Talk:Whig Party (United States)/Archive 1

Untitled
Shouldn't there be a disambiguation note referring to the Whig Party in Great Britain? The Whigs dominated British politics for well over a century and were far more important in Britain than the US Whigs were in Anmerica. 87.194.10.238 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Added a "see also" link to the British Whigs. PubliusFL (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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 and Jackson. 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 . 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)

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)

Origin of the Name
The article currently states: "Their name was chosen to echo the American Whigs of 1776 who fought for independence." Although that's not strictly inaccurate, it's somewhat misleading and fails to tell the whole story. As many have pointed out, the Whig Party was born of a coalition of separate interests united in their opposition to Andrew Jackson. Previous connotations of "Whig" (both British and American) suggested opposition to absolute rule of a monarch. By adopting the name "Whig", the Whigs were expressing their opinion that Jackson had become the new absolute monarch. The section needs to be rewritten to better reflect that. Iglew (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This party is dead
All the Whigs are dead, as in all of them are buried in the ground or cremated or what-have-you. A recent party or parties that have used the name "Whig" can only be an homage at best, just like some (like Alvan Bovay) explained the choice of the name "Republican Party" for the GOP was an homage to name used in the purest days of the party of Jefferson, or so he explained or rationalized it. Anyone new or recent styling themselves with the name "Whig" should have their own new article if Wikipedia's qualifications for addition are met, such as having third party sources write about them in the mass media, scholars and political scientists, etc.. Settler (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Modern Whigs?
This just doesn't sound notable to me. The writing reads like a promotional pamphlet for this party, which has not won (or even run for) any elected office. There's even this choice phrase: "The Modern Whig Party is the largest minor political party in the US in terms of membership after the major third parties." What does that mean? It's the largest party, excluding those that are bigger?

I think this section probably ought to be eliminated. The disambiguation link at the top of the page should be enough, at least until this party does something. --SuperNova |T|C| 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Modern Whigs have plenty of notable references referring to it as a comeback of the historic Whig Party. The info contained in this entry is fitting and a brief snippet of the contemporary Whig Party and goes no deeper. In addition, the Modern Whigs did have a candidate who won a local race in 2008 and has a guy running for Congress this year who is recognized by reliable outside media as the first Whig to run for federal office since the 1850s. I think the contemporary use is appropriate. Aardvark31 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Tone it down, then. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am highly dubious of the notability of this group, in general. Certainly any discussion of this tiny quasi-party in this article beyond a bare mention is giving undue weight to it. I'm not even convinced of the bare mention. john k (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Political views
This article doesn't describe thoroughly enough the political views of the whig party. Though it vaguely described some other views, all I clearly came away from the article with was that it hated Andrew Jackson and wanted to minimize executive power. It ought to go a little deeper. 63.3.9.1 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

origins section awful
The origins section conflates the Whigs with their predecessors, the National Republicans, who were quite distinct. Clay did not run as a Whig in 1832, because the Whig party did not exist until 1833. The Whigs were formed by the merger of the National Republicans, i.e., that faction of the old Republican Party (along with ex-Federalist hangers-on) who had supported the Adams-Clay administration and supported Adams against Jackson in 1828, with other groups. The 1832 election, in which Clay was demolished by Jackson, showed that the National Republicans on their own were not strong enough to beat the Democrats. The Whig Party formed the next year, as National Republicans joined with anti-Masons and southern states' rights opponents of Jackson. john k (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Whig primary 1848d.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Whig primary 1848d.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 2, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-05-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 00:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Whig Party (United States). 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/20060923133339/http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/webepid.html to http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/webepid.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.answers.com/topic/conscience-whigs

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) 15:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

a Center party??? No -- RS call it "conservative"
Who calls the Whig party as a whole  "center"? No one--Howe has the major book with a whole chapter on the conservative role. They were also modernizers (who wanted schools, religiosity, high tariffs, banks, railroads, national roads). Clay was indeed at the center of his Whig party but he was the #1 target for Democrats who spent decades denouncing him as a conservative. Gregory Bowen, argues that the two parties were polar opposite and highly ideological: "At the heart of Democratic ideology was a militant egalitarianism which contrasted sharply with the Whigs' support for equality of opportunity to produce a meritocratic society." [p 34]. Bowen does NOT call the Whigs a center of anything. Bowen states: "Ashworth makes clear how deeply the Jacksonian political parties were split over their views of the type of society the United States should be and how important questions of economic development were to that split....[Ashworth says] 'It was a clash of democracy with capitalism.'" [ p 35] Bowen also states that Whigs held, "self-interest in individualism should be subordinated to the interests of the organic society, espouse the necessity for restraint and duty, and resisted the rise of modern mass democratic politics" [p 34]  Surely we all agree this is 'conservatism' on the right, not "center." Instead what happened is that in the 1850s, the new Republican Party managed to synthesize critical elements of both the Democratic and Whig ideologies. Bowen says the three major strands of antebellum political culture "evolved and moved toward a consensus by the late antebellum.. In the mid-1850s these central strands of American political culture would come together in the ideology of the newly emerged Republican Party." [p 36] Bowen puts the new Republican Party at the center, but he does NOT put the Whigs in the center. Rjensen (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)