This is for you history buffs on the forum. I'm reading True Grit which is written in the words of the girl in the story. She makes endless references to the two major political parties in judgemental terms. When I read any non fiction writings of the old west about various lawmen, the politics of the towns involved are always a factor in their re-elections whether they do good jobs or not.
My question is, what were the two major parties like during the 1880's? What made them different? I know what it is now and DO NOT want to get into that. Just from a historical standpoint, what were the political platforms in the old days? Property rights? Vice reform? States rights?
Let's keep this before 1900 when global expansion was a new goal, and definetly not to modern times so as to keep current issues out of it. Thanks

There may have been three for a period. Wiggs were one. Sadly don't remember much else.

B2

Its a bit complicated - see
A Brief History of American Major Parties

The two major political parties were the Republicans and Democrats even back then.

The Republicans (the party of Lincoln) tended to be Northern. They were the architects of Reconstruction. The Democrats tended to be Southern and were the victims of Reconstruction. Remember, the Civil War had recently ended, but the wounds were still open. If people were still mad about Reconstruction in the 1960s, I would imagine they were very angry in the 1880s.

This was in the era before the progressive movement, so the parties' platforms were very different than today. It is hard to really frame the times without touching on still current politics like States' Rights and race, so I won't try out of respect to the forum. Let's just say they aren't new issues.

How are you liking the book so far? I bought it but it is still on deck to read. The movies were both great I thought. There are lots of books in which the authors and characters speak in that intricate, proper style. I have often wondered if the average person did, too.

Google "Morrill Tariff" Lincoln was for this.

I don't read fiction but wanted to read this so a member of another forum loaned it to me. It's great. I picture the little girl from the new movie when reading it and it's a perfect fit, as is Rooster.
Thanks for the above explanation and your delicate way of avoiding us running into trouble here. I didn't even want to mention the parties.
I'll read cowart's link which I bet reinforces what you were alluding to.

From what I have read political parties have always been the same in that they are full of people that will do anything to advance their own agenda. The leaders in all political parties are trying to fool the public to make themselves richer and more powerfull and that will never change. In the 1800s there were cattle people for and against farmers, poor people for and against rich people, white people for and against indians, town people for against country people, etc. There have always been people for and against the people being armed. It seems to me that it is the same stuff, different day. Larry

...began in 1856, with the formation of the Republican party. They grew from the anti-slavery movement started earlier. Republicans rose from the ashes of the defunct Whig Party. The Whigs arose in the 1930's as opponents to then-President Andrew Jackson. However, they had only modest political success, and they were unable to sustain momentum in the 1840's and early 1850's.

I grew up in a "border state", Kentucky. The distinction was quite severe there. If you were Republican your ancestors favored the union while Democrats were for the south. The division had nothing to do with policy differences. Just last year I heard a very old lady in Hopkinsville making sure that everyone new that "her people" were Democrats and always had been.

If any of you are John Prine fans you'll remember a line in a song "he voted for Eisnhower, cause Lincoln won the war". That was a song about an old man from my home area which was firmly Republican even into the the 50's and 60's in an area surrounded by Dixiecrats. It had been a mining area rather than agricultural so had no sympathy for the southern plantation owners.

I bet that's what the girl in the movie was supposed to reflect.

Ed

Heck, it's 2011, and I'm still mad about "reconstruction". Actually, we refer to it as something else, but I'm trying not to get any more warnings. Look at the politics 20 years later. Teddy Roosevelt was hated in his own party because of his trust busting, his protectionist stance on nature and our great wonders, and his liberal, for then, attitude about the Indians. A big debate then was about America becoming a world power. Many wanted us to be neutral in any squabble. Of course, TR didn't see it that way, thankfully.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Political parties were structured so that the party hierarchy had much more control over candidates and elected officials than today. There were no primary elections. A party's candidates for state, county, and municipal offices were chosen at conventions, in smoke-filled rooms. Parties had platforms that actually meant something. Candidates were expected to adhere to the platform, so they were a good bit more predictable than today. Presidential candidates were chosen by nominating conventions, often in smoke-filled rooms. The party hierarchy wanted candidates and presidents they had some control over, especially the GOP. There was a succession of uninspiring, mediocre, and often crooked presidents during this period. Grant was a crook, Ruther-fraud B. Hayes gained office under somewhat nefarious conditions. Hayes himself was honest enough, but he was stained by the electoral scandal surrounding his presidency. Garfield was one of the best of a pretty mediocre bunch. One of Chester Arthur's cronies supposedly said, on the event of Garfield's death and VP Arthur's succession to office, "Chet Arthur, President of the United States? Good God!" A historian, commenting on Arthur's career before being president, and his relatively scandal-free presidency, said he earned his place in history as "a reformed crook."

Only two Democrats held the presidency from 1860 until 1900--Grover Cleveland, and Woodrow Wilson. The republicans successfully "waved the bloody shirt" during this time frame, and the democrats actually became almost a sectional party, viable mostly in the South. The "Solid South" was the norm until about 1964.

I haven't studied or read much of this stuff since working on my Masters 25 years ago. This period wasn't nearly as much fun as a student as earlier American History, and 20th Century American History. It always seemed to me that a person who was willing to work hard had a lot of chance at making a success during this time. If, however, bad luck or poor health or recession hit, one was on his own. This was probably the period of purest Capitalism in US History. I have always thought that if they had penicillin and a few other meds, I would have loved to live in this era. It was a time of some extreme, hard-scrabble hardship down on the farm in the South, though.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

I'm finishing up a study on U.S. history from the Civil War to the present.

The best way I could describe the two parties is this: the Republicans could be considered todays Democrats and the Democrats could be considered todays Republicans.

About the time Eisenhower was elected President things started to change with the parties.

__________________
SWCA #2421

That is a great synopsis, Redlevel. The only place I disagree is that Woodrow Wilson was after 1900. He was the president during World War I. One thought though, I suppose one could argue that in many parts of the country, the 19th Century lasted into the start of the 20th. I know lots of old, Southern folks that routinely traveled by horseback or in horse drawn wagons into the 30s. In "Sixguns by Keith", he ties the end of the Wild West in with thee coming of the automobile.

...observations.

There also has been a huge change in the way Presidential campaigns are conducted. In the 1800's, candidates rarely, if ever, campaigned personally. Rather, their supporters and "agents provocateur" waged the campaign. Campaigning was rather below the status of a presidential candidate, even for someone like Andrew Jackson. It wasn't until the Lincoln campaign of 1860, that the candidates actually conducted what we would refer to as a campaign race.

Today, we hardly know what the presidential candidates will do when they gain office. "Read my lips...", "the worst economy in 50 years", hardly fit the eventual office holder.

This was well phrased! About what I was going to say.

BTW, Wyatt Earp referred to politics in the Tombstone, AZ issues in which he was embroiled. That was clearly a factor in the shootings there and local elections. I forget whether the editor of the, Tombstone Epitaph was a Republican or Democrat. But I think he favored the Earp faction.

Many in the South saw Lincoln in much the same light as most here see the current President, except that everyone conceded that he was born in Illinois. Illinois does have some of the worst gun laws now, BTW. But that probably wasn't Lincoln's fault. He is still seen as a Federal oppressionist who wanted to snuff out states' rights as part of his campaign to end slavery. I think the average Confederate fought more for states' rights than to support slavery. Most average men couldn't even afford to own slaves. But they didn't want some blamed Yankee telling them what they could do! Many still feel that way.

T-Star

Even though I first wondered what the parties stood for at the time, Wyatt Earp in Tombstone is a perfect example on how things haven't really changed much. The Earps were Republicans and the Epitaph was pro Earp. The other paper was anti- Earp and democrat and the stuff printed was predictably biased in the extreme. No change from nowadays except most papers go one way. Pat Garrett was a democrat, wanted to run for sheriff in N.M. so changed to Independent. If we think politics is dirty now, it's a pillow fight compared to Andrew Jackson's day. You won't be seeing Chuck Shumer having a duel with Ron Paul.
Great responses everyone. The civil war lasted a lot longer than I thought!

The presidential campaign of 1884 was dominated by mudslinging and personal attacks. The Democrats accused the Republican nominee James G. Blaine of selling his vote, the Republicans accused Cleveland of fathering a child out of wedlock. Blaine sank his chances when he declared to Democrats to be the party of "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion", that alienated even a lot of Republicans, plus Cleveland was seen as personally honest and a corruption fighter. The parties split along ethnic lines, Germans tended to vote Republican, Irish, Democratic. Blacks tended to vote Republican. The tariff was a big issue on the national level, Democrats favored reduction, Republicans favored high tariffs to protect American businesses. One interesting fact is that Cleveland was the only non veteran to serve as President from 1865-1909, Andrew Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and McKinley were Civil War veterans, TR served in the Spanish-American War.

Polictics in my part of the world (Rural Florida) was basically the same for many years. In the small rural counties the "Good Old Boy System" is alive and well. The same political party (Dixiecrat) controled everything. The Sheriff was usually the "Power Figure" with his "Political Base" controlling the county. In Florida if the Sheriff can be elected for his second term, his state pension is secure. The Deputies serve at the "Discretion" of the Sheriff with negative job sercurity. Arrest or issue a traffic citation to a friend of a friend of a politician or Sheriff and you are unemployed. With outsiders (Republians/Democrats/Independents) moving into rural Florida perhaps the old "Good old Boy System" will fade away.

dont forget the bull-moose party that was short lived.

__________________
God save the SOUTH

This is what I was saying when the thread about the new "True Grit" movie came out a few months back. The book "True Grit" is a great read and the new version of the movie more closely immulates the book.

The original John Wayne version of the movie was John Wayne-ized, which resulted in a loose adaptation of the original story. Nothing wrong with the Duke's award winning portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, but if you've actually read the story from the book you'll more likely really enjoy the Cohen version of the movie.

__________________
- Change it back -

"Many in the South saw Lincoln in much the same light as most here see the current President, except that everyone conceded that he was born in Illinois."

Lincoln was born in Kentucky, as was Jefferson Davis.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Although there is evidence that he was born in western NC to a young lady/servant working for a well to do landowner's family, and the wife demanded she be removed from the farm. She was sent to live with a relative named Lincoln in Kentucky, along with the infant.

North Carolina, Kentucky, Illinois, whatever . . . seems there is no doubt he was an American.

__________________
- Change it back -

Of course there are some deep, dark 'hollows' in western NC that may not think they are part of the US yet.

Leading up to the 1880s were the Indian Wars, broken treaties, relocations, massacares, reservations, starvation, buffalo slaughters, gold discovery in The Black Hills. Not a good time to be Native American.

Just a flip side observation here. But before I pop off I will say I have indian friends and even my wife claims to have maybe 1/8 indian blood and I can symptahise with them. That said, you have to dig a lot deeper than the comic books and western movies to get a true picture of just why general sherman, general miles and many others of the day felt like they did durring the indian wars. I dont belive they considered the indians human back then. There was some reason to their thinking to form their views back then. Indians tortured victims beyound belief. I have a old book somewhere that is nothing but writeings passed down through the years documented and undocumented of all accounts they could find. It is hard to belive!
There is no doubt they were royaly screwed out of everything. Today we once in awhile read of torture in third world countrys, the mid east and even of the drug cartels just across the border. Not one person defends their actions and we all wish hell fire heaped on their heads. Yet most of us automaticly seem to want to damn our own ancesters for their part in stealing this country from the indians. All I am trying to do is remind us we werent there and I think, swallow up all hollywood fiction about those years without researching old documented accounts. There was reasons for the thinking of the popular attitude of our people on both sides in those days that today is considered to be taboo to even bring up! Is it not very similar to trying to defend the drug cartels cutting heads off innocent people today?
Let the games began.