Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Yes, but as Yankee notes, policy ≠ ideology. Cleveland might be considered a "conservative" Democrat in the vernacular of his day, contrasted against the radical Bryan, but he did not believe in conservatism as it then existed. That he was pro-business speaks more to the ways liberalism was evolving, dividing, and folding in on itself in the late nineteenth century than anything else.

[Orser67]

You remember that James Madison himself had been a Federalist but was one of the earliest defectors to the DRs.

I think that your comparison to the NCLB later in this paragraph is spot-on, but I disagree with this characterization of Madison on two levels. Firstly, Madison wasn't "one of" the earliest defectors to the Democratic-Republican Party; he was one of its two co-founders (alongside Jefferson). Jefferson may have won the party's presidential nomination in 1796, but he and Madison were very much partners in founding and developing the party in the early 1790s, and it was Madison who led the party after in the mid-1790s after Jefferson temporarily retired from public life.

More importantly, you seem to be conflating the Federalists of the 1780s with the Federalists of the 1790s. There were continuities there, to be sure, but these were two different groups with different goals. The Federalists of the 1780s were a loosely-organized group that agreed on the necessity for constitutional reforms to empower a federal government capable of defending the country and performing basic functions without the unanimous consent of the states; perhaps their single biggest issue (other than the general agreement on the need for a stronger government) was on the necessity of a tariff. Though the Federalists of the 1790s did build on the work of Robert Morris, who had been sort of the informal leader of a nationalist faction in the early 1780s, the original split between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists occurred about midway through Washington's first term in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's economic policies (the national bank, rather ironically given later developments, was perhaps the single biggest area of disagreement). And even then, the parties didn't really solidify along clear lines until the 1800 election; e.g. in 1796 several electors split their votes among Federalist and Democratic-Republican candidates.

(Jackson favored hard money because he believed it would tamp down on speculators, whereas the Whigs wanted soft money to fuel business investment. The reason why WJB takes a different view from Jackson is because WJB's base was debtor farmers who benefitted from inflation while Jackson's base was people who were screwed over by speculators).

To expand on this point (because the degree to which arguably the most well-known 19th century #populist Democrats differed on currency is rather remarkable), Jacksonians disliked soft money because they believed it led to a boom-and-bust speculation cycle as banks would over-leverage themselves by printing more money than they were prepared to redeem (and also because they viewed it as part of a corrupt system that empowered bankers to control the economy). Bryanites didn't face those same concerns because of a shift in circumstances, policy, and economic thinking.

It's important to understand that, while the U.S. federal government did coin money after the ratification of the Constitution, it did not issue paper money (known as "greenbacks") until the Civil War. During and after this period, a new group of economists had begun to advocate for the long-term usage of fiat money, i.e. currency that has no intrinsic value other than its backing by the government; nonetheless, Republican and Democratic administrations alike generally pursued hard money policies designed to retire the Greenbacks, leading to a long period of deflation. Not only did this hurt farmers by increasing the value of their debts, it arguably contributed to one of the more economically-troubled periods in U.S. history (including two major recessions: the Panic of 1873 and the Panic of 1893). So from the perspective of a populist, calling for soft money in the 1820s meant potentially empowering banks and risking boom-and-bust cycles based on money backed by private banks, while calling for soft money in the 1890s would mean issuing government-backed fiat money to end a period of deflation and hopefully increase economic growth.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I sort of view it as the Republicans always being the representative of the "in-group" (starting with Northern WASPs and expanding to other whites as time went on) and Democrats being a coalition of "out groups" (Southerners + white ethnics in the 19th century, shifting more to non-whites in the 20th century).

Well, there is one very obvious exception to this "rule." There's something of merit here, but it's lost in trying to be overly simplistic.

I agree on the whole ... but there seems to be ample historic evidence that even many abolitionists hardly viewed Black Americans as a "group" to be considered at all in such a context.  I remember seeing a quote from Stephen Douglas from the book Half Slave and Half Free that was something along the lines of, "only the Democratic Party cares about the well-being of ALL White men, regardless of their religion, country of origin or social status."  I think that speaks volumes to the mindset/political realities of the day.

I'm pretty much just saying that I don't think a complete disregard for the welfare of Black Americans or their freedom necessarily prevents Nineteenth Century Democrats from being the more egalitarian party, on balance, in the minds of the voters at the time.

Oh, I agree, the key phrase being "in the minds of the voters." Obviously disenfranchised freedmen and some white reformers would take a very different view of the situation, so it's important to be careful about how one phrases it, but certainly in a time and place where non-whites were barely considered human, the Democrats of the major parties represented egalitarianism for those they considered proper Americans. As for racism in the abolitionist camp, there's a perversely interesting through-line in some anti-slavery rhetoric that accuses slaveholders of promoting a multi-racial society by living in close proximity, and in some cases reproducing, with the members of an inferior race —essentially, they (the slaveholders) weren't racist enough! And of course, men like Stephen Douglas loved to remind their public that the "Black Republicans" wanted to elevate blacks above the Irish/Germans/Catholics. It's been said before, but bears repeating that hardly any white person in the nineteenth century shared our twenty-first century view of race. You had a situation where one part of the white population views blacks as children in need of their protection, and one part viewed them as essentially subhuman. That doesn't make their racism irrelevant or excusable, but it helps put things in perspective.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Grover Cleveland though was a clear exception in that he was arguably one of the 4 most pro-business presidents we have ever had (Coolidge, Harding, McKinley) and its not even really for small vs big government because you honestly can call Andrew Jackson left despite being anti-big government as he did it from a populist framework while Cleveland was anything but a populist .

You see this is why I cannot afford to sleep.

Whenever you have a revolution that overthrows the pre-existing political order. It becomes the new political order and those policies become the establishment policies. If you ever watch the movie "Duck! You Sucker" (alternatively called "Fistful of Dynamite"), there is a line in there where Rod Steiger's character reduces revolution to a vicious cycle that screws over the poor people. As he puts it, "the people who read the books, they go to the people that don't read the books and tell them it is a time to make a change. So the poor people, they make the change. Then people who read books, they sit around the big polished table and talk and talk and eat and eat, but what has happened to the poor people? THEY'RE DEAD!!! That's your Revolution. And then what happens the same fing thing starts all over again".

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You remember that James Madison himself had been a Federalist but was one of the earliest defectors to the DRs.

I think that your comparison to the NCLB later in this paragraph is spot-on, but I disagree with this characterization of Madison on two levels. Firstly, Madison wasn't "one of" the earliest defectors to the Democratic-Republican Party; he was one of its two co-founders (alongside Jefferson). Jefferson may have won the party's presidential nomination in 1796, but he and Madison were very much partners in founding and developing the party in the early 1790s, and it was Madison who led the party after in the mid-1790s after Jefferson temporarily retired from public life.

More importantly, you seem to be conflating the Federalists of the 1780s with the Federalists of the 1790s. There were continuities there, to be sure, but these were two different groups with different goals. The Federalists of the 1780s were a loosely-organized group that agreed on the necessity for constitutional reforms to empower a federal government capable of defending the country and performing basic functions without the unanimous consent of the states; perhaps their single biggest issue (other than the general agreement on the need for a stronger government) was on the necessity of a tariff. Though the Federalists of the 1790s did build on the work of Robert Morris, who had been sort of the informal leader of a nationalist faction in the early 1780s, the original split between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists occurred about midway through Washington's first term in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's economic policies (the national bank, rather ironically given later developments, was perhaps the single biggest area of disagreement). And even then, the parties didn't really solidify along clear lines until the 1800 election; e.g. in 1796 several electors split their votes among Federalist and Democratic-Republican candidates.

For the purposes of our conversation we have gone back to Shays and the Constitutional Convention, of which James Madison was a principle architect. Most of the politicians to come later were Federalists if they supported the Constitution and yes, broke off later on (as in the early 1790s) as opposed to someone like JQA Adams (who jumped ship in 1808). There are a vast array of books that talk about the decline of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists (opponents of the Convention and the Constitution, some of whom joined the DRs) and as you can clearly see, I made a multi-paragraph post at 3 AM in the morning to the extend that I practically buried myself into sleep. Surely, I can be allotted some simplification lest I start making 100 paragraph posts that only Truman reads.

The thing is while Jefferson was deviating from ideology out of expediency, Madison I think was open to nationalist arguments owing to his background as a "Federalist" during the Constitutional Convention and thus was willing to go along with the young gun nationalists like Clay on things like the Bank and the 1816 Tariff.

Also it is worth pointing out that the Federalist themselves, while they birthed these policies via Hamilton, Hamilton was not a unifying figure and the Federalists heavy reliance on merchant support meant that they would be hard pressed to be a consistently economically nationalist party with its base of support as it was. It took the nuking of merchant business in New England and the rise of the textiles to form a political geography that was open to that. Also the rise of steel and iron in PA, though that took years and it wasn't really until later than the Whigs and later the Republicans could reap the rewards of economic nationalism to dominate PA politics.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

Then why did Cleveland support the gold standard, why did he oppose assistance for the unemployed , why was he extremely anti union as well .


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland


Look at the reasoning he gives for opposing government programs it’s not cause they would help the elitist but because he believes it’s unconstitutional. That’s an argument that Calvin Coolidge would make

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Andrew Jackson was clearly anti big government cause at the time big government was used to help elitists only while in Grover Cleveland cause he came out and opposed legislation specifically that helps the unemployed and look at that reasoning.



Also no George W Bush and Trump are similar on nearly 90% of the issues while it’s a stretch to say that Cleveland and Bryan are on even say 25%.


The better comparison is if someone like Jacob Javits was elected president who was clearly a liberal on the issues . Grover Cleveland was basically the Jacob Javits of the Democratic Party and he was basically primaried by Goldwater/Reagan . Javits was clearly a Liberal and to the left of many Democrats and it’s clear he would be a Dem by 1988/1992 it’s clear Cleveland would be a Republican by 1912ish

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

In a way, doesn't that make Cleveland a conservative, if by that point the Jacksonian policies were no longer helping the common people? I remember one time when I praised the Whigs for being ahead of their time on the currency issue, you told me "context matters." The Whigs supported soft money to benefit speculators and bankers, you said, while the Bryan Democrats believed it would help out poor indebted farmers. Does not context matter in this case also? By the 1890s, if hard money and laissez-faire primarily benefited businesses rather than commoners, doesn't that make the man behind those policies conservative in some sense, even if those policies were once Andrew Jackson's? Also, you claim that Cleveland supported Jackson's old policies for the same reason Old Hickory had, namely that he believed in liberal anti-elitist principles. I won't pretend to know Grover Cleveland's motives, but it strikes me as unlikely that a leader of a faction called the Bourbons was motivated by a desire to help the poor or fight elites.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

In a way, doesn't that make Cleveland a conservative, if by that point the Jacksonian policies were no longer helping the common people? I remember one time when I praised the Whigs for being ahead of their time on the currency issue, you told me "context matters." The Whigs supported soft money to benefit speculators and bankers, you said, while the Bryan Democrats believed it would help out poor indebted farmers. Does not context matter in this case also? By the 1890s, if hard money and laissez-faire primarily benefited businesses rather than commoners, doesn't that make the man behind those policies conservative in some sense, even if those policies were once Andrew Jackson's? Also, you claim that Cleveland supported Jackson's old policies for the same reason Old Hickory had, namely that he believed in liberal anti-elitist principles. I won't pretend to know Grover Cleveland's motives, but it strikes me as unlikely that a leader of a faction called the Bourbons was motivated by a desire to help the poor or fight elites.

If he didn't believe it on at least some level, he would not have been a Democrat. To a point I actually anticipated your response with my last paragraph. In a relativist sense yes, but I prefer not to deal in relativist ideology either because it is essentially meaningless.

Cleveland is a classical liberal lost in the beginning stages of modern liberalism. It is worth noting that Cleveland did fight monopolies, did fight corruption (he was a successor indirectly of Tilden who was also a Bourbon Democrat). It is easy to over-emphasize the differences between Cleveland and Bryan, which I will get to in the response to OSR in a minute.

Yes, context is everything, but it is too easy to pick out the things that we would emphasize that make him a "conservative" but ignore the backdrop at the same time. Monopolies, trade, immigration, lack of service in the Civil War (kind of lack attacks on Draft dodger Clinton in the 1990's), work to combat corruption and yes his support for hard money. If by virtue of his policies being behind the eight ball, he becomes an "unintentional conservative", it is in that sense like Bill Clinton and while Bill Clinton's policies are certainly too conservative now for the Democratic Party, I don't think anyone would say that Bill Clinton is a "Conservative" by any definition used in the 1990's, 2000's or 2010's.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

Then why did Cleveland support the gold standard, why did he oppose assistance for the unemployed , why was he extremely anti union as well .

Because gold was seen traditionally as working against financial speculation and it is one thing that Democrats have agreed on from Jefferson and Madison (happy Orser? ) from 1792 to today is that they don't like financial speculation. The economics of who benefits and who loses has changed but the establishment still is stuck on yesterday, so they keep pursuing gold for its own merits, because of its innate qualities and because 50 years prior it was seen as a way to thwart speculation. The thing is financial speculation is like rats, you shine a light on one corner it will move to another, that is why every regulatory effort ultimately fails, it is fighting the last war so to speak. It is no different with Cleveland and Gold.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland


Look at the reasoning he gives for opposing government programs it’s not cause they would help the elitist but because he believes it’s unconstitutional. That’s an argument that Calvin Coolidge would make

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Andrew Jackson was clearly anti big government cause at the time big government was used to help elitists only while in Grover Cleveland cause he came out and opposed legislation specifically that helps the unemployed and look at that reasoning.

The concept of direct help to the poor and also of unions would work against the classically liberal economic philosophy that he is a ingrained in and thus would continue to keep that position because he thinks the on the whole, classical liberalism is better than economic nationalism. The primary issue of economics in this age isn't defined by welfare, it is defined by trade and trusts and in Cleveland's eyes he is just applying uniformly the principles of the philosophy that dictates that protectionism is bad, that monopolies are bad, also means that unemployment aid and unions are also bad. It is not case of Cleveland being conservative, it is a case of a dogmatic adherent to the economic bible from 1835, without understanding that the ground that dictated this bible's creation has changed. Thus always is economic conditions and thus policies have to adapt.

Also no George W Bush and Trump are similar on nearly 90% of the issues while it’s a stretch to say that Cleveland and Bryan are on even say 25%.

Is it a stretch by their standards? or Yours?
                     Grover          WJB
Trade             Free            Free
Trusts            Anti             Anti
Speculation   Anti             Anti
Immigration   Pro              Pro
Corruption     Anti             Anti


These were big five dividing lines between the parties prior to 1896. They both generally line up the same way and both come across as obvious Democrats for the period.

Also while it is true that Cleveland was a leader of the so called "Bourbon Democrats" that included a number of rich people, it is worth remembering that they themselves would never have called themselves that. In fact this is a pejorative term by their opponents, just like Whigs calling other Whigs, "Tories" in the 18th Century UK. They would have considered themselves Democrats, perhaps even Jacksonian Democrats. The reason why their were rich people supporting "Jacksonian Democrats" is because well their were rich people supporting Jackson in 1832. What matters is what rich people and why? Well rich people of immigrant backgrounds obviously. Rich people whose industry was harmed by the protectionism of the dominant GOP-Economic Nationalist-Industrial Complex that had been built up over the past years. And of course the obvious group, plantation owners who for obvious reasons had been directly harmed by GOP policies, still yearned for free trade and were definitely on the outs in terms of national power, even if they dominated their local area (like being a rich man in a third world country, you are still an outsider on the global scene).


Also don't forget, WJB is considered a conservative culturally by the 1920's against the likes of "progressive" Al Smith. And Al Smith was a Republican by 1940 for all intents and purposes. When these revolutions happen, people get tossed aside and it is always messy. Suddenly, the party isn't your kind of conservative or your kind of liberal anymore and you prefer to stake your lot in with the other side. The story of liberalism in the period from 1890 - 1940 is as Truman referenced, a messy period in which old understandings are tossed aside and an attempt to adapt to the challenges of the modern age is thus made. During this process many people still clinging to classical liberalism decide to throw in with the right and over time the right shifts its rhetoric to accommodate them (its kind of like how forum libertarians either become Socialists or far rights conservatives when they get older).

But leaving that aside, on the ground in as late as 1892, there is nothing about Grover Cleveland that doesn't scream bog standard Democrat for the time, not because the Democrats were the conservative party, but because that is where liberalism was in 1892. Free Trade, against monopolies, against speculation, for immigration and against corruption.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Cleveland was a strong supporter of the Gold Standard , was very anti union, and was pro-business in almost every conceivable way and you could make an argument he was more conservative than Harrison.


Politically on Economic issues/Domestic Policy there were far far more similarities between Grover Clevelend and William McKinley then there were between Grover Cleveland and William Jennings Ryan

Grover Cleveland is the tail end of the eating around the big polished table of the Jacksonian Revolution. Cleveland thinks he is a Jacksonian by virtue of doing the same thing as Jackson, he thinks he is helping the poor. Just like Old Hickory, he supported hard money. Just like King Andrew, he opposed bigger government seeing it philosophically as a tool for the elites to enrich himself. Just like King Andrew, he opposed business monopolies. Just like King Andrew Jackson he opposed protectionism. Of course he supported immigration and he supported universal white male suffrage (though it is not like anyone opposed this by 1884 except for maybe some Plantation owners and New England blue blood aristocrats).

Grover Cleveland is like the George W. Bush of the Reagan Conservative dominated GOP, and William Jennings Bryan is the Donald Trump figure.

It is of no service to the poor farmer that the establishment has now embraced the populist rage of 30 or 50 years prior. They need help TODAY with TODAY's problems. Just like the Bushes failed to grasp that, so to did Cleveland and thus to achieve the same effect as a Jackson, as a Reagan, you need a new figure working against the traditional order of things, with a set of policies aimed at the challenges of today. Clinging to last cycle's revolutionaries, makes you the bourbons, the Rockefellers or the Bushes, it makes you next in line for the populist firing squad.

To call Cleveland a conservative because he is different from Bryan, would be like calling the Bushes Liberals because they disagree with Trump. In a relativist sense maybe, but I don't like to deal in relativist positioning because that is almost meaningless ("example: Brezhnev was a Conservative"). Its the opposite extreme in these discussions of using modern metrics (that's how you end up with "Louis XIV and Hitler were Socialists"). Both are wrong.

Then why did Cleveland support the gold standard, why did he oppose assistance for the unemployed , why was he extremely anti union as well .

Because gold was seen traditionally as working against financial speculation and it is one thing that Democrats have agreed on from Jefferson and Madison (happy Orser? ) from 1792 to today is that they don't like financial speculation. The economics of who benefits and who loses has changed but the establishment still is stuck on yesterday, so they keep pursuing gold for its own merits, because of its innate qualities and because 50 years prior it was seen as a way to thwart speculation. The thing is financial speculation is like rats, you shine a light on one corner it will move to another, that is why every regulatory effort ultimately fails, it is fighting the last war so to speak. It is no different with Cleveland and Gold.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland


Look at the reasoning he gives for opposing government programs it’s not cause they would help the elitist but because he believes it’s unconstitutional. That’s an argument that Calvin Coolidge would make

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

Andrew Jackson was clearly anti big government cause at the time big government was used to help elitists only while in Grover Cleveland cause he came out and opposed legislation specifically that helps the unemployed and look at that reasoning.

The concept of direct help to the poor and also of unions would work against the classically liberal economic philosophy that he is a ingrained in and thus would continue to keep that position because he thinks the on the whole, classical liberalism is better than economic nationalism. The primary issue of economics in this age isn't defined by welfare, it is defined by trade and trusts and in Cleveland's eyes he is just applying uniformly the principles of the philosophy that dictates that protectionism is bad, that monopolies are bad, also means that unemployment aid and unions are also bad. It is not case of Cleveland being conservative, it is a case of a dogmatic adherent to the economic bible from 1835, without understanding that the ground that dictated this bible's creation has changed. Thus always is economic conditions and thus policies have to adapt.

Also no George W Bush and Trump are similar on nearly 90% of the issues while it’s a stretch to say that Cleveland and Bryan are on even say 25%.

Is it a stretch by their standards? or Yours?
                     Grover          WJB
Trade             Free            Free
Trusts            Anti             Anti
Speculation   Anti             Anti
Immigration   Pro              Pro
Corruption     Anti             Anti


These were big five dividing lines between the parties prior to 1896. They both generally line up the same way and both come across as obvious Democrats for the period.

Also while it is true that Cleveland was a leader of the so called "Bourbon Democrats" that included a number of rich people, it is worth remembering that they themselves would never have called themselves that. In fact this is a pejorative term by their opponents, just like Whigs calling other Whigs, "Tories" in the 18th Century UK. They would have considered themselves Democrats, perhaps even Jacksonian Democrats. The reason why their were rich people supporting "Jacksonian Democrats" is because well their were rich people supporting Jackson in 1832. What matters is what rich people and why? Well rich people of immigrant backgrounds obviously. Rich people whose industry was harmed by the protectionism of the dominant GOP-Economic Nationalist-Industrial Complex that had been built up over the past years. And of course the obvious group, plantation owners who for obvious reasons had been directly harmed by GOP policies, still yearned for free trade and were definitely on the outs in terms of national power, even if they dominated their local area (like being a rich man in a third world country, you are still an outsider on the global scene).


Also don't forget, WJB is considered a conservative culturally by the 1920's against the likes of "progressive" Al Smith. And Al Smith was a Republican by 1940 for all intents and purposes. When these revolutions happen, people get tossed aside and it is always messy. Suddenly, the party isn't your kind of conservative or your kind of liberal anymore and you prefer to stake your lot in with the other side. The story of liberalism in the period from 1890 - 1940 is as Truman referenced, a messy period in which old understandings are tossed aside and an attempt to adapt to the challenges of the modern age is thus made. During this process many people still clinging to classical liberalism decide to throw in with the right and over time the right shifts its rhetoric to accommodate them (its kind of like how forum libertarians either become Socialists or far rights conservatives when they get older).

But leaving that aside, on the ground in as late as 1892, there is nothing about Grover Cleveland that doesn't scream bog standard Democrat for the time, not because the Democrats were the conservative party, but because that is where liberalism was in 1892. Free Trade, against monopolies, against speculation, for immigration and against corruption.

I fully agree with the fact that Grover Cleveland matches up with Classical Liberalism more than what conservative was there but the question is you could argue that classical liberalism matches up with conservatism more than it does with modern liberalism. Also the question wasnt really between fiat money and a central bank vs Gold in which case you could argue the pro gold stance is the more pro worker stance , the question was between Gold vs Bimetallism and remember the US had bimetallism in place until 1873. Bimetallism was not abandoned by Democrats but by the Republicans so Cleveland taking the postion he took on gold matches him with the GOP more than it does with the Democrats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetallism#United_States

With its acceptance, Sec.11 of the Coinage Act of 1792 established: "That the proportional value of gold to silver in all coins which shall by law be current as money within the United States, shall be as fifteen to one, according to quantity in weight, of pure gold or pure silver;" the proportion had slipped by 1834 to sixteen to one. Silver took a further hit with the Coinage Act of 1853, when nearly all silver coin denominations were debased, effectively turning silver coinage into a fiduciary currency based on its face value rather than its weighted value. Bimetallism was effectively abandoned by the Coinage Act of 1873, but not formally outlawed as legal currency until the early 20th century.

I understand that opposing government programs was not favored by the left in the Jackson time but thats cause the time was much different and government programs back then mainly favored the wealthy but Cleveland explicitly says here he opposes government programs to the people itself because its unconstitutional which is a conservative argument. Yes its also a classical liberal positon but you could argue that classical liberalism matches up more with conservatism than post 1896 liberalism. His opposition to unions was also a pro business side 100%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike



Also remember anti trust laws were passed under President Harrison a Republican and named from  prominent Republican

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I fully agree with the fact that Grover Cleveland matches up with Classical Liberalism more than what conservative was there but the question is you could argue that classical liberalism matches up with conservatism more than it does with modern liberalism.

Well, no, not really. This is a very superficial take for reasons that have already been examined exhaustively in this thread: it confuses means with ends and presumes that everything wet is water, rather than examining motives and intent.

Classical liberalism is not libertarianism. (You did not say this, but the two are confused often enough for it to be necessary to address it explicitly.) As a rule I don't like to even use that term, because people forget that "classical" is an adjective and not part of the term itself. "Classical-liberalism" does not and never existed. Used correctly, the term refers to the expression liberalism takes in a pre-industrial society. Nobody is a classical liberal today, any more than a particularly hairy or inarticulate man is a Neanderthal. Conservatism has a fundamentally different set of assumptions about how the world works and different goals for its ideal form of society. Cleveland did not share those goals, hence why he is not a conservative (except perhaps in a relative sense).

As for the labor issue —much as it pains me to say it, liberals are not automatically pro-labor. H*ll, Harry Truman threatened to draft strikers in the 1940s, for all the noise he made about Taft-Hartley. As I said earlier in this thread, nineteenth century Democrats were a liberal party, not a labor party. That's an important distinction that is often lost on Americans, but it remains important in other Western countries where liberals and socialists do not cooperate electorally.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I fully agree with the fact that Grover Cleveland matches up with Classical Liberalism more than what conservative was there but the question is you could argue that classical liberalism matches up with conservatism more than it does with modern liberalism.

Well, no, not really. This is a very superficial take for reasons that have already been examined exhaustively in this thread: it confuses means with ends and presumes that everything wet is water, rather than examining motives and intent.

Classical liberalism is not libertarianism. (You did not say this, but the two are confused often enough for it to be necessary to address it explicitly.) As a rule I don't like to even use that term, because people forget that "classical" is an adjective and not part of the term itself. "Classical-liberalism" does not and never existed. Used correctly, the term refers to the expression liberalism takes in a pre-industrial society. Nobody is a classical liberal today, any more than a particularly hairy or inarticulate man is a Neanderthal. Conservatism has a fundamentally different set of assumptions about how the world works and different goals for its ideal form of society. Cleveland did not share those goals, hence why he is not a conservative (except perhaps in a relative sense).

As for the labor issue —much as it pains me to say it, liberals are not automatically pro-labor. H*ll, Harry Truman threatened to draft strikers in the 1940s, for all the noise he made about Taft-Hartley. As I said earlier in this thread, nineteenth century Democrats were a liberal party, not a labor party. That's an important distinction that is often lost on Americans, but it remains important in other Western countries where liberals and socialists do not cooperate electorally.

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general. His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.


The best example for Cleveland actually would be imo to be a Jacob Javits/Zell Miller figure in the party

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general.

They call it liberal capitalism for a reason. Yankee does a good job of explaining how the revolutionaries of yesterday are the establishment of today —read his post again.

His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

No it isn't. Especially at that moment in history, you were more likely to hear strict constructionist arguments coming from liberals than from conservatives. Of course, neither party has ever let the constitution stand in the way of their legislative agenda, and it's silly to pretend that is an ideological distinction.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, see above. I recently described Cleveland on the IP board as representative of a tradition of Bourbon liberalism that had long since outlived it's usefulness. That bit of editorial aside, Cleveland was clearly and old-fashioned liberal and by 1896 was behind the times —but that was at the end of his career, twelve years after his first presidential campaign. Cleveland couldn't have been nominated three times by the national Democratic party if he was some friendless gadfly with no connection to the party's history or values. In that sense he's more like Bill Clinton than Zell Miller —a politician popular in his day whose brand of politics has aged poorly as his party turns toward radical alternatives to the status quo.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, the context. In the 1820's, any form of backing be it gold or silver would produce "harder" money then what was happening with banks issuing their own notes and the chaos that it was creating in the process. It matters less the specific policy, and more the objective of Hard versus soft money as that allows for the different levels of "hardness" to "coin" a term.

Also worth noting that Grant, was the first Republican President who was to my knowledge not a member of the Whig Party, prior to William McKinley. That should help to emphasize why both were more favorable to hard money then the ex-Whigs from Lincoln to Harrison.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

I think it's important to remember that motive is a lot more important than method when analyzing ideology, though.  While a current protectionist Republican (when looking at politicians, I think their numbers are really overstated here...) might be advocating for the same surface-level policy as a protectionist Republican from the Nineteenth Century, it's important to ask why each was doing so. 

A current protectionist is arguing against the economic consensus on what is best for the American economy, which can and often is read as what is best for the business community.  They are effectively saying they don't care and that other things - such as a moral obligation to protect domestic industries and workers hurt by free trade - should trump economic concerns.  Is this really the same?  I'd argue not at all.

Nineteenth Century protectionists wanted high import tariffs because our economy was not in a global position to compete on price yet we had a huge domestic population needing goods ... the "pro-business" answer, ironically, was to tax imports to the point where consumers had a clear incentive to buy domestically and prop up American industry.  While it's supporting the exact same policy, it's doing it for quite literally the opposite reason.  There were certainly campaign speech overlaps ("protect the American worker!"), but who would ever label a modern protectionist as a corporate shill who is championing corporate welfare as these Republicans were accused of?

If we appreciate the historical classification of "pro-business" as a conservative ideology and "pro-worker" as a left-leaning one, I suggest that the motive to achieve those ends is somewhat irrelevant.  I mean, the GOP didn't just drop the high tariffs for no reason in the Twentieth Century; our business community had reached such a height after World War II that it didn't just no longer need them, it was actively harmed by them.  The pro-business Republican Party very naturally adjusted what it wanted to promote BECAUSE of what its end goal - which had not changed! - now demanded.

The funny thing is though there is an argument to be made today that certain forms of protectionism are corporate welfare. Restrictions on drug reimportation which benefit American pharmacutical interests, IP Laws, actually on those grounds there was a case to be made that the TPP was protectionist and that protectionism still benefits certain sectors of the American business community. Tariffs on imported sugar to benefit the corn lobby which has disproportionate power due to being pandered to in the Iowa caucus is another. It's just that the argument generally isn't framed that way.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general.

They call it liberal capitalism for a reason. Yankee does a good job of explaining how the revolutionaries of yesterday are the establishment of today —read his post again.

His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

No it isn't. Especially at that moment in history, you were more likely to hear strict constructionist arguments coming from liberals than from conservatives. Of course, neither party has ever let the constitution stand in the way of their legislative agenda, and it's silly to pretend that is an ideological distinction.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, see above. I recently described Cleveland on the IP board as representative of a tradition of Bourbon liberalism that had long since outlived it's usefulness. That bit of editorial aside, Cleveland was clearly and old-fashioned liberal and by 1896 was behind the times —but that was at the end of his career, twelve years after his first presidential campaign. Cleveland couldn't have been nominated three times by the national Democratic party if he was some friendless gadfly with no connection to the party's history or values. In that sense he's more like Bill Clinton than Zell Miller —a politician popular in his day whose brand of politics has aged poorly as his party turns toward radical alternatives to the status quo.

Democrats probably nominated him a me too type of candidate in which the only way the could win was by being sorta Republican lite in a way . So Bill Clinton on steroids

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general.

They call it liberal capitalism for a reason. Yankee does a good job of explaining how the revolutionaries of yesterday are the establishment of today —read his post again.

His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

No it isn't. Especially at that moment in history, you were more likely to hear strict constructionist arguments coming from liberals than from conservatives. Of course, neither party has ever let the constitution stand in the way of their legislative agenda, and it's silly to pretend that is an ideological distinction.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, see above. I recently described Cleveland on the IP board as representative of a tradition of Bourbon liberalism that had long since outlived it's usefulness. That bit of editorial aside, Cleveland was clearly and old-fashioned liberal and by 1896 was behind the times —but that was at the end of his career, twelve years after his first presidential campaign. Cleveland couldn't have been nominated three times by the national Democratic party if he was some friendless gadfly with no connection to the party's history or values. In that sense he's more like Bill Clinton than Zell Miller —a politician popular in his day whose brand of politics has aged poorly as his party turns toward radical alternatives to the status quo.

Democrats probably nominated him a me too type of candidate in which the only way the could win was by being sorta Republican lite in a way . So Bill Clinton on steroids

Not to be rude, but this is really bad history. In lieu of actual primary evidence (and there is reams on the election of 1884), you muse as to what "probably" happened based on what makes sense to you in 2020. That is exactly the kind of shoddy analysis we have been deconstructing in this thread!

Cleveland wasn't a conservative, he wasn't a radical, and he certainly wasn't a socialist. If you take a hardline Marxist view of the late nineteenth century and filter everything through the lens of "capitalism or no?" then, sure, Cleveland is on the reactionary end of the spectrum. That is a relative interpretation, however, and your twist on it ignores that Cleveland was a bog-standard liberal for the 1880s. Liberalism is not socialism and two people can take two different roads to the same destination! Try to understand.

[Orser67]

You remember that James Madison himself had been a Federalist but was one of the earliest defectors to the DRs.

I think that your comparison to the NCLB later in this paragraph is spot-on, but I disagree with this characterization of Madison on two levels. Firstly, Madison wasn't "one of" the earliest defectors to the Democratic-Republican Party; he was one of its two co-founders (alongside Jefferson). Jefferson may have won the party's presidential nomination in 1796, but he and Madison were very much partners in founding and developing the party in the early 1790s, and it was Madison who led the party after in the mid-1790s after Jefferson temporarily retired from public life.

More importantly, you seem to be conflating the Federalists of the 1780s with the Federalists of the 1790s. There were continuities there, to be sure, but these were two different groups with different goals. The Federalists of the 1780s were a loosely-organized group that agreed on the necessity for constitutional reforms to empower a federal government capable of defending the country and performing basic functions without the unanimous consent of the states; perhaps their single biggest issue (other than the general agreement on the need for a stronger government) was on the necessity of a tariff. Though the Federalists of the 1790s did build on the work of Robert Morris, who had been sort of the informal leader of a nationalist faction in the early 1780s, the original split between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists occurred about midway through Washington's first term in reaction to Alexander Hamilton's economic policies (the national bank, rather ironically given later developments, was perhaps the single biggest area of disagreement). And even then, the parties didn't really solidify along clear lines until the 1800 election; e.g. in 1796 several electors split their votes among Federalist and Democratic-Republican candidates.

For the purposes of our conversation we have gone back to Shays and the Constitutional Convention, of which James Madison was a principle architect. Most of the politicians to come later were Federalists if they supported the Constitution and yes, broke off later on (as in the early 1790s) as opposed to someone like JQA Adams (who jumped ship in 1808). There are a vast array of books that talk about the decline of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists (opponents of the Convention and the Constitution, some of whom joined the DRs) and as you can clearly see, I made a multi-paragraph post at 3 AM in the morning to the extend that I practically buried myself into sleep. Surely, I can be allotted some simplification lest I start making 100 paragraph posts that only Truman reads.

The thing is while Jefferson was deviating from ideology out of expediency, Madison I think was open to nationalist arguments owing to his background as a "Federalist" during the Constitutional Convention and thus was willing to go along with the young gun nationalists like Clay on things like the Bank and the 1816 Tariff.

Well, it's not that big of a deal if you're just speaking generally, and I'll admit that this is pretty far from the original topic. But I would be wary of fully equating the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the 1780s to the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s; I think that there was a lot of continuity there, but they were arguing over very different things and had a fairly different set of leaders, especially on the Democratic-Republican side. I would compare the realignment of the 1790s to that of the 1820s; there was a lot of continuity between the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson/Madison and the Democratic Party of Jackson/Van Buren, but there were enough important differences that afaik historians generally treat them as different parties.

My personal opinion of Madison is that, of all the major Founders (other than maybe Franklin), he was probably the guy who got the most right (excluding slavery, but even there he was more open-minded than the vast majority of pre-Civil War Southerners). I think that he and Gallatin steered the Democratic-Republicans in a direction that allowed the party to accept the best aspects of the Federalist Party while remaining true to egalitarian spirit that defined the party. I do think that his views did legitimately change over time as he responded to events, but I would definitely agree that he was always more open to nationalist ideas than Jefferson was.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes i understand that but looking at how Cleveland justified his policies it seems like his intentions were to be pro business in general.

They call it liberal capitalism for a reason. Yankee does a good job of explaining how the revolutionaries of yesterday are the establishment of today —read his post again.

His opposition to goverment programs weren't because they benefited the elite but because they were unconstitutional which is a  conservative argument.

No it isn't. Especially at that moment in history, you were more likely to hear strict constructionist arguments coming from liberals than from conservatives. Of course, neither party has ever let the constitution stand in the way of their legislative agenda, and it's silly to pretend that is an ideological distinction.

His position on Gold isnt similar to Jackson either cause remember he opposed bimetallism which Jackson did not oppose and was abondened not by Democrats but by Republicans. So Cleveland was basically supporting Republican policies when it came to Gold.

Again, see above. I recently described Cleveland on the IP board as representative of a tradition of Bourbon liberalism that had long since outlived it's usefulness. That bit of editorial aside, Cleveland was clearly and old-fashioned liberal and by 1896 was behind the times —but that was at the end of his career, twelve years after his first presidential campaign. Cleveland couldn't have been nominated three times by the national Democratic party if he was some friendless gadfly with no connection to the party's history or values. In that sense he's more like Bill Clinton than Zell Miller —a politician popular in his day whose brand of politics has aged poorly as his party turns toward radical alternatives to the status quo.

Democrats probably nominated him a me too type of candidate in which the only way the could win was by being sorta Republican lite in a way . So Bill Clinton on steroids

What about Hancock and Tilden then?

[darklordoftech]

Why did Andrew Jackson think the National Bank was elitist?

[AtorBoltox]

We definitely see continuity in the ideals of Eugene Talmedge with modern liberalism and the modern democratic party

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Why did Andrew Jackson think the National Bank was elitist?

Jackson saw the Bank as an instrument for concentrating wealth and political power in the hands of a relative few (the "monied interests," i.e. bankers, speculators, and merchants) at the expense of many. In fact, the Bank exercised great influence through its patronage ("no king rules alone," and there were plenty of directorships, clerks, and other positions that could be exchanged for votes on legislation touching the Bank's interests). For Jackson, the potential for corruption was obvious and disturbing; considered together with the fact that the men leading the bank were mostly conservative Northeastern men who had supported his enemies in the election of 1828, and the Bank became too troublesome to remain alive. Beyond this, Americans have an instinctive distrust for that class of persons who seem to grow rich without doing any work, and the Bank's role in the Panic of 1819 —still salient for Jackson and many of his supporters —seemed to confirm this image of a corrupt circle of Northern financiers draining the poor farmers of the South and West for their personal enrichment.

[darklordoftech]

Also don't forget, WJB is considered a conservative culturally by the 1920's against the likes of "progressive" Al Smith. And Al Smith was a Republican by 1940 for all intents and purposes.

I’d argue that there’s a continuity between Cleveland and Smith (Governors of New York, economically moderate, “wet”, cosmopolitan) and between Bryan and McAdoo (rural, “dry”, religious, economically progressive). The laissez-faire capitalist consensus of the 1920s prevented people from paying attention to the economic views of Bryan, McAdoo, and Smith.

[darklordoftech]

Was the South always religious or did they become more religious at some point?

[Lechasseur]

Was the South always religious or did they become more religious at some point?

I think it started with the First Great Awakening in the 1790s and really went up with subsequent Great Awakenings.

I think the reason the South is so religious is because it was "christianized" relatively late.