Democratic-Republicans, and Just Who is the Party of, Jefferson and Jackson.

Miscellaneous History
1

Boy the emberassments of civil duty(bipartisans), remind me of authoritarians. Jacksonians were hard money. Jeffersonians usually laissez-faire. In your opinions who is more Hamilton/R.Morris, D’s or R’s? The two both remind of the same.

I think ya’ll ought have a look at their revisionism. D’s v R’s

A generation later, Franklin Roosevelt was elected president running on the promise of a New Deal. Roosevelt pulled America out of the Depression by looking beyond the Democratic base and energizing citizens around the belief that their government could actively assist them in times of need. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought water to California’s Central Valley, electrified Appalachia and saved farms across the Midwest. The Civilian Conservation Corps, the WPA and Social Security all brought Americans into the system, freeing us from fear, giving us a stake in the heart, and destroying productivity and wealth.~D’s

That same year(1868) the Republican Congress also passed the National Eight Hour Law, which, though it applied only to government workers, brought relief for overworked federal employees by limiting the work day to eight hours. ~R’s

I really like the anti-slavery, equal sufferage, individual rights, small government, stuff. The R’s should really try that some time.

The Jacksonian Democrats created the national convention process, the party platform, and reunified the Democratic Party with Jackson’s victories in 1828 and 1832.~D’s

At the time of its founding, the Republican Party was organized as an answer to the divided politics, political turmoil, arguments and internal division, particularly over slavery, that plagued the many existing political parties in the United States in 1854. The Free Soil Party, asserting that all men had a natural right to the soil, demanded that the government re-evaluate homesteading legislation and grant land to settlers free of charge. The Conscience Whigs, the “radical” faction of the Whig Party in the North, alienated themselves from their Southern counterparts by adopting an anti-slavery position. And the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed territories to determine whether slavery would be legalized in accordance with “popular sovereignty” and thereby nullify the principles of the Missouri Compromise, created a schism within the Democratic Party.~R’s

Well sorry about the quotes, because you may or may not of clicked the above links.

Lookin at the way these clowns behave, I’d say none of have a clue, and they all don’t give a damn about individualism. Although they ought to walk their talk, and I might even call one a liberal.

Well from what I got from The History of Money and Banking in America,an aged Jefferson helped the hard money Jacksonians, establish the democratic party, I’m lazy and don’t want to crack my book

I was also disapointed they were too cowardous do avail they were softy’s. That is, abombnable whore’s of trash commodity(fiat), and elitist plunderers.

2

I certainly don’t need help in lookin’ like a bafoon. Couldn’t even get the name of the book right. It’s A History of Money and Banking in the United States:
The Colonial Era to World War II

The referance can be found on Pages 91-92

THE JACKSONIAN MOVEMENT
AND THE BANK WAR
Out of the bitter experiences of the panic of 1819 emerged the
beginnings of the Jacksonian movement, dedicated to hard
money, the eradication of fractional reserve banking in general,

and of the Bank of the United States in particular. Andrew Jackson
himself, Senator Thomas Hart “Old Bullion” Benton of
Missouri, future President James K. Polk of Tennessee, and
Jacksonian economists Amos Kendall of Kentucky and Condy
Raguet of Philadelphia, were all converted to hard money and
100-percent reserve banking by the experience of the panic of
1819.68 The Jacksonians adopted, or in some cases pioneered in,
the Currency School analysis, which pinned the blame for
boom-bust cycles on inflationary expansions followed by contractions
of bank credit. Far from being the ignorant bumpkins
that most historians have depicted, the Jacksonians were
steeped in the knowledge of sound economics, particularly of
the Ricardian Currency School.
Indeed, no movement in American politics has been as flagrantly
misunderstood by historians as the Jacksonians. They
were emphatically not, as historians until recently have
depicted, either “ignorant anti-capitalist agrarians,” or “representatives
of the rising entrepreneurial class,” or “tools of the
inflationary state banks,” or embodiments of an early proletarian
anticapitalist movement or a nonideological power group or
“electoral machine.” The Jacksonians were libertarians, plain
and simple. Their program and ideology were libertarian; they
strongly favored free enterprise and free markets, but they just
as strongly opposed special subsidies and monopoly privileges
conveyed by government to business or to any other group.
They favored absolutely minimal government, certainly at the
federal level, but also at the state level. They believed that government
should be confined to upholding the rights of private
property. In the monetary sphere, this meant the separation of
government from the banking system and a shift from inflationary
paper money and fractional reserve banking to pure
specie and banks confined to 100-percent reserves.
In order to put this program into effect, however, the Jacksonians
faced the grueling task of creating a new party out of

what had become a one-party system after the War of 1812, in
which the Democrat-Republicans had ended up adopting the
Federalist program, including the re-establishing of the Bank of
the United States. The new party, the Democratic Party, was
largely forged in the mid-1820s by New York political leader,
Martin Van Buren, newly converted by the aging Thomas Jefferson
to the laissez-faire cause. Van Buren cemented an alliance
with Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri and the Old Republicans
of Virginia, but he needed a charismatic leader to take the presidency
away from Adams and what was becoming known as
the National Republican Party. He found that leader in Andrew
Jackson, who was elected president under the new Democratic
banner in 1828.

Each of todays parties sure got their propaganda whitewashed.

3

I like this one from the repubs.

Reducing the government. Streamlining the bureaucracy. Returning power to the states. These issues don’t sound like they would be the promises of the party of Lincoln, the party that fought to preserve the national union, but they are, and logically so.

Laugh Riot

4

The gaul of those shifty D’s, excluding Grover, and ‘shilling’ us with Byranites.

As the 19th Century came to a close, the American electorate changed more and more rapidly. The Democratic Party embraced the immigrants who flooded into cities and industrial centers, built a political base by bringing them into the American mainstream, and helped create the most powerful economic engine in history. Democratic Party leader William Jennings Bryan led a movement of agrarian reformers and supported the right of women’s suffrage, the progressive graduated income tax and the direct election of Senators. As America entered the 20th Century, the Democratic Party became dominant in local urban politics.~D’s

Again, Rothbard can help us here.

The Greenbackers and later the pro-silver, inflationist, Bryanite
Populist Party were not “agrarian parties”; they were collections
of pietists aiming to stamp out personal and political sin.
Thus, as Kleppner points out, “The Greenback Party was less an
amalgamation of economic pressure groups than an ad hoc
coalition of ‘True Believers,’ ‘ideologues,’ who launched their
party as a ‘quasi-religious’ movement that bore the indelible
hallmark of ‘a transfiguring faith.’ ” The Greenbackers perceived
their movement as the “religion of the Master in motion
among men.” And the Populists described their 1890 free-silver
contest in Kansas not as a “political campaign,” but as “a religious
revival, a crusade, a pentecost of politics in which a
tongue of flame sat upon every man, and each spake as the
spirit gave him utterance.” The people had “heard the word
and could preach the gospel of Populism.” It was no accident,
we see now, that the Greenbackers almost invariably endorsed
prohibition, compulsory public schooling, and crushing of
parochial schools. Or that Populists in many states “declared
unequivocally for prohibition” or entered various forms of
fusion with the Prohibition Party.163
The Transformation of 1896 and the death of the third party
system meant the end of America’s great laissez-faire, hardmoney
libertarian party. The Democratic Party was no longer
the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland. With no further
political embodiment for laissez-faire in existence, and with
both parties offering “an echo not a choice,” public interest in

politics steadily declined. A power vacuum was left in American
politics for the new corporate statist ideology of progressivism,
which swept both parties (and created a short-lived Progressive
Party) in America after 1900. The Progressive Era of
1900–1918 fastened a welfare-warfare state on America which
has set the mold for the rest of the twentieth century. Statism
arrived after 1900 not because of inflation or deflation, but
because a unique set of conditions had destroyed the Democrats
as a laissez-faire party and left a power vacuum for the triumph
of the new ideology of compulsory cartelization through
a partnership of big government, business, unions, technocrats,
and intellectuals.

D’s and R’s are charlatans. Don’t let them claim alliegance to the bank-killers, if they are too ignorant or cowardous to be in favour of laissez-faire. They act like ‘look how great we be for bein’ in your business.’ They talk like they are different but are just ‘an echo not a choice’. They are both vain as well.