This series of articles covers the history of the Democratic Party – the oldest continuous political party in the world, one whose history goes back 223 years to nearly the very beginning of the United States government. Its story is as complex as America’s: at times, inspiring; at other times, shameful; and, oftentimes, somewhere in between. There is a thread that connects the party’s history, in my view: namely, that the Democratic Party has always stood, at least in principle, for the ordinary American that deserves as fair a shot at getting ahead as their more privileged, fellow citizens. Even though the Democratic definition of the “ordinary Americans” they stood for has changed over time, this commitment has always been at the core of the party’s values. This series will cover it all – the good, bad, and ugly – and I hope you’ll enjoy it!
Stephen Yellin
The Party of Jefferson: 1801-1824
The man and his party
The day was March 4, 1801 at about Noon. It is a clear, mild day, the temperature 55 degrees Fahrenheit. A man emergeed from the Conrad and McNunn boarding house and walks along a muddy, pothole-ridden path that passes for a road (Senate.gov Inaugural Facts). His clothing was plain and ordinary; his hair, once carrot-red but now largely white, was loose and rumpled. At 6 feet, 2 inches, he was taller than most other men, and already towered over them when it comes to a place in history. His destination was a rough, barely finished building not far away. It was there on Capitol Hill, in the new nation’s new capitol, that Thomas Jefferson – nearly 58 years old, writer of the Declaration of Independence and a host of stirring literary works, inventor, philosopher, and patriot – took the oath of office as the 3rd President of the United States. It was the first time the nation’s capital has seen a Presidential inauguration and the first where a newly organized group of musicians, the Marine Corps Band, would play in the President’s honor.
They had succeeded for 2 reasons, as I noted in my article last week. First, on a philosophical basis, the Jeffersonians had a far higher opinion of popular democracy than the aristocracy-inclined Hamilton. They trusted ordinary citizens to play a meaningful and positive role in the future of their country. Second, they pioneered the art of political campaigning in the 1790s, mobilizing activists and persuading uncommitted voters and legislators to back their party’s candidates. These efforts, backed as they were by policies that appealed to the ordinary citizens that made up the core of the party – the working class, farmers, Southerners, and the growing ranks of pioneers heading west to the Mississippi – bore plentiful fruit. Even if one does not agree with his vision of a government that championed individual liberty over a strong central government, Jefferson’s core belief in expanding the ranks of those who deserved a say in the political life of the nation, beyond the privileged elites envisioned by Hamilton, makes the triumph of his party an important step forward in American history.
“King Caucus”: the Democratic-Republicans in Power
This article is not designed to give a history of the Jefferson Administration, nor those of his fellow Democratic-Republicans (and Virginians), James Madison and James Monroe, who followed him in holding the Presidency. A short summary of Jefferson’s presidency, which shows a mixed bag of successes and setbacks, is nevertheless in order. The purchase of the entire Louisiana Territory in 1803, while totally violating the political principles Jefferson stood for, make possible American expansion westward and fundamentally changed the course of our history. The abolition of the slave trade in 1808, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and the naval campaign that defeated the so-called “Barbary Pirates” of Tripoli in present-day Tunisia, are also to Jefferson’s credit. The disastrous Embargo Act, which crippled American trade in an attempt to assert neutrality in the life-or-death struggle between Napoleonic France and Great Britain, and downsizing the armed forces to a dangerously low level in order to pay off the national debt (something that would come back to haunt the United States in the War of 1812), are the negative part of his Presidential legacy.
On the political front, Jefferson’s party met with increasing success as the Federalist Party gradually declined. The Federalists never recovered their strength on the national level after 1800, while its base in New York and New England gradually shrank. Even the defection of Vice-President Aaron Burr to the Federalist cause in 1804, after being dumped from the Democratic-Republican ticket in favor of fellow New Yorker George Clinton, failed to change the tide. Burr’s arch-rival, Alexander Hamilton helped torpedo Burr’s bid for Governor of New York that year; the former’s death, and the latter’s resulting disgrace, in the infamous duel at Weehawken that followed left the Federalists without any national leadership.
It was the Caucus that voted to nominate Jefferson and Clinton in 1804, and anointed Jefferson’s chosen successor, Madison, along with Clinton in 1808. The latter’s elevation to the virtually ceremonial post (as it would remain until modern times) was due largely to his age; Clinton, in his late 60s and in ill health, would not be a significant rival to Madison in seeking the Presidency. Both Jefferson and Madison easily prevailed over the hapless Federalist nominee, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. The party maintained firm control outside New England.
Yet Madison, for all his genius as a Founding Father, lacked Jefferson’s political skill, and his Administration became increasingly controlled by “King Caucus”. They went so far as to effectively veto Madison’s choice of the talented Swiss immigrant and Treasury Secretary, Albert Gallatin as Secretary of State, and forced him to appoint 2 incompetent if loyal party members as Secretary of War and the Navy, respectively. Yet the Caucus was changing, too. The election of 1810 saw what Jules Witcover called “a change of the Republican guard”, as nearly half of the party’s Congressional ranks turned over. This new wave of leaders hailed largely from southern and western states, and included 2 Congressmen whose names would be forever linked with the politics of the next 40 years: Henry Clay of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Clay managed to get himself elected Speaker in his 1st term as he and his new colleagues led a shift in the Democratic-Republican Party’s priorities.
Clay, Calhoun and the “new” Democratic-Republicans reflected the increasing optimism and ambitions of ordinary Americans. They were staunch supporters of American expansion to the west, building on the Louisiana Purchase, and were far more nationalistic in rhetoric and outlook than Jefferson, Madison and their allies. The so-called “War Hawks” agitated for military action against Great Britain, in light of that nation’s ongoing kidnapping of American sailors to fight Napoleon (“impressment”) and growing conflicts with the Native American tribes in the Midwest. Madison eventually caved and asked Congress for a declaration of war. History shows that the war was largely disastrous, with the British burning the White House and Capitol and only losing 1 major land battle – ironically enough, fought 2 weeks after the 2 sides had signed the peace Treaty of Ghent.
The political impacts of the War of 1812 were twofold. In the short-term it destroyed the Federalist Party for good; while American military bungling almost led to Madison’s defeat at the hands of a rival Democratic-Republican backed by the Federalists, DeWitt Clinton of New York, the party discredited itself by calling a convention in Hartford, Connecticut to plan New England’s secession from the Union. The peace treaty scuttled the movement and the party swiftly collapsed into oblivion. The second, and more relevant to our story, was that a new rift began to gradually appear in the Democratic-Republican ranks, one that would finally destroy the party a decade later. As Jules Witcover describes it, the party “found itself fractured as never before by factionalism – old Republicans against young, war adherents against those for peace and, increasingly, North against South and West.”
These would be the fault lines on which a new 2-party system would emerge in the 1820s. The post-war “Era of Good Feelings”, where the death of the Federalists saw James Monroe (Jefferson and Madison’s chosen successor) waltz his way to the White House twice. He appointed ex-Federalists to high office, such as John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State, the real number-2 spot in the government: Madison and Monroe had each held the post prior to their election. Had it not been for a single Presidential Elector, who believed that only George Washington deserved to have been chosen unanimously, Monroe would have received the same distinction in 1820 as nobody else was nominated for President.
Yet appearances were deceiving. Not only was the Democratic-Republican Party becoming increasingly factionalized on regional and generational grounds but the challenge of how to best address American’s economic needs would also split the party. In addition, the increasing strength of the individual states in choosing the next President, particularly as most states adopted a direct popular vote as the means of choosing Presidential electors, meant that “King Caucus” became increasingly irrelevant. Jefferson, in retirement at Monticello, could only watch as his party failed to unite as the 1824 election approached. That year would mark the death knell of his party, and the birth of a new one shorn of its hyphenated name - the Democratic Party.