One More Time: Jackson and Lincoln

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Jackson was not a conservative by any means. It's ironic that we all consider Jefferson to not have been on the right, but both liberals and conservatives fall for the trap that Jackson was.
Jackson, the guy who rallied against the rich, powerful, and bankers. He went against the monies interests of the time. He was against substantial infrastructure spending, which at the time helped merchants and traders. Just because he overstepped his role as executive does not make him conservative, but authoritarian. Being racist is not an inherently conservative trait.

On the flip side, Lincoln was no liberal in the modern sense. He supported infrastructure spending which would help merchants and traders. He was supported by merchants and traders. He was a follower of Henry Clay, who supported and was supported by traders and merchants. He believed in law and order, and was strongly against mob rule, which was a fear among conservatives since the Federalist days (many Federalists supported ratifying the Constitution solely for the government to be able to suppress farmer rebellions).

Oh, and he was a corporate lawyer who defended railroad companies in court.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The most honest answer, in my view, is that Jackson and Lincoln would both be Republicans today.

[TDAS04]

I think Lincoln would have been a center-left Democrat today.  He was very compassionate; not only did he deplore slavery for humanitarian and other reasons, he despised the xenophobic Know-Nothings.  While he was a great and strong leader, it's clear that he hated the violence and death of war, and he agonized when deciding whether or not to sign execution warrants for deserting soldiers.

Also, just because he supported infrastructure, merchants, and business doesn't necessarily mean he was conservative; he wanted ordinary Americans to enjoy opportunity (grew up poor himself), which he helped advance with the Homestead Act of 1862.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Conservatives of the past were definitely not for limited government. If you go back far enough, they were monarchists.
In regards to our modern government, the Federalists were the ones who wanted a stronger national government, and supported the constitution.

[Aurelius]

Literally every other historical topic: *exists*

Atlas: Did the parties switch? Let's debate this for the 1000'th time!

[RINO Tom]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I disagree. Limited government is absolutely an ideological goal. It can also be a technique to achieve other goals, but it is ideological to oppose government intervention in individual life.

[RINO Tom]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I disagree. Limited government is absolutely an ideological goal. It can also be a technique to achieve other goals, but it is ideological to oppose government intervention in individual life.

How can you possibly apply that historically, even if it is coherent now?  You think monarchists were less conservative in LITERALLY any sense than those advocating for a republic centuries ago?  That's just ludicrous.  You can make the argument that society has morphed into a stable enough governmental structure that limited government has become ideologically intertwined and inherently linked to conservative principles, but you can't then go back to the 1800s and 1700s and label men with very clearly left-leaning principles like economic redistribution "conservatives" because they happened to want limited government, too.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I disagree. Limited government is absolutely an ideological goal. It can also be a technique to achieve other goals, but it is ideological to oppose government intervention in individual life.

Yes but that is not "conservative's" ideological goal, that is the goal of "classical liberalism", which takes its name for a reason. It wants to "liberate" people.  

Conservativism's goal is to preserve the basic societal structure and cohesion, traditions, culture and religion. Conservative's embrace of classical liberalism was a marriage of convenience after the progressive and New Deal era's. In a previous context, they would have been enemies. In some ways they still are, as conservative deviations on things like strong defense in favor of big government are holdovers from the previous embrace of government, which enrages libertarians.

[Senator Incitatus]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

Limited government can be a per se ideology. It's just that it's an ideology for morons.

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

I always considered Jackson as a populist conservative.

[MABA 2020]

Was Jackson not a classical liberal? Which would put him more in line with the modern right wing?

I don't think it's really possible anyway to map modern day politics on to the politics of the 1800's

[RINO Tom]

Was Jackson not a classical liberal? Which would put him more in line with the modern right wing?

I don't think it's really possible anyway to map modern day politics on to the politics of the 1800's

I'd say the last sentence kind of answers the question ... I guess he was?  I think his main lasting legacy was fighting against a coziness to big business in the Federalist tradition (and what would spawn the Whigs), which I would certainly not consider conservative, myself.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was Jackson not a classical liberal? Which would put him more in line with the modern right wing?

I don't think it's really possible anyway to map modern day politics on to the politics of the 1800's

I'd say the last sentence kind of answers the question ... I guess he was?  I think his main lasting legacy was fighting against a coziness to big business in the Federalist tradition (and what would spawn the Whigs), which I would certainly not consider conservative, myself.

It all comes down to what you consider to be conservative in that sense.

Conservatism as a movement in the US did not exist prior to the mid 20th century. Everyone was fighting over what they interpreted to be the legacy of the Revolution in one form or another and since the American Revolution was not a social upheaval like say France or Russia, the elites before the war were generally the elites after the war save for the elimination of those with loyalist sentiments.

This meant that large theme in politics over the course of the ensuing decades was the "Populism v Establishment" divide, with the establishment being dominated by rich bankers, merchants, planters etc and the populist contingent being that of poor farmers, laborers and urban artisans (the less wealthy ones anyway). This was true of the Jeffersonians around 1800 and for the Jacksonians some twenty some years later, was a revitalization of this divide.

Owing to the nature and composition of the establishment in this context and their opposition it is reasonable to assert that those seeking to preserve the power of the establishment forces were on the right as the right traditionally favors hierarchy and preservation of the traditional social structure.

Just like not all right wing politics is conservative, not all opponents of conservatives are liberal. Populism doesn't really mean anything substantively, it just means that it is channeling the whims and impulse of the populace against the elite. It can manifest as left or right. 

[KaiserDave]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I think the notion that Lincoln was emblematic of a typical Whig, or the leadership and ideological leaders of the Whig Party isn't really true. Lincoln broke with party orthodoxy on immigration, he was always stronger on the issue of stopping the extension on slavery, and his actions as a Republican charted a very different course than what other orthodox Whigs, including Clay's own direct protege Crittenden went down.

[Aurelius]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I think the notion that Lincoln was emblematic of a typical Whig, or the leadership and ideological leaders of the Whig Party isn't really true. Lincoln broke with party orthodoxy on immigration, he was always stronger on the issue of stopping the extension on slavery, and his actions as a Republican charted a very different course than what other orthodox Whigs, including Clay's own direct protege Crittenden went down.

This is all true, but at the same time he was a very orthodox Whig on tariffs, internal improvements, and labor. I think the best label for Lincoln, if we're forced to put him in modern labels (which I hate doing - because as has been stated so well by so many people on this forum, there weren't really any true "conservatives" in that era of American history because no one's primary goal was to conserve things as they were - people wanted to grow and mold the nation in different ways - but so many people love to do) is that he was a progressive conservative.

[TDAS04]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I think the notion that Lincoln was emblematic of a typical Whig, or the leadership and ideological leaders of the Whig Party isn't really true. Lincoln broke with party orthodoxy on immigration, he was always stronger on the issue of stopping the extension on slavery, and his actions as a Republican charted a very different course than what other orthodox Whigs, including Clay's own direct protege Crittenden went down.

Yes, and he clearly didn't share the nativist sentiment common among his fellow Whigs.

[RINO Tom]

Jackson was quite conservative in the sense that he supported limited government, which makes him an interesting figure to place. If you define conservative as "doing whatever businesses support" Jackson was definitely not a conservative. But if you define conservatism as limited government, Jackson was a conservative.

A good way to think about it would be if American business today supported Keynesian economic policy. In that case, would it be conservative to support Keynesian economic policy, because business supports it, or to oppose it, because it's big government? If you say the former, Jackson was not a conservative. If you say the latter, he was.

Limited government is a method to achieve your ideological goals, not an ideology.  Alexander Hamilton's conservatism was not diminished because he wanted a more centralized government ... that was just the most effective means for him to enact conservative policies in his day.  There is zero reason to believe, given the other things he stated he believed in, that he would still support "big government" today.

Also, I find it interesting that very few people (besides maybe Truman) have any problem considering the Whig a generically conservative party, yet they ignore the fact that Lincoln was effectively a partisan hack for the Whigs whose political hero was Henry Clay.

I think the notion that Lincoln was emblematic of a typical Whig, or the leadership and ideological leaders of the Whig Party isn't really true. Lincoln broke with party orthodoxy on immigration, he was always stronger on the issue of stopping the extension on slavery, and his actions as a Republican charted a very different course than what other orthodox Whigs, including Clay's own direct protege Crittenden went down.

Yes, and he clearly didn't share the nativist sentiment common among his fellow Whigs.

He was indeed liberal (or at least more liberal than the average Whig descendant) on immigration, but that’s one issue.  He was as “conservative” (IMO) as they come on pro-business tariffs, for example.  It’s damn clear to me that Lincoln was a moderate, which is why it’s bizarre that - instead of it being somewhat of an enigma - Democrats largely believe 110% he’d today very clearly belong to the political party that he didn’t belong to then … I mean, there are still Republicans sticking with the party who are constantly abused by the base, if that’s your angle.  Benefit of the doubt should AT BEST be it’s up in the air.

[TDAS04]

Lincoln was moderate.  While I think he could have been a center-left Democrat today, I didn’t say I know for sure.