Talk:Democratic-Republican Party/Archive 1

message: The page says that the Federalist party has no ties to any modern party, but this is not true. The Federalists and the Modern Repbublican party shared a handful of viewpoints: both favored tax cuts and other financial benefits for the upper class and small buisness, in the interest of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. The Federalists were more conservative in general, they believed that the government was to be supported regardless of your own personal preference. 
I am not saying that the Federalists and the Republicans are the same party, or even that the Republican Party is a descendant of the Federalist party. I am saying that it is extreme to say that the Federalist party has no ties whatsoever to the modern Republican party. At the very least, they were both the conservative parties of their times. The page should be changed to say that there is a very loose resemblance between the Federalists and the Republicans. --BMS 02:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Federalists did not favor tax cuts. They raised taxes--leading to the Whiskey revolt, for example.  The Republicans of 1798 were strong for states rights, and thus resemble the GOP today. Many in the GOP today dislike John Marshall for building a strong Supreme Court through judicial activism. Rjensen 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans

message: What happened to this text: 
:The name "Democratic-Republican" was actually used briefly in American politics to describe a contemporary political faction: in the time of Andrew Jackson, when the Republican Party was splintering into factions, "Democratic-Republican" was used to refer to Jackson's supporters within the Republican Party. These supporters would soon organize themselves into a new political party: the Democratic Party.
Why was it deleted from the opening section?  --JW1805 (Talk) 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That text was incorrect. The name was not used in 1820s. Jackson's people called themselves "Jackson Men". Rjensen 19:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: I checked 8 current college US history textbooks that have online tables of contents
1 uses Dem-Rep (see #3)
6 use  Republican
1  uses Jeffersonians (#6)
*1 Tindall-Shi (W W Norton) “Republican Party” 	http://www.wwnorton.com/college/titles/history/usa6/TOC.pdf
Longman: 
http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/discipline/0,,72158,00.html
*2 Mark C. Carnes, and John A. Garraty, 
ch 5 has section Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties.
*3 Jones: Created Equal
ch 9. Revolutionary Legacies, 1789—1803. Competing Political Visions in the New Nation.
Federalism and Democratic-Republicanism in Action. 
*4 Gary Nash American People
ch 8 student guide Controversy between Federalist supporters of the national government and the emerging Jeffersonian Republican opposition first erupted over domestic policies designed to stabilize the nation's finances and promote its economic development. Those policies revealed deep-seated conflicts between economic interests and raised urgent questions of how the new constitution should be interpreted
*5 Divine, Am Past & Present
ch 8 =  Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision. 
*6 Martin, Concise History.. "Jeffersonians"
from Bedford St Martin  http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html
*7 Henretta America’ History (Bedford) ch 7/
Jefferson's Agrarian Vision
Hamilton's financial programs divided the Federalists into two irreconcilable political parties and led to the emergence of the Republicans, a group headed by Madison and Jefferson. 		
*8 Roark American Promise (Bedford)
Republicans in Power 1800-1824
http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/roark/pages/bcs-main.asp?v=&s=09000&n=00010&i=09010.00&o=
so the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans Rjensen 14:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most people here are receptive to the idea of changing the article name. The question is, what should it be changed to? Kaldari 15:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I dispute these results.  Just looking at the table of contents in no way proves what you are claiming.  No one denies that "Republican" is a adjective that is used to describe members of the "Democratic-Republican" party.  Most of these examples use the word in an adjective form "Republican Ascendancy", or to denote the members of the parties "Federalists and Republicans".  That does not prove anything.  --JW1805 (Talk) 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Confusing to readers? If the reader uses a textbbook, he will be confused by 7 out of 8 because they do not use the old-fashioned term "D-R" anymore. Should Wiki keep old fashioned readers happy or should it be accurate?  I say let's be accurate and up-to-date and explain to people the confusions that are involved. Griot says we should use the name scholars do, and I agree 100%  I point out that scholars have shifted their usage over the last 50 years. We should go with the 80-90% of the scholarly and textbook community and not be stuck in 1960. Rjensen 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments above.  The evidence you have presented does not prove that textbooks no longer use "Democratic-Republican".  --JW1805 (Talk) 23:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually LOOKED at 8 current textbooks, That's 8 more than anyone else here. One used D-R. Should Wiki be current or should it reflect the terminology used 20 and 30 years ago? Rjensen 00:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, above you said you looked at the table of contents, which doesn't really prove anything.  Democratic-Republican Party is the commonly used name.  I happened to notice today's History Channel Today in History even has it.  The term has 78,000 Google hits.  It's used in other encyclopedias.  It's a convenient term to distinguish between the modern-day Republican Party.  There is no reason to create confusion by renaming the article or changing the links to this page.  You seem to be the only one who thinks that is a good idea.  --JW1805 (Talk) 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Support Republican Party (Jeffersonian).  Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do current textbooks say? ans = Republicans 

message: If the Republican Party ceased to exist after 1816, why do so many sources say that various candidates from the 1820s and 1830s were Republicans or Democratic-Republicans? Are we sure the history of the party ends in 1816? Kaldari 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: when did the party die? That's an interesting question and Richard McCormick book looks at it state by state. 1816 was the last NATIONAL organized activity (the Republican Caucus picked Monroe.) In 1820 Monroe did not use the caucus. In 1824 Crawford tried to revive the caucus but most members refused to attend, and when his little caucus did nominate him, most states ignored it.  That is they did not recognize the Caucus as binding anymore, which is why we can say the party was gone.  Candidates in 1824 had in the past been active--Clay was the party leader in Congress for 10 years (between 1810 and 1824). The others Jackson, Adams, Crawford had been active in state party work.Rjensen 20:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What should candidates who were aligned with Andrew Jackson in the 1820s and 1830s be called? Jacksonians? Democrats? Jacksonian Democrats? Republicans? Democratic-Republicans? Jacksonian Republicans? Right now we use all of the above. There is no consistancy in Wikipedia whatsoever. It's a total mess really. Kaldari 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. They called themselves "Jackson Men" or "Friends of  Jackson." I would call them Jacksonians and leave off party because they did not see themselves as acting through an organized party.  We have this in local politics in USA--school board elections say. People avoid identifying themselves as GOP or Dem, and usually do not have formal names for their groups, and might call themselves "Friends of Smith" or "Supporters of Jones". Rjensen 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem here is the identity of the party exclusively with presidential politics.  Sam 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the section about the Jacksonian Republicans? 

message: Here is the best treatment I have seen of party names. NOTE it refers to 1820-40 period but sheds a lot of light on Jeffesron's party and what happened to it.  RJ
The Presidential Campaign of 1832. By Samuel Rhea Gammon  Johns Hopkins Press. 1922. Page Number: 155-161 (footnotes omitted).  
APPENDIX I PARTY NOMENCLATURE 
To determine exactly when the terms "Democratic" and "Democratic Republican," on the one hand, and the term "National Republican," on the other, came to be applied to the followers of Jackson and to those of Adams and Clay respectively, is difficult. This cannot be categorically determined since usage varied in different States. Indeed the only sweeping statement applicable is that there never was any uniformity or consistency generally displayed by either party in its self-designation down to 1830; even as late as 1832 the Jacksonians referred to themselves officially as the "Republican party." 1  The chief causes for the slow development of distinctive party names were: first, the reluctance of the various factions into which the old Republican party was split by the campaign of 1824 to regard themselves, or even to seem to appear, as other than the true Republican party; second, the fact that the campaigns of 1824 and 1828 were so largely based upon the personalities of the candidates instead of upon their political principles. Thus during the campaign of 1824 the Adams, Clay, Calhoun, Crawford and Jackson factions respectively considered themselves as parts of the old Republican party as it had existed under Madison and Monroe.  Party nomenclature began to take distinctive shape, locally at least, during the campaign of 1824. At the beginning of that contest the one party name in existence was "Repub lican." Indeed the party had been mostly so styled since ____________________ 1 	See "Proceedings of a Convention of Republican Delegates . .. held at Baltimore, . . . May, 1832," History Pamphlets, vol. 293, Johns Hopkins University Library.  
p-155	 	  1812, as is shown by Jefferson's letters and by Niles' Register. 2 As the Adams and Clay factions inclined more toward each other in their advocacy of a nationalistic policy as to internal improvements, and still considered themselves and were considered within the Republican party, the descriptive adjective "national" began to be applied to them to differentiate them from the rather more particularistic followers of Jackson and Crawford. As far as can be ascertained the term "National Republican" was first applied to the Adams-Clay followers in New York during the latter stages of the campaign of 1824 when they united in the state legislature in order to defeat the Regency's effort to choose Crawford electors. Van Buren speaks of it thus: "The 'high minded' [a little group of anti-Clintonian Federalists] espoused the cause of Mr. Adams zealously, and the, feelings produced, or rather revived, by that contest carried them back into the federal ranks -then called National Republicans -where the survivors are still [ 1854] serving as Whigs." 3 However this may have been, the term was not at all used in contemporary newspapers and letters.  In New York politics the name "Democratic" was also revived just prior to the opening of the national campaign of 1824. In 1818 there had been a split in the Republican party in the State, Clinton leading one faction and Van Buren the other. 4 The latter was dubbed by its enemies the "Bucktails," and about the same time began to refer to itself as the "Democratic" party. 5 The term "Republican," however, was still used to indicate both "Bucktails" and Clintonians. 6 As the Albany Regency under Van Buren's direction grew in strength and its party in the State became dominant, the term "Democratic" came to mean the Regency's party. p-156  In Pennsylvania down to 1823 the general party term was "Republican" as distinguished from "Federalist." As the democracy of the State became more and more militant in its support of Jackson, the popular meetings of his followers all over the State used the term "Democrats" to describe themselves and their political principles and referred to the political body in which they claimed membership as the "democratic republican party." 7 The state convention which nominated Jackson for president was composed of delegates appointed by the "democratic republicans of this state." 8 At the same time however the convention referred to the congressional caucus as being made up of a "minority of the republican members of Congress" and its action as being therefore a departure from "republican party" established usage. 9 This indicates that the party at large in the country was still styled the "Republican" and that Jackson's Pennsylvania supporters considered themselves as part of it.  So far as any generalization is possible from the above and other instances, it appears that both general groups -the followers of Crawford and Jackson on the one hand, and those of Adams and Clay on the other -into which the old Republican party was showing a tendency to divide by the end of 1823, still regarded themselves as Republicans and within the party thus designated. The terms "Democratic," "Democratic Republican" and "National Republican" had come into being as party names, but their use was confined to localities, States at most. The use of the first of these seems to have been confined to the Regency party in New York, that of the second to the Jacksonians in Pennsylvania, while the third was a designation for the Adams-Clay faction in New York plus the remnant of Federalists who joined them. Certainly there was no general use of any party name except "Republican." 
p.  -157	   	  Throughout the campaign of 1828 the same characteristics were manifested. The elimination of Crawford, the relegation of Calhoun and Clay to places of secondary importance, the election of Adams, and the union between his and Clay's followers operated to draw the line more sharply between the two opposing factions into which the shattered old Republican party had coalesced by the end of 1825. No other party name than "Republican," however, was generally used by either faction and each considered itself the true Republican party, the direct lineal descendant of that of Madison and Monroe. 10 There is no evidence that either faction regarded its opponent as other than a schismatic Republican group; indeed all the evidence points to this as the case. Clay stated this point of view exactly in a letter to Webster near the close of 1826 as follows: "We really have in this country no other than a Republican party. Names may be gotten up or kept up in particular states for local or personal purposes, but at this time there are but two parties in the Union, that of the administration and the opposition." 11  In local practice throughout the country the use of party nomenclature was still inconsistent and varied. The single definite fact and also the only definite distinction in the use of names, as is shown in contemporary newspapers, was the nation-wide use of "the administration party" and "the opposition party," 12 or "the friends, of General Jackson" and "the friends of the administration." 13 Conventions were spoken of as "Adams" and "Jackson" conventions; 14 a voter was an "Adams man" or a "Jackson man"; 15 and the tickets nominated for state and local offices were known as "the Adams ticket" and "the Jackson ticket," the individual 
p158 	  candidate being the "Adams candidate" or the " Jackson candidate." 16 Aside from these terms based on the persons rather than upon their principles, there was no consistency or uniformity as to party designation. The Jackson paper in New Hampshire still referred to the supporters of the two parties as "Republicans" and "Federalists." 17 The Albany Argus spoke of "devotion to the republican cause and the interests of the democratic party" in the same sentence and connection. 18 After Jackson and Calhoun had become the party candidates in 1828, the Argus and the United States Telegraph each headed a column daily with "Republican National Ticket" over the names of the two men. 19 The Richmond Enquirer used the term "Republican" to refer to the Jackson party where the reference was unmistakable, but where it was not clear, used the conventional "Adams" or "Jackson" to distinguish. 20  Only in Pennsylvania was there a definite drift toward the use of "Democratic" as a distinctive term. The term "democratic republican" had been used to describe the Jacksonians from the time the State began to stampede to him in 1823. 21 Hence "democratic republican" continued as the term mainly used in the campaign of 1828. Notwithstanding this there was a tendency to use "democratic" alone as the party designation. This tendency is illustrated by the references to the state convention at Harrisburg which was referred to by the party papers as the "Democratic Convention at Harrisburg." 22 It appears also in the convention's 
p-159 	  nomination of Jackson "as the democratic candidate of Pennsylvania" for president. 23  As to the Adams party, if Van Buren's memory was correct after twenty-five years, the name "National Republican" had been in existence since the campaign of 1824, 24 but there was certainly no general, and apparently no local, use of it during the campaign of 1828. As has been said the party was generally referred to among its friends as the "Republican" party if the reference was unmistakable, otherwise as the "friends of the administration" or "friends of Adams."  During the campaign of 1832, the use of party names rested more on party principles, hence for the most part the names of Jackson and Clay were discarded as descriptive adjectives. As nearly as can be determined, the name "National Republican" became current during the year 1830, about the time that party launched Clay's campaign. 25 Niles begins using it and it begins to appear in letters about the end of 1830 and the beginning of 1831. 26 In the first two months of 1831 it became fixed party usage. During the process of effecting the party's organization in New York City it was used exclusively; 27 it was also used for the most part by the state conventions held in Connecticut and Maine at this time. 28  "National Republican" received what may be called the final stamp of approval as the party's official title by the National Intelligencer in its issue of February 22, 1831, thus: "National Republican is an excellent designation for a national party in our republican Union. Let it be adopted everywhere, by all who would uphold the Federal Constitution; secure the independence and continuance of the 
p160 	Supreme Court; preserve a sound currency; possess a substantive and enlightened President of the United States; prevent offices from becoming the booty of mere partisans and parasites; and obtain a truly responsible and visible government." 29 Hence it is to be expected, and this was actually the case, that the proceedings of the party's two conventions, that at Baltimore in December, 1831, and that at Washington the following May, should be printed by order of those bodies under the respective titles of "Journal of the National Republican Convention" and "Proceedings of the National Republican Convention of Young Men." 30  During the campaign the use of "Democratic" as a designation for the party increased somewhat in favor with the Jacksonians but did not by any means displace "Republican" as the party's official title. "Democratic Republican" was, however, the most frequently used of the three names, no doubt in order to differentiate the party more sharply from the National Republican. Seward states that "The campaign for 1832 opened with the year 1830. The Republican party, now taking to itself the more radical name of 'the Democratic party,' announced . . . its determination to secure the reelection of Andrew Jackson." 31 Seward's memory here seems at fault since the New York Courier and Enquirer, then staunchly Jacksonian, in the same article referred to the Jackson party by all three names, as "republican party," "democratic party" and "democratic republicans." 32  In Pennsylvania "Democratic Republican" remained the most prevalent term, with "Democratic" used to some extent, 33 and this seems to have been the case p 161 in New Hampshire also. 34 A letter from Richards to McLean shows that the Jackson ticket in Philadelphia "is called simply the Democratic ticket." 35 For all these local variations, and the probable increased use of "Democratic Republican," 36, the official designation of the party remained "Republican." Thus The Globe, the Albany Argus, and the Richmond Enquirer usually referred to their party by the latter name, and Jackson, Kendall and other leaders so designated it in their letters. 37 This official title of the party conclusively appears in the caption of the proceedings of its convention in Baltimore, as "A Convention of Republican Delegates." 38  To generalize categorically concerning this usage, which was so varied and which crystallized so gradually, is venturesome. The following facts, however, seem to stand out with some degree of clearness. As to the designation of the followers of Adams and, later, of Clay, the term "National Republican" may have been coined as early as the campaign of 1824, according to Van Buren, 39 or in that of 1828, according to Seward, 40 but the name certainly did not attain general or official usage before 1830, after Clay's campaign was under way. As to the Jackson party, the designations "Democratic" and "Democratic Republican" were both used in the campaign of 1824," 41 but in a few localities only. The party, like that of Adams and Clay, still regarded itself as the Republican party, and this name continued as the official one to the close of the campaign of 1832, with "Democratic Republican" gaining but not supplanting "Republican" in current usage. [end of Appendix]
Rjensen 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's read some history 

message: The party invented many campaign techniques--there are numerous books and studies that demonstrate this in detail. That is a major contribution and needs to be explained, which I try to do in non-controversial fashion.  A number of historians have pointed to Beckley as they key person so he gets appropriate attention. See books by Cunningham, Elkins-McKitrick, Paisley, Chambers, Lipset, Tinkom, and Risjord. Rjensen 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  campaign techniques 

message: The long blockquotes recently added are a bit disruptive to the flow of the article.  This isn't Wikisource.  Some effort should be made to summarize this material, and link to the full text in the External links or References section.  --JW1805 (Talk) 16:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help tremendously if the editors here would start using footnotes like the rest of Wikipedia (instead of just compiling a list of books that may or may not have been used to create the article and then dumping huge quotations into the article as references). Kaldari 19:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. These long block quotes add nothing to the article, but are there strictly because they are interesting the person who included them in the article. Let's remember that brevity is not only the soul of wit, but also the soul of good reading. These long block quotes are suitable to a book -- and indeed, that's where they come from -- but not to an encyclopedia article. I suggest cutting them out. Furthermore, it is a violation of the copyright law to copy more than 250 words of someone else's work without getting permission. One of these quotes should go on copyright violation alone. Griot 04:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point so I fixed the problem with paraphrases. The only long quote is now the Jefferson letter [public domain] that laid out party principles and became the party platform for years. Rjensen 08:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What are the copyright rules? [Chronicle 2/23/06: "A fact sheet on fair use published by the U.S. Copyright Office does not say that fair use is limited to a set number of words. It says fair use of a work is permitted for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research....And the guidelines say that 1,000 words or 10 percent of a work of prose, whichever is less, can be republished.  But at least two publishers, Blackwell Publishing and Elsevier, advise authors and editors seeking to make fair use of a book to republish no more than 400 words."   Rjensen 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I work in the field (I'm an editor). At our publishing house, the rule is no more than 250 words unless you get copyright permission from the original publisher. Griot 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long excerpts - copyright violations? 

message: ::Why backtrack and go over old ground or rehash old discussions? Before you put up that notice, I would ask you to please respect the decision made by the people who contributed to this discussion back in February. They reached a concensus not to change the name. Read their words before you consider opening this can of worms. Griot 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki should keep up to date and not reflect the textbooks of decades ago. Mistaken decisions are not frozen in place in Wiki--and new editors bring new perspectives that have to be respected. As for decisions, Griot made a unilateral decision to change the name of the party INSIDE the article to D-R, and inside OTHER articles to D-R, going so far as to alter quotations.  That extreme policy was never accepted. Rjensen 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That decision was not "unilateral." It's a question of being consistent. You can't call the same thing by different names and expect anyone to understand you. As for your textbook argument, I have at my disposal several high school and college level textbooks, all of which use the term "Democratic-Republican." And online encyclopedias -- which I believe should be our guide, since Wiki is an online encyclopedia -- all use the name "Democratic-Republican." Maybe the problem here is that some contributors to this article don't understand that Wiki is for the general reader, not the historian or even the sophmore college history student. We should do our best not to confuse general readers, which brings us around to why "Democratic-Republican" was used in the first place. Again, I ask everyone to respect the opinions and ideas of the people who contributed to this dicussion two months ago, just as, two months from now when other maverick editors come around, they respect our opinions. Griot 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep the article at Democratic-Republican Party (United States), which I believe is the most logical name. See the previous discussion about this matter. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griot refuses to gives the names and dates of the textbooks he relies on. That suggests he is using stuff that is outdated, which is what this argument is all about. What happened is that historians led by Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove, Ellis, Fischer, Ferling, Onuf, Appleby, Freeman, Morgan and others became focused on "republicanism" as the driving ideology. That explained the party name. The monographs and the textbooks followed suit. Wiki is about 25 years behind the times--which is my complaint about Griot's old textbooks. 90% of the students will be baffled by the strange D-R term which is NOT in their textbooks. So challenge: let's have the names and dates of the textbooks that Griot insists are so good. Rjensen 06:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove..." And to counter, I give you the Encyclopedia Britannica and all other online encyclopedias. Again, I remind you that the Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for the general reader, not a Reader's Digest compendium of condensed historical monographs. Niney percent of students will not be baffled by the name. Ninety percent would be baffled if "Republican" were used, because they would believe that they were reading about the current Republican Party. BTW, here's an amusing page that illustrates very well why calling it the "Republican Party" can cause a lot of confusion: Democratic-Republican Party.Griot 14:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Griot refuses to accept the idea that Ency Brit could be wrong. That a staff written unsigned article written years ago could make a little mistake--NEVER. On the other hand he does believe that Bailyn, Wood, Pocock, Murrin, Banning, McDonald, Buel, Rakove etc are all wrong.  That approach violates Wiki rules about using the best SECONDARY sources (Ency Brit is a tertiary source).  The hang up for many people is that they do not want to lend any credibility to Bush's GOP today and they fear that calling Jefferson's party "Republican" might do that.  That of course is a low level POV that is bad for Wiki. Rjensen 15:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen refuses to ackowledge that this subject was decided earlier, and he persists in revisiting it. I don't understand your tertiary source argument. Again, I remind you what this is -- an online encyclopedia. As to your Bush's GOP point, I could just as easily turn it on its head and claim that people who disagree with me are trying to underscore a relationship between the Democratic-Repub Party and today's Repub party. My point is simple, and it's one that we in the publishing world adhere to very stringently: We have to decide on our terms and stick to them, and our terms should be the easiest to understand. "Democratic-Republican" has been the designated name for this party for a century. Why change now? Imagine a high schooler or casual reader (in short, your average Wiki reader) trying to get information on this party. Would he or she find it if it were filed under "Republican Party"? Again, I have to remind you that people who read these pages aren't college sophmores or junior professors. Our task is to serve the general reader, and we can serve him/her best by naming this article "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The subject was not decided earlier.  There was no consensus earlier. As to the idea that high schoolers and general readers - I've already noted a bunch of books for general readers that use "Republican".  Rjensen has noted a bunch of high school textbooks that use "Republican".  There is absolutely no reason to assume that non-specialists will have come across the term "Democratic-Republican" and not "Republican." (and since when are college sophomores exemplars of knowledge?) john k 16:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I was merely stating my position so as to avoid an official "Requested Move". I believe Democratic-Republican is apropriate for the title of the article. As to whether it is shortened to "Republican" in the article I have no preference, as long as it is clarified that in the past this was the title of the party. For modern use, however, and to avoid a pointless disambiguation page, the title Democratic-Republican should remain, if only for the sake of the average user. I would have no objection to explaining the controversy in the article, however, if you feel thats appropriate. - Fearfulsymmetry 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of Article, Resuscitated

message: A couple points here on Griot's tactics, which seem to frequently revolve around being wildly misleading (whether on purpose or unintentionally I cannot say):
#The discussion in February shows no clear consensus at all about what to do about the name of this article.  Griot and JW1805 opposed a move, Rjensen supported a move, and nobody else commented.  Various people who had commented on the page in the past, however, suggested a preference for "Republican."  Three people is hardly a consensus which needs to be respected. 
#Griot has, as Rjensen notes, insisted on using "Democratic-Republican" in text.  The claimed reason for this is a "need to be consistent."  But there is no wikipedia policy which suggests such action is mandatory at all.  Griot has basically won this argument by being more persistent about reverting than his opponents, not by making any rational arguments on behalf of this supposed need for "consistency."
#Griot says that "90%" of people would be confused by references to the party as Republicans, because they would think the reference was to the modern Republican Party.  This is absurd. (So is Rjensen's counter claim that people would be especially confused by Democratic-Republican, but I understand that this is a rhetorical claim which he may not be advancing sa literally true).  The idea that two different things can have the same name is widely understood by people.  So long as we explain the distinction, there is no particular reason to worry that people will be confused.  Do we have to refer to London, Ontario as "London, Ontario" (or worse, some awkward construction like "Canadian-London") in every reference out of fear that people will otherwise confuse it with the London in England?  This is silly.  Only in contexts where confusion is possible should we refer to it as "London, Ontario."  Within its own article it's perfectly acceptable to just use "London," as also in other articles on subjects where it's clear that the city in Ontario is being mentioned.  The same should apply in this case - the fact that disambiguation may sometimes be needed is not sufficient to claim massive confusion
#Griot has repeatedly made general statements that "textbooks" use "Democratic-Republican."  When asked to back up this statement with quotations, he has entirely failed to do so, instead turning to other arguments.  Rjensen has explained this by saying that Griot does not want to reveal how old the textbooks he is using are.  A less generous interpretation would be that Griot has not looked at any textbooks at all. Either way, this has been a highly dishonest method of debating.
#When worse comes to worse, Griot reverts to the argument that other encyclopedias use "Democratic-Republican."  This, while true, is not sufficient.  Wikipedia does not title articles based on the "other encyclopedia names" convention.  it does it on the "common names" convention, and while I think it's arguable that specialist monographs should not be considered, I think textbooks and books written for a fairly wide readership are a much better guide to "common name" than what another encyclopedia says.  I think my examples above have showed pretty well that books for a wide readership use "Republican" more often than not (some do use "Democratic-Republican," though, including major ones like Harry Watson's Liberty and Power).  Rjensen's examples from February give a fairly good impression that high school textbooks have moved over to do the same.  As far as I can tell, Griot's counter argument on this front is a) Textbooks really use "Democratic-Republican"; and b) All sources but encyclopedias don't matter anyway.  This seems untenable to me.
Here's the basic issue: for me to take Griot seriously at all, he's going to have to provide some actual citations, beyond just other encyclopedias, that use Democratic-Republicans.  So far, Rjensen and I have provided more citations of the use of "Democratic-Republican" than Griot has.  This is absurd.  If Griot chooses not to make any citations, and instead to just continue to spin his jaws in the style noted above, I'm going to propose both a page move and some kind of vote on how to refer to the party independently of where the page is located. (That is, whether we should refer to the party as the "Republicans" even though the article might still remain at "Democratic-Republican" out of lack of a good alternative.) john k 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Lord man! You spend an inordinate amount of time following me around, nipping at my ankles, and quibbling with me. I'm hoping for your sake you have better things to do. Griot 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Admittedly, cataloging my many ills isn't quite as useless as debating with Wolfstar, but let's stick to the topic. The topic is -- for the third or fourth time around -- whether to rename this article. BTW, a little advice: Brevity isn't just the soul of wit. Griot 16:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, briefly, your main ills are a) repeatedly claiming a consensus that doesn't exist; and b) repeatedly claiming that textbooks support you but refusing to actually cite any when challenged.  These are extraordinarily frustrating as debating techniques. I don't think that we're going to get anywhere by further discussion.  What do you think is the best way to proceed?  Should we do an RfC? an RM?  I would add that the question of what the party should be called in article text is a separate one from where the article should be.  If we do have a vote, I would like voting on these two issues to be separate.  At any rate, I'm going to put in an RfC. john k 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The question of what the party should be called in article text is a separate one from where the article should be?" What do you mean? Griot 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the term Republican should be used in the text of the article instead of D-R.  Has Briot located those textbooks he has relied upon so heavily? we need title-author-date. Rjensen 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have I "located" the books? I will make a list of them shortly. Griot 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Griot's Tactics

message: Both South Korea and Croatia have "Democratic-Republican" parties, and maybe others.Rjensen 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes other countries had D-R parties 

message: In the question of what to name this article, "Democratic-Republican Party" or "Democratic Party," I've been arguing in favor using other online encyclopedias as our model. As much as some people think Wikipedia is a playground or a chance to exercise finger muscles over a keyboard, most people use this place to look up information. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. All the online encyclopedias/references I found filed this topic under "Democratic-Republican Party." We should too. Here are the online encyclopedias/references with URLs to their "Democratic-Republican Party" articles: Encyclopedia Britannica; Reference.com; American Heritage Encyclopedia;  U.S. Facts on File; Encarta Encyclopedia; World Encyclopedia; Studies for Kids; Ohio History Central Online Encyclopedia; Oxford University Press Encyclopedia; SparkNotes (very popular with American high schoolers; Your Definition.com; The Free Dictionary.com
Several of these sites are wikipedia mirrors - reference.com, U.S. Facts on File. The "World Encyclopedia" and the "Oxford University Press Encyclopedia" are the same site.  The American Heritage source listed is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia - of course a dictionary should list that meaning.  Note that the definition of "Republican Party" () includes Jefferson's party as one of its meanings.  The freedictionary.com and yourdictionary.com are also dictionaries - Dictionaries are completely inconclusive in terms of what the usage is, since they'll have usage at both terms.
So that means that we're left with britannica, encarta, the "world encyclopedia," social studies for kids, ohio history central online, and sparknotes.  john k 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, although some I described as "references," not encyclopedias. What do you think of how they handled the naming issue? Can you find an online encyclopedia or reference that calls it "Republican Party"? Griot 03:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki clearly advisdes that encyclopedias are tertiary sources and that good articles should be based on scholarly secondary sources. We can do better. By the way: OED gives "Republican party" as does  "Harvard Guide to American History" (1954)  and Sperber & Trittschuh, Am Political terms: An Historical Dictionary" (1962). That is the motre sophisticated and specialized the source, the more they use "Republican".  Rjensen 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying we should use online encyclopedias as sources. I'm saying we should use them as models for deciding how to present information here. Clearly, the majority of online encyclopedias use "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can be one model, but I don't see any reason to rely on them exclusively. And, as Rjensen notes, the more specialized the source, the more likely it is to use "Republican" rather than "Democratic-Republican." john k 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict with Rjensen) Well, there's PBS. The Oxford Dictionary of (British) National Biography (available only to subscribers), which has bios of early American figures as well, uses "Republican" in its biographies of Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. The American National Biography (also possibly subscriber only) uses "Republican" as its term for the party in its article on Jefferson. As someone noted before, the official US Senate list of Senators uses "R" to represent the Jeffersonian Republican Party. The Encyclopedia of World History refers to the party as the "Republican Party". Are any of these good enough? john k 04:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The PBS reference is a stretch. I'm going to discount it for the same reason I discount, for example, the [BBC history] -- it's not an encyclopedic reference with topics arranged in alphabetical order (the BBC entry I just cited explains the whole topic under "Democratic Party"!). The Columbia entry you cite is a valid example of an online encyclopedia filing the article under "Republican Party." Can you give me a URL of the Oxford bio online. You merely wikified it. Griot 04:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't give you a url, because it's only available to subscribers.  I get it through my school library. If you're associated with a university, you can probably access it, but you have to do it through your school, so no link I can give would be useful. john k 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Some standard reference sources online: 1) the US State department official history of the United States "the Republicans (also called Democratic-Republicans), led by Thomas Jefferson, were the first political parties in the Western world. "  2) the official history of the US Senate, online: " In later years the Republicans would come to be called "Democrats," but in the 1790s, that term carried a negative connotation associated with mob rule." Add the official state of North Carolina site at   The most popular website on biography is NNDB It calls Madison a Republican 
and Jefferson a Republican  as well as Gallatin  It calls no one a D-R....of course it's much newer than Ency Brit and Encarta (which is based on an old grocery-store encyclopedia called Funk and Wagnals) The commercial encyclopedias were written decades ago (EB article about 1986) and are updated by staff people who are not histoians. Wiki can do better. Rjensen 04:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please. "Updated by staff people who are not historians"? Good God, man. Who updates Wikipedia? Let's not kid ourselves here. How many "historians" at Wikipedia have has much training as the Funk and Wagnals staff? Also, the topic here is "How other online encyclopedias name this topic." Please stick to onine encyclopedias. Griot 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that wikipedia can base itself on the work of historians, rather than on the work of other encyclopedia-writers, not that wikipedia writers are ourselves historians.  We should base our work on the best authorities in the field, not people whose credentials are probably less impressive than some of us here. john k 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above, I have no quarrel with getting information and citing sources from anywhere. I am merely looking to online encyclopedias as models for presenting information in the Wikipedia, which is, after all, an online encyclopedia. For the purposes of this discussion, the question isn't how valuable online encyclopedias are as sources, but how other online encyclopedias can help guide us in the article naming question. Griot 05:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic is what Wiki should do. The Wiki rules warn against reliance on tertiary sources and we should follow that advice.  How EB works is they have a staff in Chicago and send out batches of articles for revision to freelancers, who get paid per word. The articles are not sent to scholars for review. At one time decades ago they started with famous scholars (who signed the article with their initials), and staff or freelance updates were signed X.  They have given that up.  The in-house staff deals not with facts but with style and format and schedules. (I used to work at the Newberry Library near the EB headquarters and watch the freelancers do their research there.) So can Wiki be much better than EB. yes indeed, and trying to dumb down to Readers Digest standards, as Griot suggests, is defeatism. Rjensen 06:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After all the times I copy edited you, cleaned up your messes, breathed meaning into your mush, this is the only thanks I get? A snide comment? Frankly, if most people's contributions around here rose to Reader's Digest levels, it would be a big improvement. Now where are the eight URLs you promised me -- the ones you've been refering to for eons. I promised you online encyclopedia URLs, and I delivered. It's your turn. Griot 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Republican banner" the authors allude to may refer to the ideals and principles of republicanism, not a political party. Is there any mention of the word "Republican Party" on the pages you cite? All the online dictionaries I found used the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griot, this is deeply unfair.  Use of "Republican" with a capital "R" means that some proper noun is being discussed.  The political ideals of republicanism should be referred to with a small "r".  Why is it so hard for you to accept that "Republican" is frequently used by historians and other sources as the adjective to describe Jefferson's political party?  This is obviously and uncontroversially true.  I pointed out several general histories of the US, reference works, and more specialized books on US history which use "Republican."  Republican is obviously in very common use.  That's not to say that some sources don't use "Democratic-Republican."  Obviously, that term is in use too.  But you seem to be committed to denying that "Republican" is ever used.  This is absurd and ridiculous - "Republican" is obviously used, apparently even by sources that list the party under "Democratic-Republican Party".  The only way you have to get out of this is this deeply dishonest business of trying to claim that any reference which doesn't clearly say "Republican Party" must be to "the ideals of republicanism."  That's bullshit, and it's not going to fly - a reference to "Republicans" (capitalized) in the context of Jefferson and Madison coming to power is obviously a reference to the party, and not to the ideals. Also, note the comment "Jefferson established...the rudiments of the first opposition party in American politics under the Republican banner."  That means to say, he established the rudiments of the first opposition party using the name Republican.  "under the banner" means "using the name," essentially.  The name Jefferson gave to his opposition party was "Republican."  That is what Britannica is saying.  They are not saying that Jefferson advocated republican ideals (although of course he did so).  That wouldn't be a banner.  Why must you continually spout completely specious arguments?  It's a waste of everybody's time. john k 18:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're just going to have to look at some textbooks. Please leave behind the "deeply dishonest" line. It's melodramatic. Rjensen has only come up with table of contents entries, which are always initial-capped. Therefore the "Republicans" he cites will always start with a capital R. It's necessary to look at some real books, a couple dozen maybe, to see how the terms are being used. I'm going to visit the library soon. Please be patient. Griot 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only times I have made the capitalization argument are with respect to usage in full sentences, not in chapter headings.  Beyond that, I'm sorry you find "deeply dishonest" to be melodramatic, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are not engaging in an honest debate here.  You are unwilling to accept any of the numerous examples we have given of use of "Republican" as valid, and are giving pretty consistently specious rationalizations for these rejections.  You are unwilling to acknowledge the indisputable fact that lots and lots of historians use "Republican" and not "Democratic-Republican" as their name for this party. Our arguments about which term to use should begin with this realization, but yet you keep on arguing and arguing against this basic fact, which means that we never get anywhere, and we can never move on to the next step which is "well, what do we do, then?"  When I do try to bring up the other question, you make bizarre and unsupportable objections, like your claim that we always have to refer to any subject of a wikipedia article by what their wikipedia article is titled.  Your arguments are consistently opportunistic - you grab on to any argument you can find to support your position.  You are highly careless about what sources you cite - you cited two wikipedia mirrors, three completely inconclusive dictionary references, and the same site twice in your attempt to demonstrate that all online references use "Democratic-Republican".  This makes any kind of reasonable debate nearly impossible, and, to be honest, I have a hard time believing that you are fully acting in good faith - given your tortuous interpretations of evidence that Rjensen and I have supplied, I really don't feel like I have any reason to trust, for example, that you would report textbooks that use "Republican" if you found them, and I'm not sure I feel like I have any particular reason to trust your characterizations of the textbooks you have cited. I've tried really hard to be intellectually honest here, and to admit when sources do use "Democratic-Republican", and, in fact, to admit that both terms are in use.  I feel like this is putting myself at a rhetorical disadvantage when you seem determined to twist and turn whatever evidence you find to suit your predetermined position. john k 20:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I told you already how much I value brevity. I'm not the only one. Griot 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so you have the right to ignore what I say because I'm not being brief?  F*** you.  (How's that for brevity?) john k 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ????? Griot 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the profanity, momentary onset of intense frustration.  I struck through it because I thought it might be viewed as an attempt to cover it up if I just removed it.  Feel free, anybody else, to delete the profanity, which was inappropriate.  That said, I still find Griot's behavior here intensely frustrating. john k 22:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted. Maybe all of us should take the day off. It would be good for us. Griot 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How other online encyclopedias name this topic

message: Griot was the one who suggested Wiki should be of Readers Digest quality. And yes, Griot is very good at copyediting--certainly better than me. 
It's dumbing down to rely on a general encyclopedia instead of the best scholarship. -- let's use the Pulitzer prize winners (Rakove, Ellis, Bailyn, Fischer, Morgan--he won the Pulitzer this month). 
::If you can find anywhere on this Talk page or another where I used the words "Reader's Digest" except to refute you, please point it out to me. You will look in vain. Thanks for the copy editing compliment. Griot 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in italics above. I remain unconvinced that "Republican Party" has now replaced "Democratic-Republican Party" as the preferred term for describing the political party that Jefferson started in 1792. We must be careful not to confuse "republicanism" with "Republican Party." I believe many of the references you cite above are to the political philosophy, not the political party. Anyhow, I'm intrigued by this question, and I'm going to take a couple hours this week to visit a library actually look into some history books to see how the term is being used (as if I don't already have a million things to do). I'll report here when my little fact-finding junket is over. Griot 15:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NONE of these 9 college and 1 middle school textbooks ever use "Democratic-Republican party" Not one. zero. the term is near defunct (actually I did find one and only one current textbook that uses that term; it's by Jacqueline Jones and I listed it somewhere above.) 
Re: "Unto a Good Land"--the website is not much help but I purchased a paper copy of the book. It uses "Republican party".
Is it a serious danger that someone reading through the article will get confused between Madison in 1800, McKinley in 1900 and McCain in 2000. No, I think not. Rjensen 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this is an instance where we can't rely on the Internet. You claim that "not one" of the nine textbooks uses the term "Democratic-Republican Party," yet you don't have any of these textbooks in hand, so how do you know? The fact is, you can't know unless you have the textbooks in hand. You claim that the term is "defunct," yet I have provided the names of four textbooks that I own, all publichsed in the last eight years, in which the term "Democratic-Republican Party" is used (The American Pageant (Houghton Mifflin, 2002), America: Pathways to the Present (Prentice-Hall, 2002), The American Journey (McGraw-Hill, 1998), Creating America: A History of the United States (McDougal Littell, 2000). Honestly, Rjensen, why do you make these bold claims when they are so hard to verify? It looks like a trip to the library is in order to see what the books are actually saying. Griot 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to say that, since we haven't looked at the textbooks, we don't know if they ever use the term Democratic-Republican Party.  But it's fair to say that the term doesn't appear in the table of contents of any of those books.  Does the term appear in the table of contents of your books, Griot?  If it does not, that would be fair evidence that the books might use the term even if it doesn't show up in the TOC. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10  textbooks --all recently updated 

message: I'm going to say straight out that all this wrangling over sources is probably not going to convince anyone.  I think that "Republican" is probably now used by a majority. A lot of old sources, and a few newer ones, use "Democratic-Republican."  The question then becomes, "in such a situation, what should wikipedia do?"
I'm going to put the article name to one side for now, and address the question of what name we should primarily use in the text.  I think it's fairly clear that we should use "Republican".  Firstly, this was the name which was the most commonly used at the time.  Secondly, this is the name which is used by the majority of historians.  Thirdly, in certain contexts, especially that of the break-up of the Republican Party (because the faction that would become the Democratic Party actually did call itself the Democratic-Republicans), "Democratic-Republican" is a lot more confusing than "Republican," which really isn't confusing at all, as our Canadian contributor demonstrated.  Fourthly, there is absolutely no rule which says that we must call something by the name we use in the article title about that thing.  That's completely ridiculous, and I defy Griot to come up with any wikipedia policy anywhere that supports such a claim. As we all admit, both names (Democratic-Republican and Republican) are used by historians as names for the party.  Some historians, like Harry Watson, use the names indiscriminately, alternating between them as the mood strikes them.  Even if we decide that "Democratic-Republican" is a better name for the article because of disambiguation issues, that does not mean that "Democratic-Republican" is the better term to use in the text.  
In terms of the article name, I genuinely don't feel as strongly - I might even say I don't feel strongly at all.  The only reason I proposed a name change at all is Griot's insistence that the name of the article must match the name we use in text, which, as I say, I strongly disagree with.  I don't especially like "Democratic-Republican Party (United States)" as a name, but I'm not sure what good alternatives there are.  The obvious Republican Party (United States) is taken.  We could move to Jeffersonian Republican Party.  Or to Republican Party (Jeffersonian) or to Republican Party (1792-1824).  None of these would be terrible - I'd suggest that none would be any worse than the current title.  But none is terribly ideal.  So I'm open to suggestions here.  I'd be happy to just leave the article where it is if we can come to a consensus that "Republican Party" is the preferred term to use in article text, and that "Democratic-Republican" is just a necessary evil of an article title for disambiguation purposes. john k 15:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of what term we should primarily use in the text is a moot point. The term used primarily in the text should be the same as the term used in title of the article. For example, an article about Mark Twain mentions that he was born Samuel Clemmons, but then refers to him has Twain throughout. Switching back and forth between terms, or using "Clemmons," would be confusing to readers. Staying with one decided-upon term is a convention of all scholarship dating to Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th Century. Let's not turn back the clock, eh? Griot 16:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to move to the next step... 

message: Does anyone know what these footnotes are supposed to be pointing to?
*Cunningham 1957 (p 167)
*Tinkcom (p 271)
*Tinkcom (p 271-72)
We should use the  syntax for footnotes.  --JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the referred to text that got lost (see next session). Harvard citation method is better because it does not leave orphans like this. Rjensen 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: While we have been debating terminology, somehow large sections of the article got misplaced and I just now restored them.  The party was one of the first mass parties in the world and it invented many new techniques, especially in how to win an election, and use of newspapers. That is an important development in political history (in American and world perspective) so it needs coverage. No it is not in any way POV. The Federalists were slow in adopting these methods and that (days David Hackett Fischer) was a fatal mistake for the Federalists. Rjensen 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  organizational history 

message: Grand National Party mentions that the GNP used to be known as the "Democratic Republican Party" as its inception as well. I don't know whether this is sufficiently notable, however, to include a disambiguation link here. I'll leave it up to you guys. Deco 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other parties of same name 

message: The following is stated in the article:
"That caucus was not used after 1816, and the party as a national institution ceased to exist. James Monroe ran under the party's banner in 1820 (without a caucus), and in 1824 there was no party nominee."
I hope that everyone will agree that these sentences should be re-worded slightly. 
The national Caucus assembled in the U.S. Capitol Building on 4/5/1820. Forty members of Congress attended. In the days preceding the Caucus, members of Congress from NC and NY decided to boycott the Caucus because they felt it was organized to embarrass VP Tompkins. Only two Virginians attended. Richard M. Johnson presented a resolution stating that no nominations were necessary, as the incumbents were expected to run again. The motion carried, and James Monroe and Daniel Tompkins became the candidates. Ohio Elects the President p. 16. 
The Caucus last assembled in the U.S. House chamber on 2/14/1824. Sixty-eight members of Congress attended, the bulk coming from four states (NY, VA, NC, and GA). Ten states were entirely unrepresented, and five states had only one representative. This last Caucus nominated William H. Crawford for President by a vote of 64 to 4 scattering and Albert Gallatin for VP by a vote of 57 to eight scattering. Ohio Elects the President p. 17. 
In the presidential election of 1824 in North Carolina, two slates of presidential electors were offered: one called the People's Ticket which was unofficially pledged to Andrew Jackson, and the Caucus Ticket which was officially pledged to William H. Crawford. The People's Ticket was originally pledged to John C. Calhoun (mentioned in many newspapers; only clipping I copied was from the Raleigh Register of 1/15/1824). When Calhoun switched to the VP race, the People's Ticket became unofficially the Jackson ticket. The Raleigh Register endorsed the Caucus Ticket and ran the ballot every week in its columns. I copied the ballot printed on 9/10/1824, which was substantially the same which ran for many weeks. It begins with these words: "National Nomination. At a meeting of the Democratic Members of Congress, held in the Chamber of the House of Repressentatives, [2/14] 1824, of which Benjamin Ruggles of Ohio, was Chairman, and Ela Collins of New-York, Secretary..." that Crawford and Gallatin were nominated. 
These are just a few bits of information that the Caucus continued to be held after 1816. I don't think that this is a controverial matter, and I hope that people will feel in agreement that some modification of the text is warranted. Chronicler3 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that caucus system has collapsed when only a minority attends. (It is binding on everyone who attends, hence the no-shows.) Crawford tried to revive it but only 4 states showed up and 10 boycotted--that's no longer the caucus of all or even most party members. Rjensen 03:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Caucuses of the party of this name 

message: I did a study of 25 American history books to determine which term historians favor for Jefferson's party, "Democratic-Republican Party" or "Republican Party." Only one book (Salliant's Black Puritan, Black Republican) uses the term "Repubican Party"; one other (Laudau's Friendly Foes) uses the term "Jeffersonian Republican Party." All others use the term "Democratic-Republican Party." 
Here are the results of my study. I think we need to take into consideration which term professional historians use for this party. My study clearly shows that the vast majority of historians use the term "Democratic-Republican Party":
# Brinkley A et al, The Reader's Companion to the American Presidency (Houghton-Mifflin, 2000). Quote: "At its outset this highly unusual race involved five major candidates, all of whom were at least nominally identified with the Democratic-Republican party ..." Index: "Democratic-Republicans" 18 entries; "Republican Party": none. Result: "Democratic-Replublican" by 18 to 1.
# Casstevens S H, The Civil War and Yadtkin County, South Carolina  (McFarland, 1997). Quote: "The Democrats had their roots in the old Democratic-Republican Party, whose power base came from the small farmers, traders, artisans, as well as plantation..." Index: No entires. Result: "Democratic-Republican Party" by 1 to 0.
# Cornelison, P et al,  The Great American History Fact Finder (Houghton Mifflin, 2004). Democratic-Replublican Party had one entry. No index. This is a reference book. "Democratic-Republican Party by 1 to 0.
# Doak, R S, Profiles of the Presidents: Martin Van Buren (Compass Point Books, 2003). "In 1801, when he was just nineteen years old, Van Buren joined the Democratic-Republican Party." Index: Democratic-Republican Party 3 entries; "Republican Party" 0. Results: Democratic-Replublican Party by 3 to 0.
# Editors, The Political Reference Almanac 1999-2000 (Keynote Publishing, 2000). Entry for Democratic-Replublican Party; none for Republican Party. No index in this reference book. Results: Democratic-Replublican Party 1, Republican Party 0.
# Fortier, J C ed., ’’ After the Vote: A Guide to the Electoral College’’ (, 2004). Quote: "The congressional caucus of the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Vice President." Index: none. Results: Democratic-Replublican Party  by 1-0.
# Gillespie M K, Free Labor, Unfree World: White Artisans in Slaveholding Georgia, 1789-1860 (Univ. of Georgia Press, 2004). Quote: "American artisans believed that republican thought, which would become the basis for the Democratic-Republican Party at the national level..." Index: Democratic-Republican Party: 9 entries; Republican party none. Results: Democratic-Replublican Party by 9-0.
# Guelzco, A C, Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President (Eerdmans Publishing, 2002). "The stampede reached Clay himself in 1824, when the Tennessee legislature bypassed the customary Democratic-Republican Party caucus and nominated, not Clay..." Index: no entries. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# Hirsch E D et al, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Houghton Mifflin, 2002). "A political party that arose in the 1825 from a split in the Democratic-Republican Party..." Index entries: none. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# ybel, A R, Made by USA: The International System (Palgrave - St. Martin's, 2001). "The second party, the Democratic Party, was the offspring of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party." Index: No entries.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# Jacoby S, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (Metropolitan Books, 2004). Quote: "Washington was of course the head of the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson became the leader of the Democratic Republican Party..." Index: Democratic-Republican Party: 3 entries; none other.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 3-0.
# Korzi, M J, Seat of Popular Leadership: The Presidency, Political Parties, and Democratic Leadership (Univ. of Massachussets Press, 2004). Quote: "Monroe, however, declined to name anyone, and the ensuing scramble for nomination had dire effects on the Democratic-Republican Party..." Index: Democratic-Publican Party, 9 entries; none other.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 9-0.
# Landau, E, Friendly Foes: A Look at Political Parties (Lerner Publications, 2004). "It became known as the Democratic-Republican Party." Index: Democratic-Republican Party, 16. No mention of Jeffersonian Republicans.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 16-0.
# Lipset S M, The First New Nation (Transaction Publishers, 2003). "...the crystallization of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican party." Index: no entires. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# Newman, S, Parades and the Politics of the Street (Univ. of Pennsyvlania Press, 1997). "For while the rural South provided the nascent Democratic Republican party with its most important power base, relatively few French Revolutionary festivals..." Index: 15 entries; none for Republican Party. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 15-0.
# Paulson A, Realignment and Party Revival: Understanding American Electoral Politics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century (Praeger, 2003). "The Federalists had died out, and the Democratic-Republican Party under Monroe provided an umbrella that covered John Quincy Adams and the New Englanders..." Index: no entries. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# Payan G, The Federalists and Anti-Federalists: How and Why Political Parties Were Formed in Young America (Rosen Publishing, 2004). "The Democratic-Republican Party won every election from 1800 to 1824." Index: Democratic-Republican Party, 3 entries, no other. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 3-0.
# Purcell S J, Sealed With Blood: War, Sacrifice, and Memory in Revolutionary America (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2003). "While Mercy Otis Warren's 1804 history of the Revolution clearly betrayed her allegiance to the Democratic-Republican party, she sought to record the war as..." Index: Democratic-Republican Party 10+entries; none other.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 10+-0.
# Richarson, D G, Third-Party Politics from the Nation's Founding to the Rise of the Greenback-Labor Party (iUniverse, 2000). "Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party, a states' rights party adhering to a policy of strict construction and committed to the doctrine of a..." Index: "Democratic-Repubicans": 9 entries; no other reference. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 9-0.
# Salliant J, Black Puritan, Black Republican: The Life and Thought of Lemuel Haynes (Oxford University Press, 2003). "Jefferson and James Madison were foremost among his foes in the Democratic-Republican Party, while George Washington and John Adams symbolized sagacious ..." Index: Democratic-Republican Party: no entries; Repubican Party: 3 entries. Results: Republican Party by 3-0.
# Schantz, H L ed., American Presidential Elections (State Univ of New York, 1999). "The Democratic-Republican party, or the Jeffersonian Democrats, were the most successful party in presidential elections, winning seven consecutive..." Index: "Democratic-Repubican Party (Jeffersonian Democrats)", numerous entries. Results: Moot.
# Sidlow, E et al, America at Odds (Thomas Higher Education, 2005). "James Madison worked to extend tine influence of tine Democratic Republican Party..." Index: Democratic-Republicans (Jeffersonian Republicans): 3 entries. Refers to "Democratic-Republicans" in the text. Results: Mixed.
# Tichenor, D J, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002). "These restrictive measures only strengthened ties between enfranchised immigrants and the Democratic-Republican party, as foreign-born voters..." Index: Democratic-Republican Party: 2 entries; none for others. Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 2-0.
# Walter, R, Dictionary of Politics and Legal Terms (Brunswick Publishing, 1992). "One of the two major political parties in the US, tracing its origin to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson, which for the first time openly..." No index. This is a reference book.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
# Wishart, D J, Encyclopedia of the Great Plains (Univ. of Nebraska Press). "The Democratic Party is usually deemed to have been formed by supporters of Andrew Jackson who split away from the vanishing Democratic-Republican Party..." Index entries: none.Results: Democratic-Republican Party by 1-0.
::Poor job that does NOT support argument about historians.  How many of the books deal with the Early National period? only 3: (Gillespie, Lipset, Purcell) And then the dates are wrong: Lipset for example was reprinted in 2003 but originally published in 1963. Several titles are children's books 
& not by scholars (Doak, Landau, Payan); others deal with late 19th or even 20th century. Others are not by historians at all (Fortier, Walter) Suggest instead look at the books written and reviewed by scholars of the 1790-1839 period--this was done above, see "Journal of the Early Republic". Rjensen 04:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show a little respect why don't you? I took the time to look into all these books -- you simply dismiss them with the briefest, cursory comments, claiming that some are children's authors and others aren't written by historians. You haven't looked at these books. Your Google searches and quick, unsubstantiated conclusions are preferable to my hours of investigation? I remind you: These are published books that have passed editorial boards and been reviewed by scholars. These books were published in the past ten years and reflect a century of editorial thought on this matter. It is plain to me that "Democratic-Republican" is the preferred term. You don't like the message, so you discount the messenger. Please bring some honesty and integrity to the table next time. Griot 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Four of these books may qualify as evidence. The rest are evidence that Griot cannot tell the difference between a scholarly study and a children's book for 3rd graders. We have already examined the scholarly literature and the textbooks -- heavily against D-R terminology. Rjensen 05:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just know examined the literature and textbooks. Please try to look at this subject with an open mind. Griot 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This largely establishes usage by polemicists, not historians; William J. Bennett's qualifications are not as a historian of the Republic. This partisan usage should not cloud the question. Septentrionalis 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for looking into this and taking the time to review usage in books. When I used the term "professional historian," I meant people who use terms with consideration. I sometimes work as a text book editor. Every publisher I have ever worked for provides editors with a style sheet of naming conventions. The half-dozen books I edited that had to do with early American history had "Democratic-Republican Party" on the style sheet. For guidance in this article, perhaps we should take a cue from other encyclopedias and online enyclopedias. Remember that Wikipedia is for the general reader, not the historian concerned with a particular time period in American history. Rather than rely on what people at the time called the party, we should consider the readership. Encylopedia and general-history publishers used the term "Democratic-Republican" because the usage of "Republican" might confuse general readers by making them think that Jefferson's party was the current Republican Party. Griot 15:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 95% of the people who are concernbed about this party in 2006 are students and teachers. Only 15% of the textbooks use D-R so we are really confusing them I fear. Rjensen 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You, my friend, are fond of making grand pronouncements. How do you know that 95 percent of people concerned with this subject are students and teachers, or that only 15 percent of textbooks use "Democratic-Republican"? Wiki is an available-to-all online encyclopedia. It's safe to say that the majority of people who use it are general readers. A PhD candidate or serious historian would be foolish to rely on Wikipedia. The articles are not peer-reviewed. I agree with JW1805 (below). When you say "Republican Party" to just about any American, he or she immediately thinks of the modern-day Republican Party. Using DP prevents confusion. Griot 17:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I entirely disagree. The correct historic name is "Democratic Republican" because the party itself accepted that name in 1798 period. They also referenced themselves as 'Republicans' earlier and later. The "National Republican Party" of John Q. Adams and the "Democratic Party" of Andrew Jackson finally broke the unity of the Democratic Republican Party.  Originally the name was used by the Federalist Party as a pejorative later to be accepted.  Further to claim that this party was purely Jeffersonian is a misnomer as they embraced policies similar to the Federalist's on banking, tariffs, etc. after the War of 1812 - with men such as Clay and Calhoun sharing opinion then. Only with the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 did this coalition begin to fracture into the Jacksonian Democrats and Adams/Clay National Republicans-Whigs advocating different concepts of democracy and republicanism. The Jacksonians were more Jeffersonian advocating limited government, revenue tariffs only, etc. Whereas the National Republicans and Whigs advocated more active government in the form of expenditure on public common school education, internal improvements to infrastructure (including the national road or Cumberland road project and Erie Canal project in New York), tariffs high enough to protect infant industry but low enough to raise revenue etc.  These folks in the National Republican-Whig Party would eventually find themselves mostly leading the new Republican Party form in the 1850's - and one of them a "Henry Clay tariff Whig" by his own definition - Honest Abe Lincoln would win the nomination and the Presidency in 1860 to enact the economic and social program of the National Republican and Whigs during the Civil War.  Hence we have in AMERICAN HISTORY: The Federalist Party of Hamilton and Adams vs. The Democratic Republican Party of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe - The National Republican Party of J.Q. Adams and Clay vs. The Democratic Party of Jackson and Calhoun - The Whig Party of Clay and Webster vs. The Democratic Party of Van Buren and Polk - The Republican Party of Lincoln and McKinley vs. The Democratic Party of Cleveland and Wilson - MODERN TIMES: The Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt (inherited the Adams-Clay-Lincoln-T. Roosevelt tradition) and John F. Kennedy vs. The Republican Party of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush (inherited the Jefferson-Jackson-Cleveland brand of the old Democratic Party).  In other words the Democratic Party of today is the party of "Lincoln" whereas the Republican Party is the party of "Jefferson" at their cores - the roles have switched but the two party makeup remains the same. That's history folks and that's reality. I see a debate on semantics of what the party ought to be called - it ought to be called as it was called by THAT PARTY itself in 1798. By, the way, I provide links with every point I made above which was contested as if no links were provided for perusal.  I supported also using the terms Democratic Republican and Republican or Jeffersonian Republican in proper context as the examples I gave above which are excellent examples of how history has recorded the use of the terms. --Northmeister 00:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The party itself did not take the name "Democratic-Republican" in 1798, as I note above.  The Democratic Party says this, and Britannica (for some reason) says this, but it's not true.  Find an actual source by a historian of the period that says this and I'll take it under advisement.  Until then, I'm going to say this is simply a false claim. Jefferson didn't say "We are all Federalists now, we are all Democratic-Republicans." john k 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia naming policies do not tell us to use the name which is most historically accurate (which, as I understand it, is Republican, although in the later years Democratic-Republican started to be used).  It is, as I understand it, to use the name most used in the literature written about the subject.  Beyond this, many of the supposed "dusty academics" that have been cited were in fact writing popular histories for a wide audience. john k 10:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Party's name as it is used in American history books

message: What a great debate about what name to call the Rose.  May I ask a different question: what about adding a section to this article on the names used by this particular party for itself over the years?  It's actually rather fascinating as a topic, and there are periods when certain groups within the Party would try to make off with the name Republican previously applied to the broader group.  Whatever we call the article, I think the discussion is worthy of being in there. Sam 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It smells sweet just the same. 

message: The transition in this article from the Republican Party of Jefferson to the Democratic Party of Jackson doesn't seem to be well dealt with and is very inconsistent.  Jackson gets listed as a candidate of the party in one section, but not as a president elected by the party in another.  I'm not sure I buy the discussion that says the party "split" and "dissolved" prior to the 1928 campaign.  Part of the problem is the reification of the party as an entity; my understanding is that all of the candidates in 1928 still viewed themselves as Republicans, and this may be the period of the party's greatest dominance, since no one was running against them.  At that stage in time the apparti of party governance were not as well developed as today - we have to wait for Van Buren and Lincoln for that.  
So I'd propose moving away from dissolution language and describing in more words what happened, which was a struggle over the heart and soul of the party in which Jackson emerged supreme and took over and reformed the party while others split.Sam 19:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to flesh out the later years of the party in particular; please take a look and see what you think.  Sam 22:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Republicans to Democrats 

message: GRIOT uses a very old encyclopedia instead of solid scholarship. He likes to blank information -- that's pretty naughty behavior. As for name of party, let's use solid sources like Gammon's scholarly monograph--quoted at length on this page above. The 1832 proceedings of the 1st Dem national convention called themselves "Republicans", as Gammon says and as the New York Public Library listing of the convention proceesings proves. Take a look at  for solid proof. Rjensen 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you like to use very old (1922) material as well. The age isn't important, the facts are. You just reverted sourced material, stop this POVing material because YOU think something should be changed in American history - The above source is as legitimate as any you have provided if not more so. --Northmeister 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jensen has no objection to nineteenth-century sources here. The misdescription of Tuckerman (it's a list of societies; not a list of men - which is the point at controversy) makes this deplorable. Septentrionalis 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  solid scholarly proof vs blind blanking  

message: Richard Hildreth was the first major historian of American political parties, writing a multivolume history in 1840s. He uses both "Republican" and "Democratic" to describe Jefferson's party in 1796-1804 era, preferring "Republican by anout 2-1. But he does not use the term "Democratic-Republican." You can read his entire text--and do word searches, at Google Books: .
::THE PARTY DID! Get it through your head, sir. These semantics games are time-consuming over nothing.  The name "Republican" and "Democratic" were used both by this party and by its members with "Republican" preferred as you say when referring to members and the party in general, but the official title was Democratic-Republican Party and that was used throughout American History and in most textbooks as a reference for this party especially to not confuse others as to the Republican Party of Fremont and Lincoln that later emerged.  The WHOLE POINT, is that the party WAS called as LATE AS Van Buren's election (see poster) the Democratic Republican Party, even if the name "Democrat" or "Democratic" was beginning to then be used to describe the party that is today in name anyway the descendent of that party.  --Northmeister 05:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering my own question - OK, I got curious, since everyone's so invested in this, and looked around for a couple good sources, and decided Jefferson's personal papers were probably as good as it gets, right?  They're mostly on-line at the Libary of Congress,click here, so I did three searches, one on Republican, one on Democratic Republican and one on Democrat Republican(and these searches are searches through an index, so it's not going to be through and catch all documents using the words). I encourage all of you to do these searches.  For Republican by itself, I got 307 documents (which are going to include those with Democratic Republican, so subtract out the next number). They include certifying people to be "genuine Republicans", lists comparing "Federalist" and "Republican" officeholders, letters from varying groups of republican citizens,, letters to Madison on party affairs ("I have a letter.... which supposes the republican vote of N. Carolina will be but a bare majority."),, and a few letters classed as "Republican" related but not using the term. For "Democrat Republican" I got 8, and for Democratic Republican, I got 15, with some overlap.  Among the "Democrat Republican" bunch, I found no use of the words together as a party name.  In the results of the "Democratic Republican" search, I found mostly correspondence with local "Democratic Republican" groups, mostly in Pennsylvania but with strays in Delaware and Maryland, as well as some items classified as Democratic Republican not using the words within them.  My conclusion: Jefferson's usage was mostly "Republican" but there were at least a few local parties who called themselves "Democratic Republicans", and the latter name at least existed in parlance.  The more "official" documents I found, none of which I'd classify as fully official, support "Republican".  Indeed, most of two dozen documents I reviewed (and from a review of the index, most of the roughly 300 documents coming up under the Republican search) use the name Republican in the context of a political party.  Sam 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Jefferson papers at the University of Virginia are probably better to link to; I believe they give permanent links. I observe that Jefferson also refers to "democratic societies" (to Monroe, May 26, 1795). Septentrionalis 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When did the party officially name itself D-R -- what year, what month? GRIOT for weeks has been saying sometime in 1798. Now Northmeister says it was much earlier. When please? Citation please? FALSE STATEMENT: "the official title was Democratic-Republican Party"  At the first national convention (1832)( the called themselves Republicans--why would they do that???? Rjensen 06:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the Jacksonian Democratic Party was generally much more likely to refer to itself as the "Democratic-Republican" party than the Jeffersonian Republican party was.  And this 1798 business has got to stop. john k 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Hildreth as first historian 

message: This is a fairly large contribution to the tracking the use of the name "Democratic" in describing Jefferson's party to the present era, using mostly primary sources.  I hope all (or at least some) find it helpful (scroll down to the Quotes & Resources section):
Link Settler 09:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Research on tracking party names

message: How many historians are liberal/conservative? The best evidence comes from the Murray-Blessing 1982 survey that asked a cross section of professors of American political history whether they were liberal or conservative on domestic social and economic issues. The liberals outnumbered conservatives 190:50 or 80%-20%  The two groups had only small differences in ranking the best and worst presidents. 
Rankings by Liberals and Conservatives 
<TABLE BORDER>
<TR> <TD>
      rank</TD><TD>
      Liberals (n=190)</TD><TD>
      Conservatives (N=50)</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      1</TD><TD>
      Lincoln</TD><TD>
      Lincoln</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      2</TD><TD>
      FD Roosevelt</TD><TD>
      Washington</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      3</TD><TD>
      Washington</TD><TD>
      FD Roosevelt</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      4</TD><TD>
      Jefferson</TD><TD>
      Jefferson</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      5</TD><TD>
      T Roosevelt</TD><TD>
      T Roosevelt</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      6</TD><TD>
      Wilson</TD><TD>
      Jackson</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      7</TD><TD>
      Jackson</TD><TD>
      Truman</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      8</TD><TD>
      Truman</TD><TD>
      Wilson</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      9</TD><TD>
      LB Johnson</TD><TD>
      Eisenhower</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      10</TD><TD>
      John Adams</TD><TD>
      John Adams</TD> </TR>
<TR>  </TR>
<TR> <TD>
      30</TD><TD>
      Coolidge</TD><TD>
      Carter</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A14+1~13,0,0">
      31</TD><TD>
      Pierce</TD><TD>
      Nixon</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A15+1~14,0,0">
      32</TD><TD>
      Buchanan</TD><TD>
      Pierce</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A16+1~15,0,0">
      33</TD><TD>
      An. Johnson</TD><TD>
      An. Johnson</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A17+1~16,0,0">
      34</TD><TD>
      Grant</TD><TD>
      Buchanan</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A18+1~17,0,0">
      35</TD><TD>
      Nixon</TD><TD>
      Grant</TD> </TR>
<TR> <TD QP::FORMULA:="+A19+1~18,0,0">
      36</TD><TD>
      Harding</TD><TD>
      Harding</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>
Source: Murray, Robert K. and Tim H. Blessing. Greatness in the White House: Rating the Presidents, from Washington Through Ronald Reagan (1994)  p 135 Rjensen 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting information. I see the top five are agreed upon other than the Washington/FDR swap but both are in the top five.  Lincoln-Washington-FDR-Theodore Roosevelt-Jefferson...I would concur with that analysis - even Jefferson (who had more force for his thoughts on liberty and democracy than on governance). --Northmeister 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal and conservative historians 

message: Guess what? The party used both names.  A large majority of people in the united states today know the name of this party as the name it is right now: Democratic-Republican, and that it is in todays form the democratic party.  Though I doubt the ideals back then are anything like today's crazy politics.  I'm weighing in on this because I'd be stupified if this article changed its name.  The name 'republican' can certainly be used within the article, because several members of it back in the day did apparently call it as such, while others called it different.  And for years and years it was in textbooks as democratic-republican.  Anything else is confusing to most people who would look for this.  Kevin_b_er 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For goodness sakes 

message: I'm curious as to when and why the hyphenation was introduced into the name.  I'm at a loss to find early sources from the Library of Congress that hypenated the name--its appellation was "Democratic Republican" from at least the turn of the 19th century through the 1830s of the pro-Jackson/Van Buren faction.  It is also true that it went by the appellation Republican (sans Democratic), before anyone points that out.  I'm just interested in how the hyphenation came about. Settler 04:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hyphenated because "Democratic-Republican" in this instance is an adjective that modifies the noun "Party." The party officially became the Democratic-Republican Party in 1798. Griot 05:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All early sources that I have found in the online Library of Congress (More) do not have hyphenation.  I would like to see evidence to the contrary.  Have you read my sources listed in (HTML / PDF) resource section on the naming or have searched for the term "Democratic Republican" in the online edition of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison Papers?Settler 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My general understanding is as follows-- The party name was fairly universally Republican from 1792 onward to about the turn of the century, when some, but not all or even most, local Republican groups called themselves "Democratic Republicans" or in some rarer instances "Democratic" ll a b c d e f g  h i j  k l m o p q Jefferson (and later Madison zz (1834)) addresses them in their letters to some of those groups specifically as "Democratic Republicans" r s According to Martin Van Buren t u, Federalists began calling themselves "Federal Republicans," at least in some instances that I could find v w x, sparking the increasing adoption by Republicans of "Democratic" in order to contrast the parties.  Jefferson noted in his later letters leading up until his death that after the conclusion of the War of 1812 in 1814-1815 that many Federalists had dumped their old party name and had taken on the Republican one, but not the party's principles.  I imagine this idea was the same when the "National Republican" name came into use and the "Democratic Republican" name was used by some of those adhering to Jackson y z aa bb cc dd ee ff gg or those resisting local party amalgamation hh.  Settler 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A slight tweak:  Both Democratic and Republican seem to have been used for the political clubs that fought the election of 1792; whether they were a party is another question. "Democratic" went out of favor after it was associated with the Jacobins; and from that point, I agree with Settler. Septentrionalis 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic-Republican and hyphenation 

message: There seems to be some code attached to the article (edit: look at notes section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.131.134 (talk • contribs) .
:See Wikipedia:Footnotes.  blameless 17:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird code 

message: As we have seen the term "Democratic-Republican Party" is highly confusing because it was not used at the time, and is not now used in 90% of textbooks, and can only confuse people who think it is some sort of coalition. The "Jeffersonian Republican Party" solves all the problems--it was used at the time, it is used in textbooks, it leads to no confusion with the GOP. (The term "Early Republican Party" was never used by anybody--the one book with that in the title deals with 1850s.) Rjensen 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen has a habit of claiming historians' consensus for his personal opinion; but he's more  accurate this time than usual. Some respected historians do use the term. This title, however, is undesirable and misleading. Septentrionalis 21:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what basis is it "undesirable and misleading"? Skyemoor 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How do we know about textbook? Anyone can look at the web pages: Above on the talk page is a listing of all the major college textbooks that I found that have web pages. Only one uses the D-R terminology. High school textbooks have web pages but they are password protected. The only open one uses "Republican".  Rjensen 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good compromise: call it Jeffersonian Republican Party 

message: Talk:Early Republican Party (United States) → Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States) – I erred when trying to sync the talk pages with what I thought had been a move of the article originally at Democratic-Republican Party (United States) to Early Republican Party (United States). … Please share your opinion at Talk:Early Republican Party (United States). DLJessup (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
On the substantive issue, early Republican Party is a bad choice, simply because WP's software will make it appear the non-existent Early Republican Party. This is aside from all issues on what the article should be called, on which my position has not changed. Septentrionalis 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested talk page move

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support Talk page should be with article, at original location, until there is consensus to move it, and WP:RM should be informed of any proposals to move it. Septentrionalis 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
On the substantive issue, early Republican Party is a bad choice, simply because WP's software will make it appear the non-existent Early Republican Party. This is aside from all issues on what the article should be called, on which my position has not changed. Septentrionalis 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: No one ever uses the term "Early Republican Party" so it has no place in an Encyclopedia. Much better is "Jeffersonian Republican party" which is in widespread use among scholars and textbooks, and creates no confusion with the GOP. (There is one book on the Early Republican Party by Crandall and it deals with the GOP in the 1850s, exactly the confusion we want to avoid. Rjensen 00:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rv the redirect from the jeffersonian republican party as there are afd and redirects combined. The articles need better organization with the afd, mergers, and redirects.--I already forgot 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; we need to get rid of the forks; then we can discuss where this article ought to be. Septentrionalis 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely with prior comment - get rid of forks first, then discuss proper name.  My preference for name would be, in order, (1) Republican Party (Jeffersonian); (2) Jeffersonian Republican Party; (3) Democratic-Republican Party (but, using Republican Party freely in the text).  I would be happy with any other identifier other than Jeffersonian in parens in (1), as well, such as (Early), (First) or (Democratic-Republican). Sam 15:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffersonian Republican Party is better name 

message: At least in the case of the Progressive Parties it's handled in this manner:
Progressive Party (United States, 1912)
Progressive Party (United States, 1924)
Progressive Party (United States, 1948)
Perhaps Republican Party (United States, 1792) is a possible alternative?  Still, using the Republican appellation introduces problems in thousands of other Wikipedia articles that still use the Democratic-Republican terminology and may introduce some confusion to readers upon supplantation, as well as in regards to the Republican Party of the 1850s that still bares the name.
Anyway, and either way, at some point in the future I'll get around to adding a paragraph on the usage of "Democratic Republican" and "Democratic" by the party into this article. Settler 09:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unacceptable; unnecessary confusion and assistance to POV-mongers. There is no reason to give this article the name of any modern party.  Septentrionalis 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to give the party a name it didn't originally have. That's revisionism. Skyemoor 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support this, and it has the beauty of consistency.  I don't know why we should avoid the name of a modern political party, where it was the name of the party.  History is full of recycled names and concepts, and it strikes me as more a matter of interest to pursue than a matter to avoid.  Sam 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Settler, do you still support your suggestion of a name such as Republican Party (United States, 1792)?  Skyemoor 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't stand in the way of it being renamed Republican Party (United States, 1792).  It will just have to pass muster with some other people higher on the food chain so that it doesn't get redirected again and locked like some of the IMO not-so-great attempts like early Republican Party or Jeffersonian Republicans or whatever else.  Then there's the headache of further loss of consistency in other articles that refer back to this one.  On the list of concerns I have with this existing article, the naming issue isn't at the top of the list; rather I would want to see more focus on the party in the various States of the Union (currently relegated to the First Party System) and primary source materials from that era or the writings of people that lived through that era.  At various points in the past couple of months I've incorporated some of the latter.  Settler 15:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a more accurate account that is in First Party System: The Federalists may have ceased acting as a national party by 1820; but they existed outside Delaware. Septentrionalis 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How Other Wikipedia Articles Handle the Name problem?

message: Was employed after 1800, if not earlier.  All attempts to expunge this from the historical record and article will be met with correction by me. Settler 20:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now read the references you've supplied and found references as early as 1803, so that is the timeframe I've adjusted. Skyemoor 23:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the D-R term existed but was very rare before 1810s. Out of hundreds of local Republican organizations before 1804, fewer than 10 have been found that used the term. Rjensen 06:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Democratic Republican"

message: Is the following a confusion, or is it deliberate?
:From its inception in 1792, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison chose the name Republican Party for the group.
This is unsourced. More seriously, it is obviously false. In 1792, Jefferson and Madison were still contending that of course they didn't belong to a party; Hamilton might. The quotations above show Jefferson did not use "republican party" until 1802, and even then he didn't use it as a proper noun, with capitalization, but as a generic term.Septentrionalis 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: The Niles Register is a wonderful source, but it was not partisan. The ANB says, " So determined was he to be objective and thorough in his task that he scorned influence from politicians, endorsed no individual political candidates, rejected all advertisements, and refused all anonymous materials. " Stephen M. Zeigler. "Niles, Hezekiah"; http://www.anb.org/articles/16/16-01202.html; 
American National Biography Online Feb. 2000. 
Access Date: Tue Oct 3 22:49:21 MDT 2006 The DAB article by Boroadus Mitchell says: " In politics, Niles was a Jeffersonian until 1816 or 1817, when he described himself as a no-party man. On Jan. 10, 1824, he wrote: "I cannot believe that either [Jackson or Calhoun] will be elected, and should regret votes thrown away. I esteem both, personally and politically; and though my private wish is rather for Mr. Adams, I shall be content to accept any other than Mr. Crawford." When Jackson came into office in 1829, Niles differed sharply with his policies, and became a Whig. " Rjensen 04:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What follows from this? Niles was a DR in 1811; if he avoided party propaganda, so much the clearer his example on usage. The rest of this says that he declined to follow either of the two major branches dividing the party in 1824, and that he finally left Jackson's branch altogether. That he was not a Democrat makes his use of Democratic-Republican more interesting, not less. Septentrionalis 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Niles is interesting--but who says he only used D-R? My understanding is that he reprinted articles from all over and did not impose his own terminology. Rjensen 05:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the present text imply that? It doesn't say it; but again, if he reprinted the words, that testifies to general usage. The point that it was not an official name is worth making; thank you. Septentrionalis 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "if he reprinted the words, that testifies to general usage." No, that simply means he reprinted articles.  You haven't even attempted to establish general usage at the Register.  Skyemoor 20:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niles Register 

message: I simplified the footnotes by moving some of the full reference titles that were there into the Reference section. The usage of templates and more formal citations, which seemed like a good idea at the time when I introduced them into the article, was beginning to clutter it; so I reduced their usage within the article. Settler 02:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: Madison used capital R to refer to the Republican party: To Madison to Jefferson, March 2d, 1794.  I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose. [from Smith, ed, The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826 (1994) vol 2 p 832 Rjensen 14:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep in mind that the capitalization practices of the period differed significantly from current standards. Considering 1) that the "party" at that time bore little resemblance to a political "Party" as currently understood and 2) that the practice at the time was to capitalize terms much more commonly than is done today, I don't think we can read too much into the stylings of individual contemporaneous documents. That is getting into Original Research. What is needed are citations from authoritative secondary sources. I really don't have a bone in the matter one way or the other -- but so far I've not seen any convincing evidence one way or the other regarding "the original name" of the party, certainly not sufficient for the article to make a bald assertion of fact. older ≠ wiser 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On "party"-- the Jeffersonians and Federalists were inventing the modern political party--with voter loyalty, newspapers, state and local organizations, campaign managers, candidates, tickets, slogans, platforms, linkages across state lines, patronage etc, as explained in this article.  (previously "party" meant a grouping in Parliament). The new parties are "modern" enough. See Chambers (1963) for extended discussion.Rjensen 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly a somewhat transitional stage, especially the early history of the "original name". I don't think it is "modern enough" to warrant the implication of equivalence in the introdutory sentences. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the term "Democratic-Republican Party" should not be used. Skyemoor 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And since the difference is largely that the eighteenth century capitalized common substantives where we would not, this is fairly good evidence against "republican party" then  being a proper name  at all. Septentrionalis 17:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The preface of this article is becoming a bit too long again; isn't this what the "Party name" section was created to help resolve? Settler 18:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. So I made a simple change up front that is addressed in the Party Name ection. Skyemoor 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  capitalize "Republican" or lower case? 

message: :The Jeffersonians usually took the lead in inventing new party devices, but the Federalists started a year or two sooner, and invented the national convention.
This is sufficiently confusing to me that I'm not sure whether I even disagree with it. It certainly can be read: "The Jeffersonians took the lead, but the Federalists were first." which is a contradiction. If it means, as I guess, that the DR's used most devices of partisanship first, that would require much more explicit citation, because it is clearly controversial; the common understanding appears to be that the Federalists had the first Philadelphia party paper, for example. Septentrionalis 17:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well I wrote it and it is confusing. :(  The Federalists built their party first, but the Reps caught up by inventing more techniques. The Reps were much better at grass roots organizing. On the one hand the Feds had more newspapers as late as 1800. On the other the Feds badly neglected the frontier areas where the fastest growth was happening. Rjensen 15:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd sentence

message: I find this curiosity fascinating; and it makes clear that Republican and Federalist were adjectives in the 1790's. And with such things, it is usually better to include them correctly than wait until some helpful newbie comes across, e.g., a primary source about Virginia "American Republicans" supporting Adams. Better to get it right once than go into a include-delete-protest-explain  cycle. Septentrionalis 18:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully consent to having the DR uses in text and the Federalist ones in a footnote. Septentrionalis 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem is that the information is confusing, irrelevant and unimportant. Our job is to help users see the big picture and information that detracts from that does not belong. Cunningham had many hundreds of pages to work with we have about 8. Rjensen 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely because the whole topic of partisan nomenclature at that time is so confusing (and arguably interesting) it should be included and described in the article. older ≠ wiser 19:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And here Pmanderson|Septentrionalis argued just the opposite in James Madison's article, "We are a work of general reference, and we cannot assume any but the most basic competence in our readers; plainly, much of our readership is in junior high school."  Skyemoor 02:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like apples and oranges. Here we are are talking about how extensively the delineation of the various terms should be explicated, in Madison, it looks as though you are pushing for a rather simplistic and anachronistic characterization of Madison as creating the "Republican Party", which is just plain misleading to the casual reader. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Misleading???? Every historian says Madison (&TJ) created the Rep party, and Madison and TJ are calling it the "republican party" by 1793. So what's the misleading part? Rjensen 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is misleading to the casual reader, for whom the "Republican Party", without any other qualification or context, means the modern GOP. There is a difference in assumed knowledge between writing by and for historians and writing for a general audience. older ≠ wiser 12:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Precisely because the whole topic of partisan nomenclature at that time is so confusing (and arguably interesting) it should be included and described in the article."  You can't have your cake and eat it too...  Skyemoor 20:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that supposed to mean? older ≠ wiser 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the sources in the limited online Library of Congress have the Federalists calling themselves "Federal Republicans," attacking Jefferson and the "democrats."  Another common appellation of what is now called the "Federalist Party" was the "Federal party" at the time--"Federal" being an adjective, and "Federalist" as a noun.  The well-known Federal anti-War-of-1812 newspaper was called the "Federal Republican." Settler 19:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federalist republicans

message: "The first official name came with the first national Democratic convention in 1832 which used "Republican Party."" Why was this removed?  Is it incorrect?  Skyemoor 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know what would make it more official than its usage prior to their convention.  It certainly wasn't mutually exclusive with Democratic, as partisan electioneering tracts during the campaign of 1827-1828 employed both names. Democratic would be more frequently employed after the convention, and Democratic Republican was still hanging around for awhile too. We should just go by whatever they were mostly calling themselves as about as official as it gets, whatever the year was, for the purpose of an encyclopedia. Settler 15:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the sentance because the 1832 convention is discussed in the "heritage" section and I thought it was just repeated information. Do you mean to imply that this convention was a DR convention? If so, that would make Jackson a DR president, which is not consistent with the terminology used elsewhere in the article.Kauffner 03:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Official Name

message: I'm not sure this is correct in the 1790s. A more correct sentence would read "Republicans generally supported good relations with France (before 1801) and opposed an alliance with Great Britain, preferring to remain independent of either nation". Thoughts?  Skyemoor 10:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1793-96 The Reps strongly supported the 1777 alliance with France and wanted a trade war with Britain--and were willing to risk real war. See  Miller Federalist Era p 148-49 for details.Rjensen 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trade war" is a polemical description of a proposal for embargo. There was less risk of war in 1795 than in 1807; in 1807 Britain had an army to spare. Septentrionalis 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposed Britain? 

message: "although "democrat" and "republican" had been used almost equivalently in 1793 (and, for the political philosophy, earlier.)"
Who was using these two names almost equivalently in 1793? Jefferson? Madison? No. Other members of congress that tended to vote with Madison? Provide citations please. "Others", such as the democratic societies?  That would belong in that article then.
See Malone on the subject; III, 162,
"They referred to themselves as Demcorats again by 1812.Madison Papers:Presidential series: 5:147; August 11, 1812"
This is plainly wrong as worded. I've provided references that show both Madison and Jefferson using Republican and republican when referring to the party after 1812, so this would have to be worded with a much more narrow focus to be considered accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyemoor (talk • contribs) .
:Here's an example, for whoever rewrites it in a more narrower focus:
:DEAR SIR,--I received, by the last mail, your welcome favor of the 10th instant. The newspapers had prepared me for the triumphant vote which restores a prodigal sister to the bosom of the Republican family, and evinces a return of grateful feelings for a revolutionary worthy. I congratulate you very sincerely on this event, with every wish that your administration may be as happy to yourself as I am confident it will be propitious to the welfare of those who have called you into it; and I may add, of those who resisted the call. The people are now able every where to compare the principles and policy of those who have borne the name of Republicans or Democrats with the career of the adverse party; and to see and feel that the former are as much in harmony with the spirit of the Nation and the genius of the Government as the latter was at variance with both.
:James Madison's letter to William Eustis, 1823. Transcript. Settler 18:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Septentrionalis 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name confusion 

message: *"Democracy" was used almost synonymously, before Genet and the Jacobin, Robespierre; 
** Unsupported. Certainly the distinction was made by Madison and Jefferson in their writings. If you want to refer to persons or groups to narrow the context, then provide citations and adjust the scope. Skyemoor 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pmanderson's edits of the 29th

message: :However, America's modern party structure, with a liberal, economically populist Democratic Party and a conservative, market-oriented Republican Party, did not arise until the 1890s
This article should not attempt to include any generalizations about twentieth-century American politics. Least of all this one, which is thoroughly debateable: an anon already altered populist to centrist. As a statement about the early twentieth century, which was presumably the intention of populist, it is thoroughly dubious: that TR the Regulator more market-oriented than Bryan, Parker, or Wilson may be arguable, but not here,  and not in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Skyemoor 11:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1890's

message: Everything I've read mentions caution about becoming entwined in alliances with European powers, but no inherent 'hostility'. And the relationship changed over time, so a brushstroke phrase removes too many complexities to be valid on its face. There were serious aggravations from a number of British actions, including impressment, neutral rights, and failure to live up key points in prior treaties that ultimately culminated in the declaration of war.  But to use the phrase 'especially hostile' implies an undeserved aggressive belligerence, so please share with us the evidence you have assembled to support that position.  Skyemoor 18:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: re 1793-94 try Miller (Federalist era p 149) "Republican newspapers told the people of the US that Great Britain was "reduced to her last gasp, and were Americans to seize her by the throat, she would expire in agonies at her feet." Republicans expected to strangle the former mother country neatly and effectively without resorting to more sanguine forms of mayhem.... It became an article of faith among Republicans that "commercial weapons" [eg boycotts] would suffice to bring  Great Britain to any terms the US chose to dictate." That is called brinkmanship these days--economic warfare hoping Britain would concede and not resort to war. Rjensen 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The party was especially hostile to Britain"

message: Skyemoor should remember that WP:MOS is a ; it's not set in stone, it does have exceptions.
:And those are defined however Pmanderson|Septentrionalis wants them to be defined, it seems.
Beyond that, it doesn't say what he thinks it does; there is no warrant there for bolding a confusing name like Republican Party or an anachronism like Jeffersonian Republicans. 
::Oddly enough, as soon as we talk about WP:MOS, someone comes along and deletes the reference to bolding alternate names in the first sentence. Mere coincidence, or did someone call in a favor? See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=84471548&oldid=84283202
::Here's what it used to say;
:::Use boldface in the first sentence for synonyms of the article title (including acronyms); for example, Río de la Plata: 
::
:::The Río de la Plata (from Spanish: “River of Silver”), also known by the English name River Plate, as in the Battle of the River Plate, or sometimes (La) Plata River.
:::::This is not, of course, a general sentiment that bolding is to be done with restraint; it's the CABAL. What else could it be? Septentrionalis 18:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling this edit a compromise, when it suppresses the consensus name of the party and bolds the confusion, is ineffable. Septentrionalis 02:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you have taken the high road and decided to compromise afterall. I will accept that compromise first sentence. Skyemoor 03:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skyemoor's partisanship

message: Mathews Dictionary of Americanisms (1951) p 902 has several cites for "Jeffersonian" in use 1799-1804 to designate a Republican candidate in state elections
:1803: "Sprigg (a thorough going Jeffersonian...was the democratic candidate."
:1804 "Randolph [and his followers] who may be especially styled "Jeffersonian Democrats"
:1807: "This man is the leader of what is termed the Jeffersonian Mobocracy"
:1805: X was "no monarchist but a good christian and a fine Jeffersonian republican" Rjensen 03:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew Jeffersonian was that old, but OED dates Jeffersonian Republican from 1838. Fine. (What is the source for the 1805 quote? only it uses JR.) Septentrionalis 04:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeffersonian