and, later, the religious right (another story for another day) – the base of the modern Republican Party.


MORAL OF THE STORY (again): Elements of the Democratic Party that FOX News drags through the mud were never fully embraced by Progressive Northern Democrats (i.e. its Liberal Wing), eventually abandoned the party and, perhaps more importantly, are now the base of today's Republican Party.

- Mark