Talk:Democratic-Republican Party/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article Title

I'm willing to forgo the use of 'Party' or 'party' in the mrs. backenstoes has a big buttitle if we change the name of the article to reflect the same. Skyemoor 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The box below misrepresents the discussion. Skyemoor changed his !vote here, as he is entitled to do; but he appears not to realize that it is Wikipedia custom to mark changes of one's own comments after they have been responded to. Septentrionalis 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis distains the use of WP guidelines, but then wants to hold me to some vague interpretation of his perception of a 'custom'. If he can provide a policy or guideline that supports his position, I will consider it. In the meantime, I would ask that he cease his practice of altering my discussion on these various talk pages. Skyemoor 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Democratic Republicans

Democratic-Republican Party (United States) → Democratic Republicans —(Discuss)— There is no consensus on the perfect name for this article; but there appears to be agreement this would be an improvement: It avoids the impression that they were a fusion, like the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party; and it evades the question of whether they were a "party", a "Party", or neither. —Septentrionalis 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom. See also discussion. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Wiki would be making matters worse. The name seems to be about MEMBERS of the party, but the article is actually about the PARTY itself, like all Wiki articles. Rjensen 05:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Was there a party, as opposed to its members, before, say, 1803? Septentrionalis 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There is no consensus on any further move; as the discussion above will show at length. This is a proposal for a tweak only, I would strongly oppose any further move. Septentrionalis 16:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The term 'party' should be able to be referred to in the body of the article in the context of its usage in that timeframe (primarily the way it is discussed in portions of the article now), as initially loose coalitions that grew into more formal factions, eventually leading to convention-based parties. We would also need to highlight the difference in timeframe between "Republicans" and "Democratic-Republican", and remain disambiguated from DR Societies.

Didn't this party run candidates for office? Weren't several presidents of the Democratic-Republican Party? Will the new name fit in all the places where the existng name is used? 67.166.152.250 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And the Federalist Party (United States), Anti-Administration Party (United States), and Pro-Administration Party (United States)? Settler 05:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Administration Party (and its opposite) are anachronisms, if not figments. But I don't feel inclined to move them. If you want a parallel, would anyone support Anti-Federalist Party (United States), instead of Anti-Federalism, where they are, or Anti-Federalists? Septentrionalis 16:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And then what would we do about the First Party System? I'm afraid we've both been a bit too zealous here; these are parties by the definition that historians are using for the era, so I'll retract my encouragement (and indeed will now oppose) to remove "party" from the article. Skyemoor 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My naive but observant $.02 --Contemporary capitalization was haphazard; why the insistence on "republican" when (I suspect) "Republican" was more common? --"Democratic-Republican" (with or without hyphen) is a retcon to distinguish the party that evolved (a) from the Anti-Federalists and (b) into the Democratic Party from the Republican Party of 1854 to present. --A member of the contemporaneous Party would have defined himself [sic] as a Republican. Others sometimes referred to the party as composed of Democrats, due to the affiliation of the Jeffersonians and Anti-Federalists with the Democrat Clubs (pro-Jacobin social and political organizations) of the 1790s. My suggestion: rename this article Republican Party (Jeffersonian). --jperrylsu

Party name vs. Member labels

The first sentence refers to party names, though one person has been putting in member labels. I'll park the reference here so that others can discuss it. I'll also note that the use of 'Democrat' as referenced is so infrequent as to preclude mention on the same level elsewhere as "republican", "Republican", or "Jeffersonian Republican".Skyemoor 19:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Democrats, Jeffersonians, or combinations of these (like Jeffersonian republicans);

I regret to see that Skyemoor's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the authors and members of the Party's last nominating caucus. This should of course be restored. Septentrionalis 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

regret to see that Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's persistent and single-handed edit war has resulted in the misplacement of the use of "Democratic Members of Congress" as the party had split by this time period. This should of course be discussed further down in the article.

Septentrionalis needs to read his own sources more closely. His own source notes that in calling for the caucus, the "Democratic Members" are seceding from the "republican party." It cannot be more clear-- the party name was "republican." Why anyone would hold this up as evidence of the contrary is mystifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedmore (talk • contribs) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if Skyemoor would take the time to observe that his edit summary is wrong on two points; The first line does say "Democratic Republican Party" (although it should have a hyphen);

And alt names must also refer to parties, though you are trying to bend the definition to member labels. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

and, more importantly, WP:MOS is a guideline, not policy. Septentrionalis 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." Present your justification for an exception and we will discuss it. Skyemoor 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Heed, yes; obey as the Ten Commandments, no. Bolding all the names given to the DR's results in a lengthy and garish stretch of bold test, which makes the paragraph diffiuclt to read.

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis's POV must be obeyed? No. The WP:MOS clearly states otherwise, even providing an example with much more bolding than we have. I'll provide the example again. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: "

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River.

Skyemoor's effort to "solve" this problem by reducing the list to the anachronism Republican Party is tendentious and misleading.

If Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wants to call the historians that pen the majority of history textbooks 'tendentious and misleading', he may, though he shouldn't expect any of us to give it a second thought. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(I have said this before; if this time Skyemoor has an acrual answer, we can indeed discuss it.) Septentrionalis 23:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis has been shown the answer many times, but prefers to cling to outdated POV. And he should quit changing the text in my responses, regardless if his case is too weak otherwise. Skyemoor 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The ongoing edit-war about typograhy and similar details is the very essence of WP:LAMEness. I've had to block one party for 3RR, but I seriously recommend to all involved to give it a break. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider this edit by Skyemoor a definite improvement, although not perfect. Septentrionalis 19:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions over the past 9 months

It was well past due; this talk page was simply enormous. Settler 22:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1890s change to 1930s

Changed the date 1890's as the Republican Party per their platform planks and the administration's of Harrison, McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt still adhered to the progressive ideals of the original Republican Party and Lincoln. The switch in orientation began with during Taft's administration and throughout the Wilson and Roaring Twenties era finally culminating in the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt of 1930s when a clear switch to a "free-market" orientation began for the Republican's made more complete by Goldwater and then later by Reagan (thus being in sinc with the party of Jefferson). Whereas the ideals of the party under F.D.R. for the Democrat's changed the orientation (began with rallies of Bryan and administration of Wilson to some degree) to 'liberal' and 'populist' forming into in ideals anyway the party of Lincoln (liberty and eqaulity plus economic populism rooted in the ideals of Clay and Adams, and the economic and strong government beliefs of Hamilton). Again, with the 1960's the transformation for the Democratic Party continued as Southern Democrats (Blue Dogs) left the party and joined the Republican Party (Bill Bennett is an example) affecting a transformation that today is almost complete. A very Northern-Western Democratic Party (old Lincoln-GOP coalition) oriented towards liberty and equality together with a Lincolnesque populism in economic affairs and a increasingly Southern dominated Republican Party (as the old Democratic coalition was from Jefferson and Jackson's time) oriented toward social conservatism (active government in personal affairs) and free-marketism in economic affairs (with free trade - inactive government in economic affairs) thus the new party of Jefferson. The dividing can be seen in the 2006 election (with the likes of Webb and Brown being not only opposed to the Iraq war - but economically more in sinc with Lincoln than Jefferson). --Northmeister 15:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryan's anti-bank populism (1890s) was toned done and evolved into progressivism by Wilson's time. Liberal is just another name for progressive and both names are still in use today. FDR may have popularized the word "liberalism," but I hardly think he created the movement. Mainstream pre-Bryan U.S. politicans would all be conservative by modern standards. The 19th century Democratic vs. Republican split was about slavery and the status of blacks -- neither side questioned free market economics. Kauffner 04:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Party's name as it is used in history books

My main concern is the assertion in the article that the "Democratic-Republican Party" turned into the modern day Democratic Party which is incorrect. Since the party's actual name was the Republican Party it leads people to assume they dropped the Republican from the name Democratic-Republican Party which was not the case. There was a hiatus between their collapse in the early 1820s and the emergence of the Democratic Party in the 1830s. Brianbonner (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous editors of this article reached a concensus that the Demo-Repub Party's name is generally used in history books the way it is used in the title of this article -- Democratic-Republican Party. From the archive: Party's name as it is used in American history books. Please consider the archive discussion before revisiting this topic. Griot 22:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no census achieved in your reference. There are hundreds of references we could bring forth to help mediate this 'dispute'; I've used one rough order of magnitude approach used in the past (focused searches in Google Scholar). The choices as I see it are;

• Republican or republican: Used by Jefferson, Madison, and many other in that timeframe. Used by more historians on JSTOR, and in more historical textbooks. An excellent choice that can be disambiguated with only a few words. The use of a lowercase 'r' (or the interesting use of an asterisk) sets it apart from the current Republican party, and the link takes one to the appropriate article. Google Scholar hits for Madison "Republican party" Federalist -"Democratic Republican": 2220

Of course it was used that way by Jefferson, Madison, in that period. Your statement "used by more historians on JSTOR" is quite bold, given the number of history books on JSTOR. I commend you for reading them all. The use of a lowercase R is still confusing, and if you can find any instance in an encylopedia where a term is repeatedly asterisked, show me. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Democratic Republican: Obviously falling out of favor with historians. Worst choice. Madison Federalist "Democratic Republican Party": 162

I have edited many history textbooks. Narrow books focusing on the post-Colonial field use the word "Republican"; the vast majority of others use "Democratic-Republican," as this article does, to prevent confusion between this party and the current Republican Party. I have seen publishers' style sheets calling for this party to be called "Democratic-Republican." That is the common usage. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Democratic Party: No historical basis for this, beyond extended lineage. Not a real candidate.

Basis for what? I don't understand this one. Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jeffersonian Republican: Not used by them, but in frequent use by historians to disambiguate the term "Republican". I seen no confusion vis a viz Reagan Republican usage by 99.9% of the readership. Madison Federalist "Jeffersonian Republican"; 173

Frequent use? Where? Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Jeffersonian Republican as really being a subset of Republican, but both of those are clearly more in use than Democratic Republican; hence, either of those options would be the ones to pick from for party affiliation.

And the WP:MOS states;

"Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: "

The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River. --Skyemoor 03:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You may well ask yourself why the name "Democratic-Republican Party" appears at the top of this article. It appears there because that is the generally accepted name by historians. We should be consistent and stick with that name. Griot 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You've provided no references or analytical proof; WP cannot be a source for itself. There was a large war over the name here and the current wording with Republican bolded was the consensus. --Skyemoor 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ man, did you look at the archived arguments. It is necessary to over this all over again because you arrived late? Let's stick with the party's name as it is known at the top of this article rather than open up this can of worms. Historians chose D-R for a very good reason -- to distinguish this party from the modern-day Repbulican Party. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to confuse people. Griot 23:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the confusion issue goes, "Democratic Republican" is also confusing because it leads readers to believe that Democrats and Republicans were rival factions within a supposed "Democratic-Republican Party" and that these factions split and evolved into the modern parties. In fact, various political factions saw no conflict in proclaiming themselves both Democratic and Republican long after the breakup of the Jeffersonian party.Kauffner 05:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't provided anything of substance to support your changes (to material which had stood as the consensus after a long, tiresome debate for over 8 months), so WP policy and guidelines will be followed. --Skyemoor 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how much more substance I can provide. Very bureacratic of you to interpret WP policy for me... Griot 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, they will be followed; and they include ways to settle disputes with a single-handed special-purpose account. Republican is neither common ussage nor clear; neither sophistry nor vandalism can change this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Still nothing of substance to support violation of WP policies and guidelines. I'd be happy to take this up the chain and see you two try to defend this. --Skyemoor 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I learned of this party in college as the Republican Party, though it had no lineage with the present day party of the same name in the US. It seems there is a lot of angst about this by some; is this because of current political leanings of some of the editors? Let's be unbiased here, this is an encyclopedia, not a political party info release. Think of the different uses of "Progressive Party". ComplexEndeavors 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the seven U.S. history books in my library. These are general-purpose books that don't focus on one particular era. Seven use "Democratic-Republican" and one uses "Republican." Keep in mind when you search the JSTROR that the word "republican" often refers to people who supported republican principles, no the party, so JSTOR searches aren't really valid. 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon review of the JSTOR search in question, I found it used "Republican party" as a quoted search string, which would not simply pick up hits on just "republican" or "Republican". Hence, the JSTOR search is a valid one (and an innovative one, I might add). ComplexEndeavors 17:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought the discussion in the archives was quite clear that there was significantly more historical support for the use of Republican Party. Certainly, as a reference to the party the term is essentially non-existent during Jefferson's life. A Musing 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Jefferson's term? The OED cites it, from the party newspaper, from 1811, and there are older uses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean his life - I'm aware of uses of it for local party groups, or in the older Democratic-Republican committees that existed before the party, but not for the national party as a whole - and I have looked, so I'm interested in any contrary examples. What is the newspaper cited in the OED? I'm not aware of any official national "party" newspaper (and, indeed, you'd have trouble finding much of an "official national party" at times), but there were papers that essentially served as mouthpieces of key party figures. A Musing 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hezekiah Niles' Weekly Register. A Baltimore and Washington paper, which received the Federal Government advertising and served as national paper. Of course it was not official; what American paper has ever been an official party paper? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a paper that declared its intention in its first issue to be above party and is generally used as a relatively neutral source; Niles was a fairly Whiggish sort overall. I don't have on-line access to a full set, but the phrase Democratic-Republican was certainly attached to the local Baltimore party at that time (there had even earlier been a newspaper in Baltimore called the "Democratic-Republican"). I'll try to find copies and see what it's use is. A Musing

Hmm. I wonder where I picked up that description then. But you will find a much longer discussion of lots of evidence in the archives of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my eyes are swimming. However, there seems to be about equal evidence for both names. To be unbiased, we need to reflect both names, which the alt name bold mentioned above does. Also, since there doesn't seem to be agreement about which names historians prefer (yet), it would be best to remove the last sentence in the first paragraph completely. ComplexEndeavors 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to say that Jefferson called it the "Republican Party". This will be understood to mean that he framed that proper name in 1792, which is not, I think, true; he used "republican party" in 1792, but as a common noun with adjective. I have rephrased the last sentence to what our survey seems to indicate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. "Democratic-Republican Party" is generally a historiographic term, just like "Byzantine Empire". As long as we explain that to the readers, we're doing our jobs fine.--Pharos 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Jefferson likely did not use caps, but current historians and history books do, hence it should be capped in the first sentence. Later on where Jefferson is quoted, if that needs such a specific attribution, then it can be in lower case. The contorted sentence over what historians called the party is both unnecessary and confusing, and not unlikely unsupportable. 198.151.13.10 23:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The quotation marks in the first sentence are a quotation; furthermore Jefferson's letter of May 23, 1792, divides Congress into the "corrupt squadron", the "republican party", and the "anti-federalists". These are not proper names; and Jefferson capitalizes none of them; these are descriptions. And do remember to sign in; sockpuppetry is deprecated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence should have the well-supported alternative name bolded, not quoted in lower case. Further down, Jefferson is quoted, which would be appropriate the way it is now. ComplexEndeavors 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One of my efforts has been to add historical US rep rosters to various Rep districts (now focusing in New England). I have been reading with interest the discussion here, not knowing what party to affiliate some of the early reps with, or what to call some of them (in the spirit of accuracy). For what it is worth the Clerk of the US House of Reps (gov official website) identifies Jeffersonian Republicans, Crawford Republicans, Adams-Clay Republicans, and Jackson Republicans as parties of record. The Congressional Biography web site identifies the Jeffersonian Republicans as Republicans, and notes the other affiiations (Adams-Clay, Crawford and Jackson), so there is no concensus there either. For my money,though,for me, enough historical references and arguments have been provided above for me to continue with the use of Democratic-Republican as an identifier - we need to call them something, and many of the reps have already been identified as such, the change would be a nightmare this late in the game.....Maybe I've been too hasty creating the rosters?Pmeleski 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Adams-Clay Republican

One thing I haven't worked out in my mind is if Adams-Clay Republicans should be grouped with Democratic-Republicans or National Republicans........Most of the rosters here show Adams-Clay as National Republicans, but outside sources show the election of 1824 shows the Democratic-Republican group (of which Adams-Clay was around then)as the only viable party at this time? Any thoughts?Pmeleski 22:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• The National Republicans were originally one faction within the party which had supported Monroe; they became an independent party after 1824, as the former DR's ceased to work with each other, having no motive to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

This contains only disputable claims:

• that the "ideology" (a word Jefferson was to bring into English as the party was beginning to dissolve) was:
  • Republicanism in the United States
  • Classical Liberalism
  • Anti-Federalism
  • Libertarianism
  • Individualism
  • Free Trade

  All these are disputable; none are true of all leaders of the party; it would be difficult to make the case that any are equally true of the arguments of Jefferson in 1798 and the governance of Monroe in 1823 - or Madison in 1814.

• That it succeeded, and is therefore distinct from, the Anti-Administration Party, which was the same men as the party that campaigned for Jefferson in 1796.
• That it preceeded, and is therefore distinct from, the still existing Democratic Party (United States), a doubtful and partisan claim.
• A fairly arbitrary choice of exact dates for these transitions.

Let's remove it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Done

Correction to 1824 Election results

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, but it seems that the following sentence (third paragraph) in this entry is incorrect:

" in 1824.... John Quincy Adams finished first in the Electoral College"

According to the National Atlas election maps, Jackson had 99 electoral votes to Adams' 84.

http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/elections.html#list

If someone could make this correction, it would be appreciated.

Thanks,

````DavidG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.188.126 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Foreign Interventionism

I propose that foreign interventionism be added to the party's ideology. Seeing as how they supported the French Revolution, the War of 1812, the Barbary Wars and supported France in the Napoleonic Wars, I don't see that it would be inaccurate. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No matter how many times they intervened abroad, that is not the same as having an ideology of interventionism. Wouldn't interventionism imply support for a strong military? Jefferson was well-known for his opposition to a standing army or navy. If the Republicans made pro-French interventions, the Federalists made pro-British ones. Kauffner (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Democratic-Republicans wanted America to be a world power to influence republicanism abroad. Although this isn't true for every single one, I think it's consistent enough to say that this should be listed as one of their ideologies. Also: Jefferson opposed a standing army, seeing it as a threat to our freedom; but (as far as I know) he had little quarrel with the navy that Adams built. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems Jefferson was actually something of a naval enthusiast.[1] But his navy consisted of very small warships called "gunboats." These were supposedly for coastal defense, but not terribly useful even in that role. They were mostly a way of building an impressive number of ships without spending much money. There was no issue of using gunboats to protect U.S. shipping or to project power abroad as, say, Adams had done. Jefferson couldn't have defeated the Barbary pirates with the navy as he restructured it. Kauffner (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. He was a gunboat enthusiast, in part because gunboats were cheap; but also because gunboats could not be used for foreign adventures. He wanted to lay the deep sea fleet up in Norfolk Harbor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant. Jefferson still authorized engagement in such the war. In the six wars that came about during the lifespan of the Democratic-Republican Party: the French Revolution, the War of 1812, Barbary Wars and the Napoleonic Wars, the D-Rs supported intervention in all of them. However, I will leave "non-interventionism" out of the box until we've come to a conclusion on this debate. -- LightSpectra (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What held the D-Rs together was the conviction the Federalists would sell the country out to Britain. On pretty much everything else, the Jefferson (libertarian) and Madison (nationalist) wings of the party disagreed. So we can hardly describe the party as having an ideology at all. Kauffner (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides here are a tad exaggerated. Madison was Jefferson's friend, ally, and Secretary of State; the differences between them are hardly as great as Kauffner suggests. On the other hand, the DRs opposed intervention in the French Revolution; they did not support (and Jefferson notoriously excoriated) Napoleon. Beyond that, LightSpectra asserts that the DR's supported the wars which occurred when they were in power; there are very few parties of which this is not true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Successor Parties

Many parties claim to be the successor to the D-R. To list a modern party as the single successor to the D-Rs strikes me as a partisan interpretation. If we talk about someone's successor as president or whatever, we mean the next guy who held the office. So the successors parties should be groups that contested elections in the years immediately after the D-R dissolved, i.e. in 1824 and 1828. This would be the Jacksonians, who later became the Democrats, and the National Republicans, who later became the Whigs. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough my AP History teacher says the current D party has almost no direct connection to the D-R/R party. There is already a section on claims of heritage though. I don't know what should be done with the infobox, is it already discussed?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As a University Academic, I would say that your AP teacher is completely wrong. The Democratic Party most certainly has connections with Jefferson's Republican Party. I would argue that the Democratic Party is a continuation of Jefferson's party. Some may say that is an offspring. But the Dems are certainly connected to the Dem-Rep.

Any asserted ideological connections between the D-Rs and the modern Dems are tenuous at best. To the extent that Jefferson could be afforded a modern political label, he would best be described as a Libertarian, which places him on the right side of the spectrum. This is a man, after all, who was extremely distrustful of the central government, was a champion of states' rights, held expansive views of civil liberties and property rights, and was of southern sensibilities. He would be absolutely appalled at Democrat initiatives like 40%+ income tax rates, affirmative action, "Fairness" Doctrine, busing, judicial activism, nationalized health care, etc. Of course, he'd also be opposed to the Republicans' pro-business policies, the existence of a large standing army, and the PATRIOT ACT, amongst other things. In a strict historical sense, the modern Democrat Party may be able to trace its lineage back to Jefferson's party, but from a political or ideological standpoint, they're on opposite sides of the spectrum and they bear no resemblance to each other. Noian's AP teacher is correct in that regard.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PassionoftheDamon, I think the "historical sense" is the way the issue of successor parties should be looked at. If we were to instead look at it from the political and ideological sense, the modern Democratic Party has rather little in common even to earlier incarnations of itself, such as in the times of Samuel J. Tilden or Grover Cleveland—yet no one would deny that the party of FDR and Obama is a continuation of the party of Tilden and Cleveland. No matter the ideological differences, the Democratic Party is a descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party. --darolew (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)