Sorry the video is late. The next batch of old alternate history videos from my now defunct alternate history channel have been added to a playlist on this channel. Link is in the description.
th-cam.com/video/yTv1-ROl7xk/w-d-xo.html Their parliament is a weird thing to watch, like a bunch of puritan quakers from the salem which era crossed with wood chicklet teeth english britt pompous attitude with slurred funny punny words and yelling banging on things like a circus sideshow of bad style breath and messed up hair. Harrr harrr harrr yay hay no way stay blay tray que. A literal kangaroo ponyshow worse than americas politico. #snl #tmz #canada #parliament #billburr #wwe #joerogan.
which is a big reason why the party started it's decline after he left office. like sure the dissolution of the party would come much later but the fractures were really starting to form once he left because they no longer had such a polarizing face for their opposition.
1234567890q "Yeah, free up the markets pretty much entirely, legalise piracy, ban businesses from being allowed to do stuff that I think hurts the environment"
Piet Andersen A totally free market will lead to a society where a few rich people will own everything. Piracy should be punishable by life imprisonment. And people ought to be heavily penalized for dumping waste in rivers, lakes, or anywhere else that looks like a Bob Ross painting. (IMO)
The Whigs sounded like they were primarily Social Democratic with Traditionalist and Agrarian views, for the most part. I wouldn't mind a Whig revival for Third Party options. America has needed a multiparty system to break away from our two party system for a long time now..
HotWax93 Only if you combined every period into a megazord. Now Trump is purely a Wall Street Conservative. Before, he was a Progressive Liberal and even earlier a Capitalist-centric Democrat.
NIN10DOXD yeah its interesting how every group as labeled him as this or that when he's been pretty much everything: a sorta liberal in one time and a sorta conservative but overall a shill
The National Republicans were better. They were led by John Quincy Adams, who in my opinion was the most brilliant man to ever be president. He sadly didn't accomplish anything significant due to Jacksonians in Congress blocking any thing he tried to do, but he is estimated to have the highest IQ of all the presidents, he is considered the best Secretary of State we ever had, he wrote the Monroe Doctrine, he was adamantly Anti Slavery, even more so than Lincoln, he brilliantly protected the slaves who took over the Amistad, and he prioritized building up the country's infrastructure.
Captain Sum Ting Wong I thought the smartest president ever was Wilson? As a product of there time obviously. The Flin effect makes it so every generation is generally smarter than the one before it. Making Obama probably the "smartest" president ever, but yeah for there time I thought it was Wilson.
Can you do a video describing the party system during the Progressive Era? I've been reading a biography about Teddy Roosevelt and the vibe I'm getting is that there were progressives and conservatives on both sides, the only thing dividing them was their view on the African American community.
Roosevelt was an outlier though. He really wasn't a progressive like La Follette or Johnson, and he identified more with the conservatives. And of course on race, he was more racist than even most Democrats.
Captain Sum Ting Wong I think he was more of a moderate progressive than anything during his first term, but from what I read he did try to pass a lot of progressive legislation during his second term but to no avail. On top of that, spearheading the Bull Moose party in 1912. He definitely didn't identify more with conservatives. On top of that, he was quite close with Booker T. Washington, so he definitely wasn't a racist. Although he did say a lot of racist stuff about Native Americans.
+Leonardo Zighelboim Oh yes. That classic "He had a black friend so he wasn't racist" line. Spare me. And while he was sort of progressive, he always had to check with the party bosses before pushing legislation, and he agreed with conservatives that he wouldn't go after the banking industry. And in terms of legislation, he usually supported watered down versions of bills written by real progressives. Take the Meat Inspection Act for example. Alan Beveridge wrote a very progressive bill, but Roosevelt & his conservative allies had certain provisions (like making companies pay for inspection fees and labeling dates) removed. Roosevelt did try to straddle the fence between the progressives and conservatives, as seen with the "Square Deal", but in reality he was in the conservative corner most of the time.
Captain Sum Ting Wong Please give me an example about how racist he was. I'm sorry but not doing a whole lot for the black community, which was a thing no president wanted to touch considering the recent civil war over it, doesn't make you a racist against African Americans. Many Democrats hated him for even inviting Booker Washington into the White House. I know nothing about his supposed racism against African Americans. His checking with conservative sects of his party made him a moderate progressive, not a conservative sympathizer. He often talked about how he wanted a slow burn, not radical legislation that would turn the country upside down. Which again, relates to his second term of failure to pass any legislation past the center, such as a mandatory 8 hour work day for federal employees, and later to the formation of the Bull Moose party after getting sick of trying to tear down the establishment from the inside. And even if you wanna deny all that, you can't deny his relentless regulation of trusts during his entire presidency, finally putting some teeth into the Sherman Act. He wasn't a conservative, he was center-left. A centrist at the very least. Even in his early days in the NY state assembly he sponsored radically progressive legislation, some of which he wrote himself. He only grew out of it because that kind of acting got him and the country nowhere politically.
+Leonardo Zighelboim I'll get back to the race issue in another (remind me to), but in terms of his regulation and break up of the trusts, he really isn't all he's cracked up to be. Even comparing him to Taft, he only "busted" 44 trusts in 7 1/2 years, as opposed to Taft, who busted 90 trusts in 4 years. As I said (and you ignored), Roosevelt always listened to the party bosses, and agreed not to try to regulate the banking industry. He even oversaw the "trust building" of US Steel, when he allowed it to merge with a Tennessee steel company (Taft launched a lawsuit against US Steel, outraging Roosevelt, which is actually what pushed him to run against Taft in 1912). He was a center-right, but most of the time he sided with the conservatives in the Republican Party and big business. He couldn't hold a candle to real progressives like La Follette & Hiram Johnson. And don't forget Eugene Debs!
The whigs weren't on the left nor the right, instead of following x-axis line they are in the y-axis, imaginary if you will. Cannot be explained with simple maths and understanding.
Ike Okereke By historical standards but for our time period, the US is purely conservative compared to the rest of the Western world and has been since the 80s.
Actually the whigs were very establishment oriented. The best divide to characterize whig v. Dem is establishment versus populism. The dems were at the vanguard of expanded voting by all white males regardless of property ownership. The whigs contained a lot of elites who were aghast by this. There was also a lot of nativist elements. The best way to define the whigs is as an elitist, nationalist and anti executive party while the democrats were populist free traders and pro executive. For the time, which is the only way to characterize parties that would put the whigs on the right and the dems on the left.
Onyx the Dragon A People's Party. I actually like the idea of a Big Tent party and multiple parties on either side. A Center People's Party and go left or right from there.
Democratic Socialism Yeah, the issue with big tent parties is that they are fundamentally unsustainable after the initial goal they were set up for has been accomplished. For example, the Democratic Party has been trying to position itself as the broad “anti-Trump” party despite the fact that there are serious divides between the center-right establishment wing and the new social democratic wing. So if Trump does lose in 2020 the Dems are probably going to implode since their coalition has no reason to exist anymore.
I am glad I subscribed to your channel years ago. I find no fault in it. All I qould say is a perhaps a verbal dwscription during your cartographic videos. That is all, I wish you and your channel the best in future.
It is true that the Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats don’t exactly match up with the modern understanding of what conservatism and liberalism are. And neither was ideologically monolithic in its make-up. At root, they mixed what perhaps many might find to be somewhat counterintuitive beliefs. But they were in ways that still feel resonant all this time later. Howard Ashworth described their competition as, “a clash of democracy with capitalism”. The Democrats being identified with democracy as they of course claimed the mantle of fighting for the “common man” while the Whigs were linked to capitalism as exhibited by their affirmation that they lived in, “a country of self-made men”. Andrew Jackson accused his enemies of representing “associated wealth” and a “corrupt aristocracy” while the Whigs branded him a “demagogue” and “King Andrew”. The Whigs weren’t anti-democratic, it was pretty much impossible to be at that point anyway, but they were resistant to the mass populist mobilization unleashed by the Democrats. Neither were they on board with the more radical stances taken by the Jacksonians such as a call to abolish the electoral college and making Supreme Court justices popularly elected positions. And yet, while they defended business from class agitation, the Whigs were also critical of the notion of individualism which was glorified by the Jacksonians and were adamant that people’s animal impulses were subordinated by practicing self-control and focusing on duty to an organic society with a distinct cultural heritage. Daniel Walker Howe compared it to classical Aristotelian ideas of human nature. Most of their social and moral reforms, including Sunday blue laws and temperance, were to the end of promoting those values. As James Reichley noted, the Whigs themselves adopted the word “conservative” which they connected with, “‘law and order’, social caution, and moral restraint”. And while the Democrats placed a heavy emphasis on individualism, as listed among the core concepts underlying Jacksonian Democracy by William S. Belko, they put, “the welfare of the community over the individual”. The Whig fusion of individual enterprise and civic responsibility is fundamentally a very conservative formulation while that of collective action and personal freedom as developed by the Democrats is quite a liberal one even if imperfectly applied. Arguably, they do remain recognizable today.
Being pro business, and pro taxation are not contradictory statements. You need a strong domestic market, and free markets often devastate domestic markets such as small business since they cant compete with large multinationals. Free markets should not be the 1st step but the last one in an developing economy.
The Democrats of the 1830s weren't that much different from the Democrats of today. In many ways, the Whigs, and the Republicans after them, were always the center-right party; they generally pushed for pro-business policies and won significant support from conservative white Protestants in the North. (Though in fairness, most Americans at that time were conservative white Protestants anyway, regardless of their party affiliation or ID.) The idea that the two parties "switched" is merely a canard put out by Democrats to excuse their hideous racist past and blame it on Republicans. Up until about the 80s, most political parties in the US were big tent parties and thus did not have coherent ideologies. After Reagan came along, they slowly but surely drifted toward one side or the other (the center left for Democrats and the center right for Republicans.) And now, in the years following the recession and Obama's first election, both parties have moved even further to their ideological extremes. (Most of the remaining moderates in both major parties were pretty much forced out in the early 2000s, during the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency.)
I definitely wouldn’t call Lincoln conservative or the Southern Democrats liberal. Even most conservative historians agree that the parties evolved in platform even before the 80s. Both parties were big-tent like in many ways but that is partially due to the fact that Regan Republicans have drifted right and made politics more polarized.
The parties certainly evolved but they never "switched." The Democratic party after Jackson would not support the socialist front now incorporated into the DNC (as it isn't democratic). The Republican party of old would not have been as supportive of state's rights. That being said, Lincoln was conservative (as he ran on the basis of our founding principles a core beliefs, as well as supported Christendom).
HotWax93 I take issue with your assertion that party ideologies in America developed post-Reagan. The parties fell into their modern stance during FDR’s time as president though Reagen did move both parties to the right.
dskmb3 So you would say that White Nationalism is not polarizing? In my view Antifa is a reaction to a growing fascism in America, so really it’s the Nazis and white nationalists who are being polarizing.
3:31. Isnt the Congress supposed to be on top? Hense why they are located in the capital building. And mentioned first in the constitution with most defined power.
from that description, the Whigs would sit pretty comfortably on the political left. the important thing to regard about a spectrum is that it isn't a binary. where things are positioned on it is relative and will change in relation to context. for the time, the Whigs' overall policies definitely trend left with their even being a number of surprising parallels with the modern left (especially when looking at the underlying reasoning for policies rather than the specifics of policies themselves). of course, they'd also find lots of enemies among the modern left, but... that's gonna be true of just about any party from a hundred years ago. it's just the natural result of cultural drift. another mistake you made is saying that their support of tariffs made them both "pro-taxes and pro-business" due to their justification of those tariffs. but the thing is that there really isn't ever any party that champions itself as "anti-business". ESPECIALLY in American politics (outside of, perhaps, some third parties during the Labour Movement). the modern Republican party labels itself as pro-business not simply because they support policies that they believe would lead to economic growth (since the Democratic party also supports policies that they believe would lead to economic growth, it's just a difference of opinion on what actually leads to "better" growth), but because they champion policies that give businesses legal protection.
I'm seeing the argument here that some of their policies don't necessarily have to be right-wing or left-wing in of themselves but not really what about the Whigs would make them err to the Left as opposed to the Right. It was, in fairness, a big tent coalition which can make confidently placing it on the political spectrum tricky. But I think there's a couple of factors that showcase the Whigs as leaning toward the Right at the end of the day. For starters, the Whigs were not just understood to be pro-business but were understood as being associated with big business. The best example of that was them being the ones to defend the the concept of the National Bank which manifested then as the Second Bank of the United States. A privately controlled institution propped up by the federal government, in what was one of the defining political conflicts of the era. They were also associated with religious moralism. Disproportionately drawing from the widespread spike in Evangelicals inspired by the Second Great Awakening. A group very interested in enforcing public morality as illustrated by their ardent participation in the temperance movement. Then there's their association with nativism. A large section of their base had been attracted to the party because they promised to do something about the tide of mass immigration at the time, extra tension was added by the fact that they were largely Catholic, which the Democrats had embraced. Establishment Whigs politicians eventually started trying to appeal to Catholic and immigrant communities which alienated them from much of their rank-and-file and they followed new up-and-coming Whigs politicians into the bourgeoning Native American Party in a bid to protect their Protestant American way of life. They came to be called the Know Nothings and their departure began the unraveling of the Whig Party. Even the issue of slavery, which appears to be what modern discussion of political classification in that period seems to boil down to for a lot of people, was not nearly the straightforward divide many seem to believe. Sure, you had some of the more strident abolitionists like William H. Seward, who notably despaired over how his principles were too liberal for his party, among their ranks. But you also had others who promoted the practice like George Fitzhugh who was one of the foremost thinkers in the field of rationalizing it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of the comes from there being a tendency to conflate the Whigs with the early Republicans in the popular consciousness which naturally ties into the slavery thing. But it was far more complicated than that. The Republican Party by the time it was a national powerhouse had absorbed members of several parties. Including disaffected Northern Whigs, Democrats, Know Nothings and Free Soilers. The Whigs and the Democrats each had powerful wings in both the North and South. The broader Civil War period was in many ways a detour from the traditional political status quo as codified during the first two party systems. Though I'd say that it did wind up reasserting itself again by the end of the century. Certainly by the 1896 presidential contest between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. There's more to all this naturally, but that should be sufficient to at least get the point across. But when taken in their totality, the Whigs very much fit the mold of a 19th Century conservative party.
Yes today September 16th,2024 I remain the same United states God YHWH Elohim...without the word "the"..that swore..that the " Chinese zodiac" is insanity about ANINAL worshipping pre 1776 declarations..which if professional sports teams chose logos AND an animal word-name.,the English dictionary already defined them as "devolution".. which paved my victory..for THESE of the US..
BEWARE A FACT ERROR AT 5:29 TO THE END: It should be CONSCIENCE Whigs (not conscious whigs, mister TH-cam teacher). I wish you would repair this. 149K folks are learning the facts incorrectly plus eliding the difference between two often confused vocab words - Conscious and Conscience. They were anti-slavery because their conscience spoke to them.
Technically they were the Center-Left Party in Politics because they were to the left of the Democrats, which at the time were still the Center-Right Party in American Politics. But because there were some Centrist and Right-Wing members of the party, they were seen as phony by many Leftists in America. This was why the Free Soil Party was formed in the first place. Northern Whigs backed the Free Soil Party at the expense of their own candidate, Zachary Taylor. They later merged with them to form the Republican Party. With Conscious Whigs' dream of an ideological party of the center-left finally being realized.
Aren't our views on 'left' and 'right' mostly made a post-socialism era consideration? Political parties of the that time had very arbitrary distinctions. Unlike our divided time, or that just before the Civil War, politicians would spend some amount of their campaigning time to explain platform differences to the public.
@@ZechsMerquise73 well considering socialism existed in the 1700s, then not really. Left and right emerged from the industrial era, and emergence of capitalism and mass industrialization. Aspects of what we consider leftism currently exist in various era to a certain degree. Communal system in ancient Rome, and various rebellions to establish Republican democracy throughout the era are what helped gave birth to current leftism of the industrial era.
I wouldn't say that that’s the correct way of looking at it. The Whigs housed an eclectic coalition which makes pinning them down perhaps somewhat tricky, but taken on a glance I'd make the case they were indeed a conservative party by most standards and were when properly understood to the right of the Democrats of that time. For starters, they were the party aligned with big business. The defining manifestation of that conflict, one of the critical disputes that launched the Second Party System, arrived in the form of the battle over the Second Bank of the United States. It was a privately controlled institution that was propped up by backing from the federal government. The Whigs saw it as a necessary fixture that kept the economy running smoothly while the Democrats saw it as a corrupt establishment which propped up bankers at the expense of the American public. The Democratic presidents of the era Martin van Buren and James Polk both ran on creating a replacement for the National Bank called the Independent Treasury which would be directly run by the federal government. The Whigs were also associated with religious moralism. They drew disproportionately from the widespread spike in Evangelicals inspired by the Second Great Awakening and often concerned themselves with enforcing public morality such as their endorsement of the temperance movement. The Democrats, much like the British Liberal Party of the 19th Century, featured nonconformist Protestants and Catholics as significant pieces of their coalition and tended to be more vigilant about the separation of church and state. Jackson himself had opposed the creation of an official Christian political party and even fought against the prohibition on delivering the mail on Sunday during his presidency. Then there's the issue of immigration. The Democrats then as now were the ones to embrace a massive wave of immigrants. In those days, it was largely made up of Irish and German Catholics. Many voters were concerned about them being a threat to their Anglo-Protestant way of life and threw their lot in with the Whigs because they promised to be the ones to do something about it. Many went so far as to claim it was part of an active plot by the Vatican to take over the country. And a number of Whig politicians blamed Polk’s electoral victory on an influx of “Irish Catholic hordes”. However, eventually several Whig politicians started trying to appeal to Catholic and immigrant communities. Many people who had affiliated themselves with the Whigs, including much of their rank-and-file, left to form the now infamous nativist organization that came to be known as the Know Nothings. That actually began the party’s process of unraveling. Even the slavery debate isn't nearly as straightforward as a number of people seem to believe. During the Second Party System, both major parties had powerful Northern and Southern wings that covered a wide range of opinions on the matter. Sure, you had more hardcore abolitionists like William H. Seward among their ranks, who notably despaired over how his principles were too liberal for his party, but you also had others like George Fitzhugh who was one of the foremost thinkers in the field of rationalizing and promoting the practice. Slavery was not a hardline partisan topic during the Second Party System and was as a general rule put aside. The Republican Party which did take a firm stand on that argument by the time it was a national powerhouse had absorbed members from several previous parties. Including disaffected Northern Whigs, Democrats, Know Nothings and Free Soilers. The Free Soil Party itself was already largely composed of Democrats who got fed up earlier with the essentially neutral stance the national party took on the issue in a bid to hold together its strained coalition. It was in many ways a detour from the traditional political status quo. After the war it would clearly reassert itself by the end of the century. Certainly by the 1896 presidential contest between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan which echoed themes from the defining rivalries of the first two party systems. The one between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the first and that of Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson during the second. Despite initially appearing out of the internal fracturing of the Democratic-Republicans, they had obviously became the successors to the undeniably right-wing Federalist Party in terms of their policy positions and base of support. For starters, the Federalists had been the first ones to call for the creation of a national bank. Several people these days try to frame that as some kind of progressive innovation when it was actually a component of old fashioned economic nationalism which was modeled after the Bank of England. Reverend Timothy Dwight, perhaps the most prominent minister connected to the party, was one of the principal instigators of the aforementioned Second Great Awakening. He engaged in the kind of apocalyptic religious conspiracy theories that are becoming prevalent today. Accusing Thomas Jefferson of being the leader of the American Illuminati if not the embodiment of the Antichrist. And it had been Federalists in Congress who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which placed foreigners under scrutiny out of suspicion of their loyalties. They feared the influence of the French Revolution’s radicalism which had many sympathizers in immigrant communities such as the French and the Irish who were inclined toward the left-leaning Democratic-Republicans. The idea that the distinction between Left and Right is the respective size of is a modern concept which confuses the issue. Beyond the fact that the Post-Progressive Era administrative state that Democrats have run with goes far beyond anything the Whigs or the Federalists would’ve imagined, that’s just not how conservatism was defined at the time. Their chief aims were those still important to conservatives but pursed by different means. Such examples being economic growth, national security and defending culture. They received the bulk of their support from the wealthy, middle class and dominant religious group as was the norm for conservative parties in that period. There’s more to all this of course, there are some crucial changes in the political landscape that are worth discussing, but that should be sufficient in getting the basic point across.
Sorry the video is late. The next batch of old alternate history videos from my now defunct alternate history channel have been added to a playlist on this channel. Link is in the description.
Can I ask for "History of North Korea's Worker's Party"? How Kim Ilsung was able to grasp and sustain his power to his next generation?
For your new alternate history channel: "What if the August Faction Incident ended in success? Would NK still be a crazy nuclear regime that is now?"
What happened to emporor tiger star alt
EmperorTigerstar do a video on The National States Rights Party by JB stoner or the One lead by Wallace and Lester Maddox
Do an everyday video on the Peruvian-Ecuadorian War from you and Cody's hoi4 livestream.
“His Accidency” made me realize that early 1800s burns are ones that stand the test of time
Now that was rough
Up there with "the consulship of julius and caesar"
@@LOLquendoTV I think "Queen of Bythinia" is way worse x)
@@DeconusMaximus yeah that was a pretty big oof
th-cam.com/video/yTv1-ROl7xk/w-d-xo.html
Their parliament is a weird thing to watch, like a bunch of puritan quakers from the salem which era crossed with wood chicklet teeth english britt pompous attitude with slurred funny punny words and yelling banging on things like a circus sideshow of bad style breath and messed up hair. Harrr harrr harrr yay hay no way stay blay tray que. A literal kangaroo ponyshow worse than americas politico. #snl #tmz #canada #parliament #billburr #wwe #joerogan.
Well that's the first time I heard of Cody getting angry.
He kinda sounds weird doing so.
You ever see his live streams? He gets ticked off faster than the run time of his cameo in the video.
true lmao
Well that's the first time I heard of Cody
Farhan Tbs I love it
1:30 Random guy: So what are you positions on the issues?
Whigs: Yes.
YOU'VE DOOMED THE VIDEO!
Steven Wills The video was already doomed before it even started.
Lol no ads
Steven Wills THINK OF THE COMMENTS!
*N O T C O M M U N I S T E N O U G H*
Truth is... the game was doomed from the start
The Whigs get their name and inspiration from the British Whigs who we're anti monarchist. The name was clearly a jab at Andrew Jackson.
Nice.
which is a big reason why the party started it's decline after he left office. like sure the dissolution of the party would come much later but the fractures were really starting to form once he left because they no longer had such a polarizing face for their opposition.
also damn I actually like that idea, honestly the founding fathers would never wanted the president to have this much power.
I always wondered about that, because their policies actually felt more Toryish than anything (at least compared to the Democrats of the time).
The Whigs are that one guy who watches Fox News, listens to Chapotraphouse and reads the Economist.
Marylandbrony What's Chapotraphouse?
It's a very left wing podcast.
Marylandbrony
So a guy who is firmly proreligion, firmly procapitalism, and watches Vox and CNN? Huh, sounds like me...
You just need to become a Grandpa and hate technology.
That’s almost contradictory. Lol
Fun fact: Both Abraham Lincoln and Chester A. Arthur started as Whig-politicians before they became Republicans.
Red Blaze Rutherford Hayes I believe campaigned for Zach Taylor in 1848.
I know I’m late, but who tf was Chester A Arthur
@@adityabhardwaj1808 21st US President
Also of northern whigs became republicans I believe
@@jasondaveries9716 Yeah, that was mentioned in the video.
We need a video for the federalist vs the dem-reps
The Entity YES
Darth1nsidious7 the Wise Wait your name seem familiar to me...
The Entity interesting
Alternate History-Style Emperortigerstar is fucking adorable, use that character more mate.
furry
The addition of a Cody cameo is greatly appreciated. Well done Tigerstar, you deserve a promotion.
"Andrew Jackson, while doing several good things, also did several bad things."
That could describe just about anyone ever.
"We're the Whigs on the right, left, or center?"
Yes.
@red x17 yes
Benito mussolini no
Bull moose party next?
the Party that would have made Teddy Rosevelt the 2nd 2-time President.
A bullet can't even kill a bull moose, so if elected they definitely wouldn't die in office.
If Teddy won with the Bull Moose America would be much better nowadays.
Also known as the Progressive Party
The virgin Whig vs The Chad Old Hickory
BulletBill110 yup
It ain't called "Old Hickory" for nothing
Sounds like the whigs might be alright, apart from a few things.
Dahkittydoonsta Yeah seems that way. But I am still wanting green-pirate policies.
1234567890q "Yeah, free up the markets pretty much entirely, legalise piracy, ban businesses from being allowed to do stuff that I think hurts the environment"
Piet Andersen A totally free market will lead to a society where a few rich people will own everything. Piracy should be punishable by life imprisonment. And people ought to be heavily penalized for dumping waste in rivers, lakes, or anywhere else that looks like a Bob Ross painting. (IMO)
Dahkittydoonsta Right, I dont think you understand, I was making fun of Green-Piracy, they make literally no sense.
Piet Andersen sorry m8. Kind of hard to tell over text with no body language and tone of voice and what not.
The Whigs sounded like they were primarily Social Democratic with Traditionalist and Agrarian views, for the most part.
I wouldn't mind a Whig revival for Third Party options. America has needed a multiparty system to break away from our two party system for a long time now..
Basically, they were Donald Trump before he was.
HotWax93 Andrew Jackson would be a better comparison considering public opinion and to an extent policy. But not the party forming stuff
HotWax93 Only if you combined every period into a megazord. Now Trump is purely a Wall Street Conservative. Before, he was a Progressive Liberal and even earlier a Capitalist-centric Democrat.
NIN10DOXD yeah its interesting how every group as labeled him as this or that when he's been pretty much everything: a sorta liberal in one time and a sorta conservative but overall a shill
Merritt LOL! Jackson would be a better example of the Whig party even though the Whig party formed in opposition to him? Ha!
Interesting video. Could you do something similar for the Federalist Party?
whig sounds like green party to me
-pro economic and environmental regulation
-pro government schooling
-non expansionist foreign policy
Whig sounds anti-democrat to me
@@Wolfmasterpixel Federalist were anti democratic . But Whigs not really
John Tyler may have been hated in his time, but he still had a grandson living. That's staying power.
You forgot to mention that a large portion of the Whigs came out of the Anti-Freemasonic party.
~big inhale~ ACTUALLY THE WHIGS WERE ON THE-
Cody: *yells*
Me: Hold up
Do a video on the Federalist
*YOU* *DOOMED* *THE* *VIDEO*
5:14 Actually, I know him for marrying his teacher.
w h a t
(Insert triggered argument about american politics here)
The Whigs seem like more of centre-left party to me. Their views also seem to align with mine. We really need them back.
The National Republicans were better. They were led by John Quincy Adams, who in my opinion was the most brilliant man to ever be president. He sadly didn't accomplish anything significant due to Jacksonians in Congress blocking any thing he tried to do, but he is estimated to have the highest IQ of all the presidents, he is considered the best Secretary of State we ever had, he wrote the Monroe Doctrine, he was adamantly Anti Slavery, even more so than Lincoln, he brilliantly protected the slaves who took over the Amistad, and he prioritized building up the country's infrastructure.
Well the Left wing of the party did become the early Republican Party under Lincoln.
Captain Sum Ting Wong I thought the smartest president ever was Wilson? As a product of there time obviously. The Flin effect makes it so every generation is generally smarter than the one before it. Making Obama probably the "smartest" president ever, but yeah for there time I thought it was Wilson.
The Whigs are more like cringey old NeoCons like Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
Seems more like a british/parliamentary fascist party to me. Alot of views line up with mine too.
"Knock knock, it's the United States"
-Millard Fillmore
"Big tent party?" Isn't that the Anthony Weiner... sorry..Mr Weiner's crowd?
"Conscience" Whigs, not "Conscious" Whigs. I would presume they were ALL conscious.
Can you do a video describing the party system during the Progressive Era? I've been reading a biography about Teddy Roosevelt and the vibe I'm getting is that there were progressives and conservatives on both sides, the only thing dividing them was their view on the African American community.
Roosevelt was an outlier though. He really wasn't a progressive like La Follette or Johnson, and he identified more with the conservatives. And of course on race, he was more racist than even most Democrats.
Captain Sum Ting Wong I think he was more of a moderate progressive than anything during his first term, but from what I read he did try to pass a lot of progressive legislation during his second term but to no avail. On top of that, spearheading the Bull Moose party in 1912. He definitely didn't identify more with conservatives. On top of that, he was quite close with Booker T. Washington, so he definitely wasn't a racist. Although he did say a lot of racist stuff about Native Americans.
+Leonardo Zighelboim Oh yes. That classic "He had a black friend so he wasn't racist" line. Spare me. And while he was sort of progressive, he always had to check with the party bosses before pushing legislation, and he agreed with conservatives that he wouldn't go after the banking industry. And in terms of legislation, he usually supported watered down versions of bills written by real progressives. Take the Meat Inspection Act for example. Alan Beveridge wrote a very progressive bill, but Roosevelt & his conservative allies had certain provisions (like making companies pay for inspection fees and labeling dates) removed. Roosevelt did try to straddle the fence between the progressives and conservatives, as seen with the "Square Deal", but in reality he was in the conservative corner most of the time.
Captain Sum Ting Wong Please give me an example about how racist he was. I'm sorry but not doing a whole lot for the black community, which was a thing no president wanted to touch considering the recent civil war over it, doesn't make you a racist against African Americans. Many Democrats hated him for even inviting Booker Washington into the White House. I know nothing about his supposed racism against African Americans. His checking with conservative sects of his party made him a moderate progressive, not a conservative sympathizer. He often talked about how he wanted a slow burn, not radical legislation that would turn the country upside down. Which again, relates to his second term of failure to pass any legislation past the center, such as a mandatory 8 hour work day for federal employees, and later to the formation of the Bull Moose party after getting sick of trying to tear down the establishment from the inside. And even if you wanna deny all that, you can't deny his relentless regulation of trusts during his entire presidency, finally putting some teeth into the Sherman Act. He wasn't a conservative, he was center-left. A centrist at the very least. Even in his early days in the NY state assembly he sponsored radically progressive legislation, some of which he wrote himself. He only grew out of it because that kind of acting got him and the country nowhere politically.
+Leonardo Zighelboim I'll get back to the race issue in another (remind me to), but in terms of his regulation and break up of the trusts, he really isn't all he's cracked up to be. Even comparing him to Taft, he only "busted" 44 trusts in 7 1/2 years, as opposed to Taft, who busted 90 trusts in 4 years. As I said (and you ignored), Roosevelt always listened to the party bosses, and agreed not to try to regulate the banking industry. He even oversaw the "trust building" of US Steel, when he allowed it to merge with a Tennessee steel company (Taft launched a lawsuit against US Steel, outraging Roosevelt, which is actually what pushed him to run against Taft in 1912). He was a center-right, but most of the time he sided with the conservatives in the Republican Party and big business. He couldn't hold a candle to real progressives like La Follette & Hiram Johnson. And don't forget Eugene Debs!
Ahh, so that's why the Republican party initially started out as the liberal/progressive party
The whigs weren't on the left nor the right, instead of following x-axis line they are in the y-axis, imaginary if you will. Cannot be explained with simple maths and understanding.
Millard Fillmore actually did run for president again in 1856 as a know nothing
And actually won some electoral votes from Maryland, the only state he won.
With a party name like that no wonder he lost (yes I know what their policies were)
Merritt Animation ummmm, no you don't?
"You beat me with your cane you jerk!" LOL!
Make "the Winter War and the Continuation War: Everyday"
The Whigs were actually radical to what we think of modern day political policies if you think about it..
People don't realize that right now, we live in the most conservative political environment in our country's history.
Captain Sum Ting Wong
And the most liberal.
Ike Okereke By historical standards but for our time period, the US is purely conservative compared to the rest of the Western world and has been since the 80s.
NIN10DOXD
Not really.
Actually the whigs were very establishment oriented. The best divide to characterize whig v. Dem is establishment versus populism. The dems were at the vanguard of expanded voting by all white males regardless of property ownership. The whigs contained a lot of elites who were aghast by this. There was also a lot of nativist elements. The best way to define the whigs is as an elitist, nationalist and anti executive party while the democrats were populist free traders and pro executive. For the time, which is the only way to characterize parties that would put the whigs on the right and the dems on the left.
MFW you don't have a true political stance to the point where you aren't even a centrist.
LOL Grandpa Party
Hi
👋
Ah yes the whig party I remember learning this
Rip Henry Clay. Should have been president. He tried several times :(
_ANGRY POLITICAL COMMENT_ (but seriously, I would love another big-tent-party. Particularly one which bands together against corruption.
Onyx the Dragon A People's Party.
I actually like the idea of a Big Tent party and multiple parties on either side. A Center People's Party and go left or right from there.
Ignar Husky Progressive Maddog The Democrats are a big tent party and it’s fucking terrible.
Democratic Socialism
Yeah, the issue with big tent parties is that they are fundamentally unsustainable after the initial goal they were set up for has been accomplished. For example, the Democratic Party has been trying to position itself as the broad “anti-Trump” party despite the fact that there are serious divides between the center-right establishment wing and the new social democratic wing. So if Trump does lose in 2020 the Dems are probably going to implode since their coalition has no reason to exist anymore.
Did they support people wearing wigs
Rio truths
Since they’re old fashioned, probably.
Their mascot was at a later date (when the party already kind of fizzled out) an owl I think.
EDIT: Ah I commented before the end, you showed the owl.
Big whigs
Can you please tell me how you make your map animation videos?
"his accidency"
...
_fire_
I am glad I subscribed to your channel years ago. I find no fault in it. All I qould say is a perhaps a verbal dwscription during your cartographic videos. That is all, I wish you and your channel the best in future.
There is a grass roots party called the modern whig party for which i joined. Check it out. 😎👍😁
Actually tariffs are one of the few ways the federal gov't had to raise money per the constitution, as there was no income tax.
Tigerstar, what do you think about a resurfaced Whig party? Could it work?
How about a resurfaced Federalist Party?
“His Accidency” is sure one terrible president. Yuck, he aged so badly. (More proof that he’s a terrible president.)
Joe Frew one thing he did was beat Mexico in the war ans gained us lots of new land
The Entity Nope. That was Polk not Tyler.
+EmperorTigerstar Tyler was the one who pushed for the annexation of Texas though, and got it through on his last day in office.
He was one of the best actually
Tyler joined the confederacy and went as far as to be buried in a confederate flag. Hard for me to see how his legacy could be anything but treason.
Your Accidency??? LMFAO!!! that's the best one I've heard in awhile, I'll save that one for later.....ooh someone's getting a laugh methinks....
Make a video about Ajit pai.
I'm so switching my party.
1:00 started laughing so hard and Idk why
Love this video!!! I guess I could be called a whig....
Not bad! How about covering the Decline and Fall of the Federalists, including the Hartford Convention.
It's scary how prophetic the Whigs' concerns were...
Upvoted just for the bit with cody
A very interesting and comedic video! Keep it up! :D
They sound sorta like Rockefeller Republicans
I love the part were the one guy came in LOL
Also the death of Henry clay really didn't help out the struggling party
It is true that the Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats don’t exactly match up with the modern understanding of what conservatism and liberalism are. And neither was ideologically monolithic in its make-up. At root, they mixed what perhaps many might find to be somewhat counterintuitive beliefs. But they were in ways that still feel resonant all this time later. Howard Ashworth described their competition as, “a clash of democracy with capitalism”. The Democrats being identified with democracy as they of course claimed the mantle of fighting for the “common man” while the Whigs were linked to capitalism as exhibited by their affirmation that they lived in, “a country of self-made men”. Andrew Jackson accused his enemies of representing “associated wealth” and a “corrupt aristocracy” while the Whigs branded him a “demagogue” and “King Andrew”. The Whigs weren’t anti-democratic, it was pretty much impossible to be at that point anyway, but they were resistant to the mass populist mobilization unleashed by the Democrats. Neither were they on board with the more radical stances taken by the Jacksonians such as a call to abolish the electoral college and making Supreme Court justices popularly elected positions.
And yet, while they defended business from class agitation, the Whigs were also critical of the notion of individualism which was glorified by the Jacksonians and were adamant that people’s animal impulses were subordinated by practicing self-control and focusing on duty to an organic society with a distinct cultural heritage. Daniel Walker Howe compared it to classical Aristotelian ideas of human nature. Most of their social and moral reforms, including Sunday blue laws and temperance, were to the end of promoting those values. As James Reichley noted, the Whigs themselves adopted the word “conservative” which they connected with, “‘law and order’, social caution, and moral restraint”. And while the Democrats placed a heavy emphasis on individualism, as listed among the core concepts underlying Jacksonian Democracy by William S. Belko, they put, “the welfare of the community over the individual”. The Whig fusion of individual enterprise and civic responsibility is fundamentally a very conservative formulation while that of collective action and personal freedom as developed by the Democrats is quite a liberal one even if imperfectly applied. Arguably, they do remain recognizable today.
Being pro business, and pro taxation are not contradictory statements. You need a strong domestic market, and free markets often devastate domestic markets such as small business since they cant compete with large multinationals. Free markets should not be the 1st step but the last one in an developing economy.
0:59 I Laughed So Hard
0:29
"You beat me with your cane you jerk!"
Bruh, you tried to shoot him twice, what you think he's gonna do?
0:47 Well I’d Go With The Whigs Being Purple.......
7 minutes ago an thee have been 7 comments
I've always supported the whigs and hope they come back
Gotta love Cody and tiger star... ****STOP****
So they never actually had an ideology at all and were just an alliance of convenience?
The Democrats of the 1830s weren't that much different from the Democrats of today. In many ways, the Whigs, and the Republicans after them, were always the center-right party; they generally pushed for pro-business policies and won significant support from conservative white Protestants in the North. (Though in fairness, most Americans at that time were conservative white Protestants anyway, regardless of their party affiliation or ID.) The idea that the two parties "switched" is merely a canard put out by Democrats to excuse their hideous racist past and blame it on Republicans.
Up until about the 80s, most political parties in the US were big tent parties and thus did not have coherent ideologies. After Reagan came along, they slowly but surely drifted toward one side or the other (the center left for Democrats and the center right for Republicans.) And now, in the years following the recession and Obama's first election, both parties have moved even further to their ideological extremes. (Most of the remaining moderates in both major parties were pretty much forced out in the early 2000s, during the first two years of George W. Bush's presidency.)
I definitely wouldn’t call Lincoln conservative or the Southern Democrats liberal. Even most conservative historians agree that the parties evolved in platform even before the 80s. Both parties were big-tent like in many ways but that is partially due to the fact that Regan Republicans have drifted right and made politics more polarized.
The parties certainly evolved but they never "switched." The Democratic party after Jackson would not support the socialist front now incorporated into the DNC (as it isn't democratic). The Republican party of old would not have been as supportive of state's rights. That being said, Lincoln was conservative (as he ran on the basis of our founding principles a core beliefs, as well as supported Christendom).
HotWax93
I take issue with your assertion that party ideologies in America developed post-Reagan. The parties fell into their modern stance during FDR’s time as president though Reagen did move both parties to the right.
dskmb3
So you would say that White Nationalism is not polarizing? In my view Antifa is a reaction to a growing fascism in America, so really it’s the Nazis and white nationalists who are being polarizing.
Evan Andrews
The DNC isn’t really socialist, they rigged the 2016 primary to favor Clinton over Bernie who is really just a social democrat
3:52 that was the point. put canident extremally popular in different section and hop Van Buren wouldn't get the required electoral count
3:31. Isnt the Congress supposed to be on top? Hense why they are located in the capital building. And mentioned first in the constitution with most defined power.
We have a New Whig party now.
from that description, the Whigs would sit pretty comfortably on the political left. the important thing to regard about a spectrum is that it isn't a binary. where things are positioned on it is relative and will change in relation to context. for the time, the Whigs' overall policies definitely trend left with their even being a number of surprising parallels with the modern left (especially when looking at the underlying reasoning for policies rather than the specifics of policies themselves). of course, they'd also find lots of enemies among the modern left, but... that's gonna be true of just about any party from a hundred years ago. it's just the natural result of cultural drift. another mistake you made is saying that their support of tariffs made them both "pro-taxes and pro-business" due to their justification of those tariffs. but the thing is that there really isn't ever any party that champions itself as "anti-business". ESPECIALLY in American politics (outside of, perhaps, some third parties during the Labour Movement). the modern Republican party labels itself as pro-business not simply because they support policies that they believe would lead to economic growth (since the Democratic party also supports policies that they believe would lead to economic growth, it's just a difference of opinion on what actually leads to "better" growth), but because they champion policies that give businesses legal protection.
I'm seeing the argument here that some of their policies don't necessarily have to be right-wing or left-wing in of themselves but not really what about the Whigs would make them err to the Left as opposed to the Right. It was, in fairness, a big tent coalition which can make confidently placing it on the political spectrum tricky. But I think there's a couple of factors that showcase the Whigs as leaning toward the Right at the end of the day.
For starters, the Whigs were not just understood to be pro-business but were understood as being associated with big business. The best example of that was them being the ones to defend the the concept of the National Bank which manifested then as the Second Bank of the United States. A privately controlled institution propped up by the federal government, in what was one of the defining political conflicts of the era.
They were also associated with religious moralism. Disproportionately drawing from the widespread spike in Evangelicals inspired by the Second Great Awakening. A group very interested in enforcing public morality as illustrated by their ardent participation in the temperance movement.
Then there's their association with nativism. A large section of their base had been attracted to the party because they promised to do something about the tide of mass immigration at the time, extra tension was added by the fact that they were largely Catholic, which the Democrats had embraced.
Establishment Whigs politicians eventually started trying to appeal to Catholic and immigrant communities which alienated them from much of their rank-and-file and they followed new up-and-coming Whigs politicians into the bourgeoning Native American Party in a bid to protect their Protestant American way of life. They came to be called the Know Nothings and their departure began the unraveling of the Whig Party.
Even the issue of slavery, which appears to be what modern discussion of political classification in that period seems to boil down to for a lot of people, was not nearly the straightforward divide many seem to believe. Sure, you had some of the more strident abolitionists like William H. Seward, who notably despaired over how his principles were too liberal for his party, among their ranks. But you also had others who promoted the practice like George Fitzhugh who was one of the foremost thinkers in the field of rationalizing it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of the comes from there being a tendency to conflate the Whigs with the early Republicans in the popular consciousness which naturally ties into the slavery thing. But it was far more complicated than that. The Republican Party by the time it was a national powerhouse had absorbed members of several parties. Including disaffected Northern Whigs, Democrats, Know Nothings and Free Soilers. The Whigs and the Democrats each had powerful wings in both the North and South.
The broader Civil War period was in many ways a detour from the traditional political status quo as codified during the first two party systems. Though I'd say that it did wind up reasserting itself again by the end of the century. Certainly by the 1896 presidential contest between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. There's more to all this naturally, but that should be sufficient to at least get the point across. But when taken in their totality, the Whigs very much fit the mold of a 19th Century conservative party.
Thank you for saying are they left or right and do you delete the "bad" comments
Werent they a Nationalist party.
If you want the part of cody yelling, hen go to 1:11
0:58 the best part of this vid
Yes today September 16th,2024 I remain the same United states God YHWH Elohim...without the word "the"..that swore..that the " Chinese zodiac" is insanity about ANINAL worshipping pre 1776 declarations..which if professional sports teams chose logos AND an animal word-name.,the English dictionary already defined them as "devolution".. which paved my victory..for THESE of the US..
Progressive white dudes in the 1800s nyeas I believe in common sense gov spending, BUT ALSO OWNERSHIP OF HUMANS.
I like how even though Zachary Taylor is the reason Texas kept the Rio Grande as the border, Texas didn’t vote for him.
Freakin Cody.
“You Maniac!! You’ve doomed the video!!!!!”
The Whig Owl
"I have always been an old-line Henry Clay Whig" ----------Abraham Lincoln-------
more info here: www.modernwhig.org/
modern Whigs use an owl...
Illuminati confirmed.
"Andrew Jackson, why are you such a Butt Face?" - The Whig Party
BEWARE A FACT ERROR AT 5:29 TO THE END: It should be CONSCIENCE Whigs (not conscious whigs, mister TH-cam teacher). I wish you would repair this. 149K folks are learning the facts incorrectly plus eliding the difference between two often confused vocab words - Conscious and Conscience. They were anti-slavery because their conscience spoke to them.
Reminds me of Fianna Fail.
Your narrative videos are excellent
“YOU HAVE DOOMED THE VIDEO” - Cody
If you take the decade from 1841-1850, the USA had 6 presidents in 10 years.
YOUVE DOOMED THE VIDEO!!!!
4:10 WILLY WONKA!!!!
Technically they were the Center-Left Party in Politics because they were to the left of the Democrats, which at the time were still the Center-Right Party in American Politics. But because there were some Centrist and Right-Wing members of the party, they were seen as phony by many Leftists in America. This was why the Free Soil Party was formed in the first place. Northern Whigs backed the Free Soil Party at the expense of their own candidate, Zachary Taylor. They later merged with them to form the Republican Party. With Conscious Whigs' dream of an ideological party of the center-left finally being realized.
Aren't our views on 'left' and 'right' mostly made a post-socialism era consideration? Political parties of the that time had very arbitrary distinctions. Unlike our divided time, or that just before the Civil War, politicians would spend some amount of their campaigning time to explain platform differences to the public.
@@ZechsMerquise73 well considering socialism existed in the 1700s, then not really. Left and right emerged from the industrial era, and emergence of capitalism and mass industrialization. Aspects of what we consider leftism currently exist in various era to a certain degree. Communal system in ancient Rome, and various rebellions to establish Republican democracy throughout the era are what helped gave birth to current leftism of the industrial era.
I wouldn't say that that’s the correct way of looking at it. The Whigs housed an eclectic coalition which makes pinning them down perhaps somewhat tricky, but taken on a glance I'd make the case they were indeed a conservative party by most standards and were when properly understood to the right of the Democrats of that time.
For starters, they were the party aligned with big business. The defining manifestation of that conflict, one of the critical disputes that launched the Second Party System, arrived in the form of the battle over the Second Bank of the United States. It was a privately controlled institution that was propped up by backing from the federal government. The Whigs saw it as a necessary fixture that kept the economy running smoothly while the Democrats saw it as a corrupt establishment which propped up bankers at the expense of the American public. The Democratic presidents of the era Martin van Buren and James Polk both ran on creating a replacement for the National Bank called the Independent Treasury which would be directly run by the federal government.
The Whigs were also associated with religious moralism. They drew disproportionately from the widespread spike in Evangelicals inspired by the Second Great Awakening and often concerned themselves with enforcing public morality such as their endorsement of the temperance movement. The Democrats, much like the British Liberal Party of the 19th Century, featured nonconformist Protestants and Catholics as significant pieces of their coalition and tended to be more vigilant about the separation of church and state. Jackson himself had opposed the creation of an official Christian political party and even fought against the prohibition on delivering the mail on Sunday during his presidency.
Then there's the issue of immigration. The Democrats then as now were the ones to embrace a massive wave of immigrants. In those days, it was largely made up of Irish and German Catholics. Many voters were concerned about them being a threat to their Anglo-Protestant way of life and threw their lot in with the Whigs because they promised to be the ones to do something about it. Many went so far as to claim it was part of an active plot by the Vatican to take over the country. And a number of Whig politicians blamed Polk’s electoral victory on an influx of “Irish Catholic hordes”. However, eventually several Whig politicians started trying to appeal to Catholic and immigrant communities. Many people who had affiliated themselves with the Whigs, including much of their rank-and-file, left to form the now infamous nativist organization that came to be known as the Know Nothings. That actually began the party’s process of unraveling.
Even the slavery debate isn't nearly as straightforward as a number of people seem to believe. During the Second Party System, both major parties had powerful Northern and Southern wings that covered a wide range of opinions on the matter. Sure, you had more hardcore abolitionists like William H. Seward among their ranks, who notably despaired over how his principles were too liberal for his party, but you also had others like George Fitzhugh who was one of the foremost thinkers in the field of rationalizing and promoting the practice. Slavery was not a hardline partisan topic during the Second Party System and was as a general rule put aside.
The Republican Party which did take a firm stand on that argument by the time it was a national powerhouse had absorbed members from several previous parties. Including disaffected Northern Whigs, Democrats, Know Nothings and Free Soilers. The Free Soil Party itself was already largely composed of Democrats who got fed up earlier with the essentially neutral stance the national party took on the issue in a bid to hold together its strained coalition. It was in many ways a detour from the traditional political status quo. After the war it would clearly reassert itself by the end of the century. Certainly by the 1896 presidential contest between William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan which echoed themes from the defining rivalries of the first two party systems. The one between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the first and that of Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson during the second.
Despite initially appearing out of the internal fracturing of the Democratic-Republicans, they had obviously became the successors to the undeniably right-wing Federalist Party in terms of their policy positions and base of support. For starters, the Federalists had been the first ones to call for the creation of a national bank. Several people these days try to frame that as some kind of progressive innovation when it was actually a component of old fashioned economic nationalism which was modeled after the Bank of England.
Reverend Timothy Dwight, perhaps the most prominent minister connected to the party, was one of the principal instigators of the aforementioned Second Great Awakening. He engaged in the kind of apocalyptic religious conspiracy theories that are becoming prevalent today. Accusing Thomas Jefferson of being the leader of the American Illuminati if not the embodiment of the Antichrist. And it had been Federalists in Congress who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts which placed foreigners under scrutiny out of suspicion of their loyalties. They feared the influence of the French Revolution’s radicalism which had many sympathizers in immigrant communities such as the French and the Irish who were inclined toward the left-leaning Democratic-Republicans.
The idea that the distinction between Left and Right is the respective size of is a modern concept which confuses the issue. Beyond the fact that the Post-Progressive Era administrative state that Democrats have run with goes far beyond anything the Whigs or the Federalists would’ve imagined, that’s just not how conservatism was defined at the time. Their chief aims were those still important to conservatives but pursed by different means. Such examples being economic growth, national security and defending culture. They received the bulk of their support from the wealthy, middle class and dominant religious group as was the norm for conservative parties in that period. There’s more to all this of course, there are some crucial changes in the political landscape that are worth discussing, but that should be sufficient in getting the basic point across.