Talk:History of the Democratic Party (United States)

Popular History
There has been a lot of old-fashioned popular history that needs correction in light of modern scholarship. I have tried to remove the errors re 19th century and provided a full bibliography. Rjensen 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is in serious need of being worked on. It is making grand claims that are not supported by any citations. Serious POV problems!


 * exactly what claims are unsupported? Rjensen 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When should the history article end? 1992??
What is the natural dividing line between history and current events? I suggest 1992. Rjensen 11:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to arbitrarily stop the article at some date. "History" includes everything up until the present day.  You shouldn't blank significant portions of an article without discussion.  I have restored the 21th century section. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there no introduction to this wikipedia article?
Is this the only article on wikipedia that leads with a bullet?

If no one objects, I'll write a brief article intro. BusterD 22:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Strength of Parties 1977
This table is kind of hard to read. What's the purpose, and if we're going to show 1977, shouldn't we show other years as well? Chadlupkes 16:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * the table for 1977 provides an excellent benchmark on the eve of the Reagan era. Other years should be added (when people find the data). Rjensen 17:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

7.2: 1980s Battling Reaganism
The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1985; therefore it was not in response to landslides including 1988. AlaButterfly 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

hey
The Democratic Leadership Council was created in 1985; therefore it was not in response to landslides including 1988. AlaButterfly 06:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)....duh!!!!! <3 kylee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.241.138.98 (talk • contribs)


 * I fixed that a long time ago in another article, but didn't think to check here or forgot to. Fixed. Settler 13:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhm...
This article is very POV, and paints a portrait that suggests the Democratic Party had been established in the 18th century, where in truth the history before the 1830s is very much debatable. Sadistik 08:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhm (whatever that is supposed to mean), the article describes the origins of this party in the 18th Century. There is no question that factions of the old Democratic-Republican Party founded the modern Democratic Party. This neutrality tag is unwarranted, and unless the author can defend it better, I'm going to remove it shortly. Griot 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Democratic-Republican Party was the only party in America for a brief period of time. In the 1824 elections, all four main candidates ran on the D-R ticket. Yes, some Jeffersonians founded the modern Democratic party, but the Republican party history article does not include the Whigs, nor should it. This article should start with the disintegration of the D-R party and the formation of the modern Dems. Otherwise, it's blatantly POV and insinuates that the modern Democratic party has been around since Washington's presidency. Sadistik 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a direct link between the D-Rs and the modern Democratic Party; no such link exists between the Whigs and Republicans. The Reppublican Party did not grow from factions of the Whig Party. As the Democratic-Republican Party article notes, the United States Senate in 1991 passed by voice vote "A bill to establish a commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the establishment of the Democratic Party of the United States." And Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the eldest grandson of Jefferson, gave a speech at the 1872 Democratic National Convention and said that he had spent eighty years of his life in the "Democratic-Republican Party." The modern Democratic Party clearly grew out of the D-R party. There is no POV here. Griot 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was passed by a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives which has been trying to claim that descent for skatyeight years, making that their POV. One could state that they claim descent from the D-R party, but to state it as fact is taking a side and is un-WP. Try getting that passed after 1994, Gingrich would have never allowed it. Moreover, I'm certain that none of the Congressmen in 1991 had been members of the original D-R party or even knew anyone who had been members of that party. Also, there were no other parties at the time, which is what you don't understand. Everyone was a Democratic Republican, not just the people who later became Democrats. Even the people who would form the Republican Party were members of the D-R party, which is why you had four D-R candidates for the Presidency as I mentioned above. No Whigs, No Anti-Federalists, nothing. After the party effectively imploded, The National Republican Party was formed by members of the former Adams faction, while the Democratic party was, as mentioned, formed by members of the former Jackson faction. It's not so cut-and-dry as to compare it to, say, Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang, which was a simple continuation of another party. It's more like comparing the German NPD with the former NSDAP. Was Andrew Jackson's grandson a Democrat? Definitely. Did he have a right to speak for the already defunct Democratic Republican Party? No. In their last days, there were numerous factions and no one could speak for the party. It was simply his POV. Sadistik 19:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true that there were no other parties at the time. The Federalist Party, for example, pre-dates the D-Rs. I mention the 1991 vote because it illustrates what is a common belief -- that the Demos grew out of the D-Rs. I don't even think Gingrich would contest this historical fact. You can argue that the D-R's ideas and the modern Democrats' ideas are quite different or that the party is not in tune with its founders, but that's not the point here, as parties evolve over time. It is an historical fact that the modern Demos evolved from the D-Rs. I'm getting the impression this is an idealogical matter for you, when it shouldn't be. Today's Republican Party, for example, is quite different in idealogy from the party of 1855. Griot 19:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that the Federalist Party never existed, but it ceased to exist in 1816. Also, I'm not talking ideology. It's simply not true to say that the Democrats were a continuation. They were a new party created in 1832 whose leaders made up one faction of many in the defunct D-R party. The founders of the National Republican Party (and later Whigs) were yet another faction of the same D-R party (The Adams faction, to be specific). I'm not proposing to call Whigs the GOP, and likewise, I don't think it's accurate to call D-R's modern Democrats. A few sentences about how the Jacksonian's created a party amidst the chaos of the power vacuum should suffice. Sadistik 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If a faction of the Whig party had evolved into the GOP, or a faction of the National Republican Party had evolved into the GOP, I would have no objection, in an article about the history of the GOP, in saying that the GOP's origins were in the Whig or National Republican Party. Similarly, as a faction of the D-Rs formed the nucleus of the Democratic Party, how can you object to describing that in this article? It's history. This is not an idealogical question, but an historical one. (You wrote above, "there were no other parties at the time, which is what you don't understand." I pointed out that the Federalist Party did exist at the time.) Griot 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My objection is not at the mention of the D-R. Three paragraphs about the D-R party is unnecessary. If someone wants the history of said party, they can click a link in the article instead of including POV statements that state that the Democratic party is a continuation of a Washington-era party. The Federalists existed UNTIL 1816. In 1824, which was my example, the Federalists were already gone and America was a one-party state. Sadistik 05:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Major points of view are supposed to be represented on Wikipedia, NPOV policy stands for neutral point of view, not no points of view. The party now called the Democratic party has maintained throughout its history its the continuation of the old Republican Party, something acknowledged by authors or scholars to varying degrees. Theres always been factionalism in the Democratic party and others resulting in multiple presidential candidates being nominated from the same party at times (Whigs 1836, Democrats 1860, etc.) or the rise and disintegration of a coalition party (like the National Union Party of Lincoln). When the Federal party stopped acting nationally in 1816, many of its members began calling themselves Republicans but did not convert to Jeffersonian principles, instead choosing the promotion of the American System. Nationalist Republicans and these Federalists that did not convert principles became the National Republicans. The party purists who supported the old caucus system that nominated all previous party presidents and/or supported the old principles of the 1790s of a more limited government and objected to elements of the American System (identified with Henry Clay) called themselves Republicans and later Democrats as they took up Crawford and next Jackson as their presidential candidate, deferring to Jackson's desire that the caucus system come to an end. I began construction of this PDF a long time ago compiling some quotes in regards to the evolution of the party name and the thoughts of some of the people from the time period as well as later people of prominence. When I'm not ill like I am now I'll be adding more cites to this article when time and health permits. Settler 06:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Conservative Party (UK article has a long section about he party's origins in the 17th Century Tory Party. There is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining one party's origins in another party's history. This neutrality tag is completely unwarranted. Hashaw 14:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * removed "and arguably" & chg'd to "...; some historians consider it to be..." on grounds of NPOV Tech77 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
"...anti-monopoly, and proponents of laissez-faire." needs to be fixed. It's unclear.--jenlight 23:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Settler (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a "white ethnic"
The term "white ethic" is used as a noun several times in the section on the 1980s. What is a "white ethnic"? Readin (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That term doesn't make sense at all - ethnicity is not determined by color of skin, but by culture, nationality, religion, etc. Anything else would be racist. Cuba Sera Libre (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan (KKK)
Whoops, someone better run down to the nearest Klan lodge and tell them to stop voting Republican then. Apparently they haven't gotten the memo for a few decades or more. 124.169.231.131 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I read the whole article. The only information I found in it about the KKK, the official terror wing of the Democratic Party, is this:

"At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, a resolution denouncing the white-supremacist Ku Klux Klan was introduced by forces allied with Al Smith and Oscar W. Underwood in order to embarrass the front-runner, William Gibbs McAdoo. After much debate, the resolution failed by a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides"

That's some major spin-doctoring, making it look to the casual reader like the Dem.Party was never affiliated with the KKK at all, but only denouncing it. Somebody needs to write a section about the KKK and its official place in the self-proclaimed "white man's party." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuba Sera Libre (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jackson & More
The section on the Jacksonian democratic party is not up to par. There is a very limited amount of information there, especially in contrast with the other sections. Furthermore, the whole beginning of this article is muddled. There need to be more dates, which correspond to concrete references, and less grand conclusions, generally. The discussion above about the D-R party situation and the Democratic Party's relation to it is a good example of how this stuff is unclear historically and on this page itself. In short, I do not believe anything here is wrong, but that the data presented needs to made more clear. SineBot (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isprawl (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackson & More
The section on the Jacksonian democratic party is not up to par. There is a very limited amount of information there, especially in contrast with the other sections. Furthermore, the whole beginning of this article is muddled. There need to be more dates, which correspond to concrete references, and less grand conclusions, generally. The discussion above about the D-R party situation and the Democratic Party's relation to it is a good example of how this stuff is unclear historically and on this page itself. In short, I do not believe anything here is wrong, but that the data presented needs to made more clear. November 12, 2008. Isprawl (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

separate article
Maybe something like- founding to fdr, post-WW II to Kennedy, Nixon to Clinton, post-Clinton to present.

Just an idea. --Levineps (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Name of article?
I apologize in advanced if this has been discussed previously, but the article on the party is named Democratic Party (United States). Shouldn't the article on the history of that party be called History of the Democratic Party (United States)? There is no such entity as the "United States Democratic Party". Qqqqqq (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to make this move. Any objections? Qqqqqq (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethnocultural Politics: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats
In my opinion, this section seems disjointed. There doesn't seem to be a very smooth transition from the previous section or to the following section, and the content could be better organized. Any suggestions for making it more concise? Maybe looking at the original sources (the Kleppner article) would be helpful? Also, the title strikes me as a bit cumbersome. KBmke (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Party Origins
The Republican Party is often said to come out of the Federalist Party with the Democratic Party coming out of the Democrat-Republican Party of the 1790s. Can anyone clarify this for me because this seems just the opposite of what the parties have stood for for the past 50 years. The Federalist Party was the party of big government while the Democrat-Republican party was always the state's rights party. Republican Party currently is big about being anti big government while the Democrats are all for increasing government involvement in daily life. So, the comparison between modern parties and the original parties seems to be reverse, at least for the past 50 years. --RossF18 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes there have been reversals. Jefferson disliked a strong federal government, vigorously opposed deficits and the national debt, distrusted powerful judges, insisted on states rights, and trusted the voice of the people rather than elites--views that somewhat resemble Tea Party 2010.Rjensen (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

First traveling campaign
This article says that W.J. Bryan in 1896 was "the first candidate ever to go on the road", but the Election of 1860 article credits Stephen Douglas with being "the first presidential candidate in American history to undertake a nationwide speaking tour." I don't know enough about the facts to judge, but it would seem that one of these is in error. If "on the road" is to be understood as meaning something other than a "nationwide speaking tour," better wording would be desirable. ElrondPA (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * good point....I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jackson
Most modern scholars-- such as Sean Wilentz, the rise of American democracy (2005) start with Jackson. Jefferson's party has its own long article. So I dropped the sections that duplicated the other article. Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party Platform of 1940
Democratic Party Platform of 1940, a section of this platform, could be included to this article as part of the 1940 history:

Territories and District of Columbia

We favor a larger measure of self-government leading to statehood, for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. We favor the appointment of residents to office, and equal treatment of the citizens of each of these three territories. We favor the prompt determination and payment of any just claims by Indian and Eskimo citizens of Alaska against the United States.

We also favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.

Read more at the American Presidency Project: Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 1940.

Democratic Party Platform of 1940

--Seablade (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Greater equality for white men"
This is mentioned as one of the early goals of the Democratic Party. Could somebody explain this one to me? What did they mean by this exactly? KarlFrei (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland is/are two Presidents
The introduction claims Grover Cleveland was among the only two Democrats elected over the span of 72 years. While Cleveland is one man, historically he is considered two presidents--the 22nd and the 24th. The word choice must be changed to "Democrats elected only two persons in three presidencies" or the intro should also introduce this slightly confusing twist of history as succinctly as possible. Perhaps simply including the number of Democratic years within the 72 will suffice.Levelistchampion (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

History of the Democratic Party (United States) → History of the United States Democratic Party – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC) To match the naming of History of the United States Republican Party, I think the proposed change is a cleaner naming. C T J F 8 3 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would have thought the name should match the main article Democratic Party (United States). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When I proposed this rename, I was thinking of also proposing the rename of that and Republican Party (United States) but decided to see how this went before doing so. C T J F 8 3  08:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Feels more natural than the current title. Not sure about renaming the main articles, though. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. agree with Jenks24. Rjensen (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose- With the exception of History of the United States Republican Party (which I think should be moved), the other HotUS articles are the country and establishments of the government (Congress, Constitution, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines, Navy, or the government itself), and divisions by ethnic group, insular area, location, (time) period, or state. Its name is not the 'United States Democratic Party', and the suggested title would imply such. Per WP:Commonname, it is not generally known as such, is not normally referred to as such, and does not generally refer to itself as such, although I'm sure search results can turn up numerous examples, they would be the exceptions, and are the natural result of external references to 'United States' followed by 'Democratic Party'. Dru of Id (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support mostly for sentence flow, but also because United States Democratic Party is often used in text and literature.-- JOJ Hutton  18:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Whitewashing the pro-slavery position of Dem party
There were some Democrats opposed to slavery, like there are some Republicans who support Obamacare. But the Democratic party, before the Civil War, was the pro-slavery party, the Republicans the anti-slavery party. Period. This was by far the biggest political issue in the country. The article avoids dealing with this head-on, as I believe it should. deisenbe (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree. There's no mention of the Democratic Party platforms before the American Civil War that opposed abolitionism (1856 DNC Platform: "all efforts of the Abolitionists... to interfere with questions of slavery... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and... have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people!"), nor of the platforms after the war that supported segregation and discriminatory immigration laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act (1876 DNC Platform: "Prevent further importation... of the Mongolian race!"). – Illegitimate Barrister, 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it even more amazing that there is no mention except in a cursory sense not only of Democrats support and membership in the KKK but also the insidious ways they went about rolling back the gains by Blacks made after the Civil War and through Reconstruction. It’s as if it never happened but this consistent racism on the part of Democrats has been well documented and should receive more prominence in any article detailing the history of the party. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

too long? too recent? not so.
The article is not too long--it has to cover most of American politics over 200 years. "recentism" is defined by Wikipedia as "is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view." This article certaily has a long-term perspective. Its coverage of different time periods is in line with the coverage of the reliable sources. For example it is less "recentist" than the 3 vol The encyclopedia of the Democratic party by Kurian. Rjensen Rjensen (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

copyvio--not
a brief summary of the Democratic platform is not a copyvio. it meets the Wiki rule: " Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks,, or a similar method." we're talking using 60 or so words out of a 26,000 word platform. Rjensen (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I used /blockquote here to fix issue without editing OP. Nwebster84 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

When was the party founded?
The article doesn't indicate when exactly the party was founded. Isn't there a paper with a few signs on it to declare the foundation of the party?--95.12.116.99 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rule is "never interpret the content of primary sources"
Wikipedia wp:RS has to be based on reliable secondary sources. The entire box feature on "ideology" uses none at all and depends on one editor's reading--or misreading--of primary sources, plus his use of strange pov language like "theism" and "racial rights." the rule is When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. WP:SCHOLARSHIP and mure fully: ''Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'' WP:WPNOTRS. Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit explanation
I removed this paragraph (except the last sentence, which I affixed to the first):

"From the start of the Democratic party which was in 1828, 6th President John Quincy Adams was a Democratic-Republican (which evolved to the Republican party), and he was not a slave-holder. The 7th through 15th Presidents were either Democratic or Whig and all slaveholders. Finally, 16th President Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the only non-slave-holding President, other than John and John Quincy Adams. Thus in 1860 the Civil War began between the mostly-Republican North against the mostly-Democratic, slaveholding South."

This paragraph is factually inaccurate. The Democratic-Republican party - the title of which is a modern invention - effectively split into the National Republicans and the Democrats, and while the Republicans could trace their ancestry to the D-R party (through the N-R and Whig parties), so can the Democrats. The author tries to claim the Adamses as their own, but tries to have it both ways by washing their hands of the Whigs. Yes, I said "their" own. I could make a reasonable claim that the paragraph violates NPOV. The entire purpose of it is to claim that the Democratic Party always supported slavery and that the Republicans and ALL of their predecessors always opposed it...which is clearly not true if the Whigs are included, which the paragraph tries to claim when convenient and neatly avoids when not. Nwebster84 (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We already have a List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves. The Presidents included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Ulysses S. Grant. 12 Presidents in total.

The ones who did not are:
 * John Adams. Quoting from the relevant article: "Adams never bought a slave and declined on principle to utilize slave labor, saying, "I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave, though I have lived for many years in times, when the practice was not disgraceful, when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character, and when it has cost me thousands of dollars for the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap." Adams generally tried to keep the issue out of national politics, because of the anticipated southern response during a time when unity was needed to achieve independence. He spoke out in 1777 against a bill to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts, saying that the issue was presently too divisive, and so the legislation should "sleep for a time." He also was against use of black soldiers in the Revolution, due to opposition from southerners. Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts about 1780, when it was forbidden by implication in the Declaration of Rights that John Adams wrote into the Massachusetts Constitution. Abigail Adams, on the other hand, vocally opposed slavery."
 * John Quincy Adams. "A longtime opponent of slavery, Adams used his new role in Congress to fight it, and he became the most prominent national leader opposing slavery. In 1836, Southern Representatives voted in a "gag rule" that immediately tabled any petitions about slavery, thus preventing any discussion or debate of the slavery issue. He became a forceful opponent of this rule and conceived a way around it, attacking slavery in the House for two weeks. The gag rule prevented him from bringing slavery petitions to the floor, but he brought one anyway. It was a petition from a Georgia citizen urging disunion due to the continuation of slavery in the South. Though he certainly did not support it and made that clear at the time, his intent was to antagonize the pro-slavery faction of Congress into an open fight on the matter. The plan worked."
 * "The petition infuriated his Congressional enemies, many of whom were agitating for disunion themselves. They moved for his censure over the matter, enabling Adams to discuss slavery openly during his subsequent defense. Taking advantage of his right to defend himself, Adams delivered prepared and impromptu remarks against slavery and in favor of abolition. Knowing that he would probably be acquitted, he changed the focus from his own actions to those of the slaveholders, speaking against the slave trade and the ownership of slaves. He decided that if he were censured, he would merely resign, run for the office again, and probably win easily. When his opponents realized that they played into his political strategy, they tried to bury the censure. Adams made sure this did not happen, and the debate continued. He attacked slavery and slaveholders as immoral, and condemned the institution while calling for it to end. After two weeks, a vote was held, and he was not censured. He delighted in the misery he was inflicting on the slaveholders he so hated, and prided himself on being "obnoxious to the slave faction." " "
 * "Although the censure of Adams over the slavery petition was ultimately abandoned, the House did address the issue of petitions from enslaved persons at a later time. Adams again argued that the right to petition was a universal right, granted by God, so that those in the weakest positions might always have recourse to those in the most powerful. Adams also called into question the actions of a House that would limit its own ability to debate and resolve questions internally. After this debate, the gag rule was ultimately retained. The discussion ignited by his actions and the attempts of others to quiet him raised questions of the right to petition, the right to legislative debate, and the morality of slavery. During the censure debate, Adams said that he took delight in the thought that southerners would forever remember him as "the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed." "
 * "In 1844, he chaired a committee for reform of the rules of Congress, and he used this opportunity to try once again to repeal the gag rule. He spent two months building support for this move, but due to northern opposition, the rule narrowly survived. He fiercely criticized northern Representatives and Senators, in particular Stephen A. Douglas, who seemed to cater to the slave faction in exchange for southern support. His opposition to slavery made him, along with Henry Clay, one of the leading opponents of Texas annexation and the Mexican–American War. He correctly predicted that both would contribute to civil war. After one of his reelection victories, he said that he must "bring about a day prophesied when slavery and war shall be banished from the face of the earth."
 * "In 1841, at the request of Lewis Tappan and Ellis Gray Loring, Adams joined the case of United States v. The Amistad. Adams went before the Supreme Court on behalf of African slaves who had revolted and seized the Spanish ship Amistad. Adams appeared on 24 February 1841, and spoke for four hours. His argument succeeded; the Court ruled in favor of the Africans, who were declared free and returned to their homes. Among his opponents was President Martin Van Buren. In the following years, the Spanish government continued to press the US for compensation for the ship and its cargo, including the slaves. Several southern lawmakers introduced Congressional resolutions to appropriate money for such payment, but none passed, despite support from Democratic presidents James K. Polk and James Buchanan."
 * "Adams continued to speak out against what he called the "Slave Power", that is the organized political power of the slave owners who dominated all the southern states and their representation in Congress. He vehemently attacked the annexation of Texas (1845) and the Mexican War (1846–48) as part of a "conspiracy" to extend slavery."
 * Millard Fillmore. "Northerners assumed that Fillmore, hailing from a free state, was an opponent of the spread of slavery. Southerners accused him of being an abolitionist, which he hotly denied. Fillmore responded to one Alabaman in a widely published letter that slavery was an evil, but one that the federal government had no authority over."
 * Franklin Pierce. "As abolitionism grew more vocal in the mid-1830s, Congress was inundated with petitions from anti-slavery groups seeking legislative action to restrict slavery in the United States. From the beginning, Pierce found the abolitionists' "agitation" to be an annoyance, and saw federal action against slavery as an infringement on southern states' rights, even though he was morally opposed to slavery itself. He was also frustrated with the "religious bigotry" of abolitionists, who cast their political opponents as sinners. "I consider slavery a social and political evil," Pierce said, "and most sincerely wish that it had no existence upon the face of the earth." Still, he wrote in December 1835, "One thing must be perfectly apparent to every intelligent man. This abolition movement must be crushed or there is an end to the Union."
 * "When Rep. James Henry Hammond of South Carolina looked to prevent anti-slavery petitions from reaching the House floor, however, Pierce sided with the abolitionists' right to petition. Nevertheless, Pierce supported what came to be known as the gag rule, which allowed for petitions to be received, but not read or considered. This passed the House in 1836. He was attacked by the New Hampshire anti-slavery Herald of Freedom as a "doughface", which had the dual meaning of "craven-spirited man" and "northerner with southern sympathies". Pierce had stated that not one in five hundred New Hampshirites were abolitionists; the article added up the number of signatures on petitions from that state and divided by the census figure. He was outraged when South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun read the article on the Senate floor. After Pierce gave a speech indicating that most signatories were women and children, without the vote, Calhoun apologized.
 * James Buchanan. "Buchanan also opposed the gag rule, stating, "We have just as little right to interfere with slavery in the South, as we have to touch the right of petition." Buchanan thought that the issue of slavery was the domain of the states, and he faulted abolitionists for exciting passions over the issue. His support of states' rights was matched by his support for Manifest Destiny"
 * Abraham Lincoln. " In the 1835–36 legislative session, he voted to expand suffrage to white males, whether landowners or not. He was known for his "free soil" stance of opposing both slavery and abolitionism. He first articulated this in 1837, saying, "[The] Institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy, but the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils." His stance closely followed Henry Clay in supporting the American Colonization Society program of making the abolition of slavery practical by its advocation and helping the freed slaves to settle in Liberia in Africa." "

A total of 6 Presidents prior to the end of the American Civil War in 1865.

Later Presidents who were alive during the American Civil War, but did not own slaves were:
 * Rutherford B. Hayes. 43-years-old in 1865. "Hayes also defended slaves who had escaped and were accused under the recently enacted Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. As Cincinnati was just across the Ohio River from Kentucky, a slave state, it was a destination for escaping slaves and many such cases were tried in its courts. A staunch abolitionist, Hayes found his work on behalf of fugitive slaves personally gratifying as well as politically useful, as it raised his profile in the newly formed Republican Party."
 * James A. Garfield. 34-years-old in 1865. "After Abraham Lincoln's election as president, several Southern states announced their secession from the Union to form a new government, the Confederate States of America. Garfield read military texts while anxiously awaiting the war effort, which he regarded as a holy crusade against the Slave Power. In April 1861, the rebels bombarded Fort Sumter, one of the last federal outposts in the South, beginning the Civil War. Although he had no military training, Garfield knew that his place was in the Union Army."
 * Chester A. Arthur. 36-years-old in 1865. "When Arthur joined the firm, Culver and New York attorney John Jay (the grandson of the Founding Father of the same name) were pursuing a habeas corpus action against Jonathan Lemmon, a Virginia slaveholder who was passing through New York with his eight slaves. In Lemmon v. New York, Culver argued that, as New York law did not permit slavery, any slave arriving in New York was automatically freed. The argument was successful, and after several appeals was upheld by the New York Court of Appeals in 1860. Campaign biographers would later give Arthur much of the credit for the victory; in fact his role was minor, although he was certainly an active participant in the case. In another civil rights case in 1854, Arthur was the lead attorney representing Elizabeth Jennings Graham after she was denied a seat on a streetcar because she was black. He won the case, and the verdict led to the desegregation of the New York City streetcar lines."
 * Grover Cleveland. 28-years-old in 1865.
 * Benjamin Harrison. 32-years-old in 1865.
 * William McKinley. 22-years-old in 1865. "The McKinley household was, like many from Ohio's Western Reserve, steeped in Whiggish and abolitionist sentiment, the latter based on the family's staunch Methodist beliefs."
 * Theodore Roosevelt. 7-years-old in 1865.
 * William Howard Taft. 8-years-old in 1865.
 * Woodrow Wilson. 9-years-old in 1865. "After marrying, Joseph and Jessie Wilson [His parents] moved to the Southern United States in 1851 and came to fully identify with it, moving from Virginia deeper into the region as Wilson became a minister in Georgia and South Carolina. Joseph Wilson owned slaves, defended slavery, and also set up a Sunday school for his slaves. Both parents identified with the Confederacy during the American Civil War; they cared for wounded soldiers at their church, and Wilson's father briefly served as a chaplain to the Confederate Army."

In total 9 of them.

The Party affiliation of the Presidents had relatively little to do with whether they personally owned slaves. Dimadick (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United States Democratic Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019032848/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-13.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-13.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006190641/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/472767p-397816c.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/472767p-397816c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Justice Democrats
They don't seem to be relevant enough to be mentioned in this article. They seem to be a small organization with little influence. I don't see how they are important enough to warrant their own section. Trialer992 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also, the heading of that section isn't neutral at all. Dave Dial (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Debate regarding connection between Democratic-Republican Party and Democratic Party
Recently, User:174.134.115.13 a.k.a. User:The Democratic Party, est. 1792 has made several edits to this page and to the page Democratic-Republican Party which seem to argue for the essential unity of the Democratic-Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

If any editor of this page wishes to discuss these edits, please do so at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party, since it seems best to keep the discussion on a single Talk page. Thanks! &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to split article in two
It's getting too long, and it needs to be split in two or more articles. If two, I suggest "1824-1924" and "1925-Present" or, we could have a series of articles from 1824-60, 1861-97, 1897-1932, 1933-69, 1970-94, and 1994-present. After all, we're talking three different centuries, if not more....Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Why these years? Why split James Buchanan's term (1857-1861) to two different articles? Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's a series, then Buchanan's lame-duck presidency, while important, has nothing to do with the history of the Democratic party. Buchanan was pretty much "forgotten but not gone" in terms of party politics at the start of 1861. The party had split in two, and nobody in either faction wanted anything to do with him. Why those years? Well, it's from the beginning to the start of the civil war, then the civil war to the Republican hegemony of the first third of the 20th century. Wilson was an anomaly in all sorts of ways, and besides him, the GOP was in power from 1897 to 1933. In 1969, the anti-war people took over the party, culminating with the disaster of George McGovern in 1972. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"the GOP was in power from 1897 to 1933"

Unless I am mistaken, the Republican Party was in power from 1861 to 1865, 1869 to 1885, 1889 to 1893, 1897 to 1913, 1921 to 1933, 1953 to 1961, 1969 to 1977, 1981 to 1993, 2001 to 2009, and from 2017 to the present.

Between the American Civil War and the Great Depression, the only Democratic Presidents were Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland. and Woodrow Wilson. Dimadick (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems arglebargle79 has taken it upon themselves to change a lot of the titling and add some (in my opinion) inappropriate language for the article, and I suggest this be reverted. Thedawnatnight (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose any split. indeed there is no logic or justification provided, and no effort to show that most readers will be significantly helped. As it now stands this is a series of short succinct sub articles on the Democratic Party in chronological order. People interested in a specific time period can immediately spot it and read it without any confusion. As for a history of the entire Democratic Party – it's in three places: this article does the job at moderate length. The lede to this article does the job in very concise format. And finally the history section of the article Democratic Party (United States) does the job in medium length. In the old days, length of an article was an issue when we had 1200 baud modems. Today our readers have smart phones they use to download entire movies, and they can download this entire article in a couple seconds. Rjensen (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Too much info in recent events
In the "Presidency of Donald Trump" and to a lesser extant "Presidency of Barack Obama" there is an exhaustive amount of facts that are not needed in this article. All other presidency's are much much shorter and very rarely mention the primary process which both of these entries do in great detail.

I propose that the in depth information in the Obama section, the PACs and minor protests in the Trump section, and both primary season sections be greatly reduced or deleted and potentially add links to the articles that are actually meant to deal with these topics.

This will bring both sections in line with the rest of the article and have the side effect of removing the slight bias found especially in the primary sections.Yeoutie (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The Opening Sentence
Please note: this is my first time contributing to any talk section on Wikipedia. That being said, I felt compelled to comment about the opening sentence. The article starts by stating:

"The Democratic Party is the oldest voter-based political party in the world and the oldest existing political party in the United States, tracing its heritage back to the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party of the 1790s-1820s.[1][2][3]"

The glaring issue is in the latter part of the sentence, "tracing its heritage back to the Jeffersonanain Democratic-Republican Party of the 1790s-1820s. This is a perplexing anomaly, mainly due to the fact that it is obviously incorrect and even hyperlinked/redirects the reader to the Republican Party, and partly due to the three citations that secede the first sentence.  There is truly no need to even have to look into these sources to know that this incorrect and most likely entirely out of context and or completely non-existent.  Also, the first citation simply says 'Chapter 1.'  Again, I am new to contributing feedback on Wikipedia, but that seems immediately suspicious.  It's safe to assume that the entirety of 'Chapter 1' paraphrases the absolutely fallacious claim.  Even if that were the case, I have never seem an entire chapter be formally acceptable and empirically have regarded it as scholarly laziness via previous professors.

The citations is not the issue that I see as blatant, but at least wanted that to be noted. Ultimately, the very first sentence is saying the Democratic Party can be traced back to the Jeffersonain Democratic Republican Party, *which is a hyperlink to the Republican Party.* Formally, Andrew Jackson is the founder of The Democratic Party (which the article eventually states). In regard to tracing the party's origin, The Democratic Party would informally be the Federalists. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party. The Republican Party was formally founded by Lincoln, and informally traces back to the Anti-Federalists founded by Thomas Jefferson. This was the initial schism that led to two different ideologies on the role of the federal governments. The two party system still exists today and still mostly holds the same fundamental beliefs on the role of the Federal government. Again, I admit I am new, but I doubt anything I said would even need a citation, as it is one of the most rudimentary concepts taught in any introductory American history courses. Specifically, it is a part of a primary education curriculum. If someone hypothetically knew absolutely nothing prior to reading this article, it would be absolutely fail the reader immediately when redirecting the article to the Republican Party. Ultimately, the conclusion would be that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party are synonymous and one in the same.

I hate to speculate, but the introduction seems to divert from the attention of being the party of Andrew Jackson and immediately discusses the informal origin of what should be the Federalist Party. I did not get to finish reading the rest of the article.

Lastly, the first part of the sentence is absolutely incorrect as well, whether bluntly incorrect or erroneously written, very little research is necessary to know that *"The Democratic Party is the oldest voter-based political party in the world* and the oldest existing political party in the United States. The latter part is correct, but the first half is definitely false.  The Roman Republic had 'voter-based parties that predate The Democratic Party by millenniums; the claim would be true if it said something along the lines of being the eldest existing voter-based political party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Joseph Cetin (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove "Political Position" from infobox
Editors on the Democratic Party page wisely decided to remove the "political position" slot and I think the same should be done here. Some of us would argue that the bulk of the party on an institutional level is broadly center-right to center-left, and those on the right of the spectrum continue to insist the party is left-wing. Ultimately, all this does is promote edit wars. There is little to be gained from having the party's position on the political spectrum in the infobox, especially when discussing a big tent party whose political position is very much debatable.

Agreed, too much "opinion" there. Just asking for trouble. As someone that dislikes both major parties in the United States, I would argue the Democratic Party is center left to far left, not centered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FB1:530:35C4:7810:D9B1:6D76 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Eggsandmarxism (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * what reliable sources are you using? Rjensen (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Centre to Centre-Left
This is too narrow of a classification. The Democratic Party is an ideologically broad entity, and most of the elected American political left are members of it; even if these people don't make up a majority of the party, and they don't win the presidential primaries, doesn't mean that the Party does not consist of them and does not depend on them as voters. It would be more accurate to characterize the party as Centre to Left, or to remove this Right - Left spectrum classification entirely. The Republican Party's page doesn't use it, and it's less precise and accurate than the 'Ideology' classification, anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.112.80 (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

"History of the Democrats" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect History of the Democrats. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesome Hwyh  15:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to rename page "History of the Democratic Party (United States)"
This article's title is inconsistent with the Democratic Party's main page (Democratic Party (United States)) as well as the Republican Party's equivalent page, History of the Republican Party (United States). I propose a rename of this page to History of the Democratic Party (United States) in order to maintain title consistency between article titles. This was the page's original title, and it should be moved back to this title in order to have consistency. 2601:88:8101:E300:1482:F8E3:5B30:2670 (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The state of the political position
I decided to create this post to avoid a edit war. There is some people who think the democrats are left wing. Some think it is centrist. Some think it is a center right party. And some think it is big tent. Why does this confusion exist? Darubrub (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies, but "big tent" was not a well-informed editing choice by that editor, and I have restored the text back to its previous "Center-left to left-wing" designation. It is a meaningless, catch-all colloquialism, not an actual political position. Zaathras (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The libertarian party (U.S) page has big tent on its political position, same with five star movement (Italy). Darubrub (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Then those articles are incorrect. The term "big tent" is not a position, doesn't even appear once in the text of Political spectrum (where the "Political position" tag itself links to. Zaathras (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct.....time to get rid of this bad editor.-- Moxy 🍁 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The editor has been blocked. Is the position going to be reinstated as center-left or just leave it until consensus is reached on Talk:Democratic Party (United States)? Darubrub (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * US Democratic Party Logo.svg

Banking
I don’t see any information about banking, I might have just missed it, but I would like for it to be better displayed so people can know how to get to it… 98.97.1.143 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)