>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/17/05 6:32 PM >>> There's an article by Princeton historian Sean Wilentz in Sunday's NY Times titled "Bush's Ancestors" that tries to draw analogies between the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs <<<<<>>>>>
incessant comparing of historical periods is often not veru useful, and can be quite silly to boot, all analogies are suspect, some just mord so than others... in any event, wilentz's characterization of whigs is bit curious, and suggests unity that simply did not exist... origins of both jacksonian democrats and u.s. whiggery were as factions in latter-day jeffesonian republican party, whig faction was led by clay and webster, both of whom opposed jackon's preference for strong presidency, each of whom were embodiments of legislative supremacy (whig theory held that presidency was limited/constrained office whose occupant was confined to exercise of specifically granted constitutional authority, in other words, prez has no implicit powers with which confront national problems, rather, he is largely administrator charged with carrying out of congressional will --- almost sounds like 8th grade civics class, 'congress makes the laws, president carries out the law')... one significant aspect of above is that jeffersonian republicans had been sufficiently 'federalist' so that whig faction was composed of well-to-do socio-economic types/interests that had supported federalists in early republic, as such, whig party favored hamiltonian-like 'internal improvements' led by national government... however, throughout its short couple-of-decade life, whig party was unstable coalition of nativist, propertied, new business/commercial interests, it was able to win 2 prez elections only by nominating 'war heroes' - harrison and taylor, both of whom died in office - but it was never able to develop fervor and loyalty, nor did it prove capable of building stable constituency or uniting behind 'positive' program... re. van buren, the architect of jacksonian democratic party as first mass party, he is sometimes called 'father' of modern political parties... as for jackson, his principal prez appointments were from ranks of rich (believe his administration consisted of larger percentage of wealth than any other administration up to that time except for john adams), moreover, his trade, finance, and land policies served that class' interests... michael hoover -------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.
