Talk:Whig Party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6/29/05 interpretive materials added by RJensen

I strongly disagree about the whig party coming about as a result of the collapse of the republican party. That party still exists -- see today's Democratic party. Rather, the whig party came together as a result of a few things: 1. A reaction to Jackson. The whig party was distrustful of Jackson's power grabs, and came together partially as an attempt to contain them. Several other groups came into being to oppose Jackson, the most notable being the anti-masonic party (which introduced the national nominating convention). 2. The leadership of Clay. 3. The remnants of the Federalist party

It would be accurate to say that there was a split within the Democratic-Republican party. Among other things, the Democratic-Republican party was the only dominant party to exist for several years before Jackson's election (which explains Clay's membership in the party).24.250.119.145

The Republican leader in Congress was Henry Clay and he formed the new Whig party. The Federalist element was small. See Holt. Rjensen 02:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Federalist element was fairly significant, especially in New England - Webster, after all, was a former Federalist. But it wasn't a successor party to the Federalists in any sense. john k 02:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

When the Whigs got moving circa 1832-34, there had not been a major Federalist campaign for more than a decade. That party was dead. Rjensen 02:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

While the party had not pushed any nationwide initiatives, it was still relatively strong in New England. While some Whigs may have been former Democratic-Republicans, the former Federalists provided a much stronger push. After the death of the Federalists following Jackson's victory at the battle of New Orleans, the Federalists and Democratic Republicans effectively joined. The remnants of the party persisted in New England, where they also slowly lost allegiance to the Federalist party. Madison et al intended for Congress to be the dominant branch of government. Seeing a president grab power reignited some old federalist passions, and helped to galvanize a new party based partially off of the federalists, partially off of others who didn't like Jackson's use of power. The party was not a successor party, but it did incorporate elements of Federalist doctrine into its platforms.

To be honest, I don't think you have a very strong understanding of that time period in history. My antebellum history is starting to get rusty; would you agree to have john k write the relevant section, assuming he is willing?

24.250.119.145

actually I've read a couple hundred books on the era and feel up to speed on the topic. People interested in the party should read Holt, Remini on Clay and Webster, and my favorite, McCormick, Second Party System. If you see and error please point it out but please don't let old textbooks block new scholarship. Rjensen 04:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I somehow don't think that's true. I'm very confident in my sources (re: American Pageant), and have little confidence in textbooks published by Holt -- among other things, I've seen blatant errors in their french texts, and have little confidence in their math texts. I've seen no reason to suppose their history texts are any better. Secondly, what's this about new scholarship? Are you, or is someone else, retroactively establishing the whig party in a new context? Or I suppose the history of the dead-since-the-1860's whig party has changed recently, and that pigs may fly.

john k is an admin, and a history student at Penn. Yes, European history majors in US colleges do learn about US history, though obviously not as much as euro history. Why not let him rewrite? 24.250.119.145

I don't mean Holt textbooks I mean Michael's Holt's massive 1000 page history of the Whig party published about 6 years ago by Oxford UP -- you can browse it at [1]. As for the Holt publishers--well I published a history textbook with them in 1971 (it is long out of print) and I have not dealt with them since. Yes in 1980s and 1990s historians "rediscovered" the Whig party and spent tens of thousands of hours pouring over old documents and have a quite fresh explanation of what happened. See the Brown and Holt books especially.

Haha, props for referencing that guy. I'm still confident about my sources, though, you can't simply ignore the similarities in platform between the federalists and the whigs and say that the whigs were solely the result of a schizm in the democratic-republican party. While a break definately occured (evidenced by the transition from an effectively one party system to a two party system), there was definate federalist sentiment in the whig party.

That isn't to say the whig party was a descendant of the federalists, their platforms were often different. It's simply that the whigs were a prominent influence, possibly more-so than the federalists. The textbooks I've read so far have supported what I've typed here. Yes Bailey's book is old, but it has been updated (I last read the 2003 ed). I'm not going to take a hard line on this, but I do want the article consistant with what I remember.24.250.119.145

takke a look at Brown, Holt and Remini books. They have a much more complex picture. The Republicans 1816-24 adopted many federalist principles--most famously the 2nd Bank of the US. That was possible because the Fed party was 95% dead after 1816 and the Republicans like Henry Clay could raid its ideas. But it's Clay the Jeffersonian republican leader that everyone agrees dominated and shaped the Whig party. he was the leading ENEMY of the Federalists for 20 years. Rjensen 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What's specifically being argued about here? The Whigs were certainly not a direct successor party to the Federalists in any way. The Whigs formed in 1832-1834 as a result of the merger of the National Republicans (supporters of Adams in 1828 and Clay in 1832) with various Southern anti-Jacksonites. The latter element of the Whigs had no connection whatever to Federalists - all of those involved would have been former Republicans. The National Republicans weren't predominantly Whigs, either - Clay was obviously a former Republican, as were many other leaders of the party. But there was also a fairly strong formerly Federalist element within the National Republicans. Webster was a former Federalist, and is generally considered to be the second most important Whig leader, after Clay. As far as I can gather, the Federalists retained some local strength in lower New England, New York, around Philadelphia, and in Maryland and Delaware into the 1820s. The Congressional Biographical Dictionary lists 22 Federalists in the House in the 17th Congress (the last one they divide up by Federalists/Republicans) - a small minority, certainly, but still a recognizable group. The areas where the Federalists remained in existence to the end also proved areas of core National Republican and Whig strength. I think it's fairly clear that the old Federalist base was one of the main constituencies of the National Republican and Whig Parties, even if a few former Federalists (Buchanan, Taney, and so forth) ended up supporting Jackson. The original National Republican Party combined old Federalists with Clay's nationalistic western Republicans, and the later amalgamation into the Whigs added anti-elitist Anti-Masons from the Northeast and anti-Jackson types from the deep south, and the Whigs certainly had a very different tone and attitude towards political democracy than the Federalists did, but there's certainly a perceptible continuity from Federalists to Whigs in the Northeast and eastern border states. To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of either version of the phrase that you guys seem to be arguing about. The anon's version is particularly bad in pretending that only a few Republicans (and Republicans who objected to Jackson's use of presidential powers, at that!) joined the party. That version is just completely wrong. Rjensen's version isn't explicitly wrong like that, but I think it minimizes the fact that there was considerable ex-Federalist presence in the Whig Party. Sure, the party came into being out of the break-up of the Republican Party, but that doesn't change the fact that there were a lot of old Federalists in the party, and a lot of its electoral support came in the very same areas that had previously supported the Federalists. I think both sides ought to be brought out. john k 06:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logical?

In "The Early Years" a recent edit states that Tyler was never a Whig, but goes on to say he was expelled from the Whig Party after his veto. Is it meant that he never embraced the Whig Party principles? If he wasn't a Whig, he couldn't have been expelled from the party. Can this be clarified?David 17:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Whigs in their earliest years especially were rather a catch-all movement for anti-Andrew Jackson politicians. As a result you got a lot of policitians in a coalition of opposition who wouldn't necessarily agree in government. Ideology counted for a lot less in those days and VP nominees were mainly about ticket balancing - indeed Tyler took the position after several others declined. So one could wind up being elected on a party ticket despite being out of step with the mainstream of the party. Timrollpickering 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)