Talk:Democratic-Republican Party/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Democratic-Republican Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why change the title: because historians have changed in the last 5-10 years. The new monographs and tectbooks do not use the D-R terminology. Users who have a current textbook will be confused and that is a bad thing for Wiki. Our best asset is that we keep current-- unlike paper encyclopedias whose articles are often 10 or 20 years old. Rjensen 21:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep returning to this subject? It was discussed last month and the agreement was to keep the name Democratic-Republican Party. Why go over this yet again? GriotGriot

It was agreed to change. Rjensen 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Were there any other Democratic-Republican Parties? If not, there's no need to add "United States" in front. --Jiang | Talk 12:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is unnecessarily inaccurate to refer to this party as the "Democratic-Republican" party. It was called the Republican party from its formation under Thomas Jefferson until the split in the party during the time of Andrew Jackson (in the 1820s). Only then did there exist a party called the "Democratic-Republican" party (as opposed to the faction headed by John Quincy Adams, the National Republicans). And this name did not last long, quickly being shortened to the Democratic party.

It is much more accurate to call this party the "Republican" party and then set a footnote that says that this is not the same as the modern Republican party. --acsenray | Talk 17:30, 7 Feb 2004 (EST)

The page was removed to United States Democratic Republican Party. It doesn't seem right to me, since the party was not named USDRP, but DRP. I suggest to move the page to Democratic-Republican Party without any reference to the USA. --Gangulf 18:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this page from United States Democratic-Republican Party to Democratic-Republican Party (United States), following the naming conventions of Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), etc. This also makes more sense because "United States" is not actually part of the official name of this party. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

"Democratic" is not in the name of this party either, although the Democrats are descended from them. Ashibaka (tock) 6 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

See WP:NC -- two points are relevant here. (1) Precision: Don't disambiguate when it isn't necessary. (2) Use common names: most history books refer to this party as Democratic-Republican, so that's what most users are likely to be looking for, regardless of whether it is technically correct. Unfortunately, the edit history is such that only an admin can fix this now. --Russ Blau (talk) 21:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

History books used to call it the "Democratic-Republican" party, a name that was never used in its lifetime. Since 1995 a Google.books search suggests the term of choice among historians in monographs and articles has been "Republican." That's what they called themselves. In the 1790s-1820 They avoided the term Democratic, which became current in the 1830s. Elkins & McKitrick in their great book on the Age of Federalism (1995) never use "Democratic-Republican" for the party. (They use it once for the "Democratic-Republican" societies). On the other hand "Democratic-Republican" is still used in textbooks so we should probably keep it but warn people the term is obsolescent and will probably fade away. Rjensen 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Thomas Jefferson for more discussion of the merits of Republican Party and Democratic-Republican Party. -Parallel or Together? 11:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion for what this article should be called since the current name is incorrect? Kaldari 18:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I dispute the notion that the term "Democratic-Republican" is obsolescent or incorrect. I don't think a Google book search should carry more weight than what is used in mainstream history books. Calling Jefferson's party "the Republican Party" is a recipe for confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• I also dispute the notion that the current article is wrongly titled. I am frankly flabbergasted that anyone would suggest changing, not only because it will cause so much confusion, but because in every history book and text book I have read, it is called the "Democratic-Republican Party." It is called that to distinguish it from the modern-day Republican Party, as the wiki article rightfully says. Why inject this confusion? I also strongly opposed changing the name. GriotGriot

Griot perhaps reads old textbooks. Perhaps he can cite the TITLES and DATES of textbooks he uses. I examined 8 current ones (see below) and only one uses D-R. To see what Jefferson said look at [1] and discover he never used the term for his party. Rjensen 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Democratic-Republican Party. Why do you persist in trying to change a name which is in common usuage and in my studies of American history has always been the name of the party started by Jefferson in the 1790s? Please point me to any scholarly article where historians discuss changing this name. GriotGriot

Naming this article "Republican Party" or something similar would be a violation of Wikipedia naming conventions. Most people know of the party as the "Democratic-Republican Party." Wikipedia's naming convention's page says, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Another way to summarize the overall principle of Wikipedia's naming conventions: Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists."[2] - JP

Times are changing and now only 1/8 history textbooks uses the "D-R" terminology. If students use Wiki they will be confused by a D-R term that is not in their textbooks. Rjensen 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you keep claiming that, but textbooks are written by specialists. You also seem to be a specialist. Haven't you noticed that you're the only one on this discussion page who is making this claim? Most laymen know it as the Democratic-Republican Party. My college textbook[3] said Democratic-Republican Party, and so do the two leading encyclopedias. I have no problem with using the name "Republican Party" within the article, as long as it is clear to readers that it was a different party than the one formed in 1854. The title, however, should reflect the most common term that readers search for. I think you are wrong in claiming that most readers will search for "Republican Party" when looking up the party of Jefferson and Madison. - JP

Students read current textbooks--the old ones sit on the shelf. The genius of Wiki is that it is so up to date. Events that happened last week are covered. However events that happened 200 years ago get a 1965 treatment because someone used an old textbook. Imagine if the article on "stars" had been written in 1965! I think there seems to be a consensus on using "Republican" INSIDE the article. No misunderstanding is likely. Rjensen 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

First, my textbook is not from 1965. It is from 1990. I think most people could do quite well by reading Cosmos, A Brief History of Time, or The First Three Minutes (all written prior to 1990). Second, history is not the same as science. With science, humanity starts out with no understanding of the subject and gradually gains knowledge over time. With history, there is a trade-off. Over time, historians get more opportunities to view events from differing points of view (e.g. imagine viewing the Crusades originally with a Eurocentric viewpoint, but eventually getting access to Arabic sources), but at the same time humanity moves further and further away from the original events and primary sources. With the study of history, over time you lose some information while you gain other information. So, your analogy is not a good one. Overall, I think (but can't prove) that the net effect is positive, but not in the same way as with science. On a different subject, I posted a comment for you at the bottom of the "Accuracy dispute and Britannica article" section of this page. - JP

There are about 500 or so professional historians (I would guess) working on the early national period and they actually work very hard at research. Lots of books and papers and articles every year. You can listen in to them on H-SHEAR, the H-Net list. Probably the two biggest changes since the 1980s are 1) new letterpress editions keep coming. Just last month the latest Jefferson volume came out: it covers part of 1801. Second we have online and cdrom sources. Thus all of the old edition of TJ is online free (14 million bytes) and you can do word searches. Likewise all of the old editons of Washington, John Adams, Madison, Ames, and various others are electronic and on www. And now even the newspapers are going on line. So we can handle research questions very easily now that would be impossible in 1990. Should Wiki be up to speed? I think that's the goal. If someone adds new material should it be reverted because it was not in a 16 year old textbook? NO! that surely violates the Wiki spirit. Rjensen 08:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, I think the problem is that your point of view is of a historian of early America. Now, when a historian writes an article or book about the 1790s and uses "Republican Party", everybody knows what he is talking about. It is clear from the context of the book or paper. But Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal of early America. It is a general-purpose encyclopedia for everybody. It contains articles about all topics, including modern times where there happens to be another party called "Republican". So, articles have to be written in such a way to avoid confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Rjensen won't allow anyone else to cite books written prior to 1995, yet the vast majority of the books he listed in the references section are from long before 1995. - JP

Not quite: I feel we should always cite the latest editon of a book, or textbook. The textbooks get revised every 3-5 years or so to keep up with the latest scholarship. What I oppose is citing poor sources when better ones are available. Rjensen 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson's inaugural address includes "...we are all Republicans...I don't think there's a better source on how Jefferson saw his politial affiliation than Jefferson himself. Jmorello

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)

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)

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)

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)

At the Democratic Party's Web site, the Party claims its beginning in 1792. [4] I believe this article as it stands now trifles with history. It should at least acknowledge that the Democratic Party believes it is the inheritor of the old Democratic-Republican. Most American historians agree. I think it's rather weasely to claim that both parties have an equal claim on a heritage from the Democratic-Republican Party. GriotGriot

The claim that the modern Democratic Party was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson is ahistorical, to say the least. While the Democratic Party was founded from remnants of the Democratic-Republican Party, its opposition (the National Republicans, then the Whigs) was as well. Because the Democratic-Republican Party had achieved such dominance by 1820, any political party that appeared afterwards was a descendant of the Democratic-Republican Party unless it was created de novo.

"Ahistorical"? When pratically every American history book traces the beginning of today's Democratic Party in the Demo-Repub Party. I detect a political agenda behind this article. Griot 07:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Griot

Just for fun, I decided to check the one American history textbook I have in my house, which my father used in college: John M., Blum (1963). The National Experience: A History of the United States. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) On page 212, it reads: "In the 1820's, after the death of the Federalists (see p. 188), the Republican party split to form two new parties: the Democrats and the National Republicans (renamed the Whigs in the 1830's)." Thus I have at least one counterexample to your claim that "pratically [sic] every American history book traces the beginning of today's Democratic Party in the Demo-Repub Party".

— DLJessup (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is indeed how they talked 43 years ago, but times change & I think Wiki should reflect current textbooks. By the way, I was a student of authors Woodward, Morgan and Blum in the year 1963, and helped them revise the 2nd edition of that textbook. :) Rjensen 13:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed your claim that "…most historians believe that today's Democratic Party is the inheritor of the original Democratic-Republican Party," until you can provide evidence to back it up.

— DLJessup (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I already backed it up. I gave you a citation to the official website of the Democratic Party. What more do you want? GriotGriot

Last I heard, the Democratic Party was not "most historians". — DLJessup (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here and not recycling press releases from party headquarters. People expect us to be nonpartisan. Rjensen 13:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica says the Democratic-Republican Party "was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party." --JW1805 (Talk) 00:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to clear up some confusion here. First, a political party web site is a poor source for scholarly information, because all political parties have a vested interest in putting themselves in the best possible light. Second, it is incorrect to say that the Democratic-Republican Party (a.k.a. the original Republican Party) IS today's Democratic Party, because the old Republican Party split up. However, it is correct to say that the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party were directly descended from the old Republican Party. (E.g. I am directly descended from my parents. I have a sister. She is also directly descended from my parents. The fact that my sister is directly descended from my parents in no way diminishes the fact that I am as well.) However, the National Republican Party didn't survive. Only the Democratic Party survived. Therefore, the Democratic Party is the only party today that is directly descended from the old Republican Party. Instead of disproving this point, the quote above from The National Experience: A History of the United States actually reinforces it. - JP

I would suggest that today's Democratic Party, with its emphasis on big government to solve the world's problems (which Jefferson despised) really began in the 1930's under Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Yes the ideals of the Democratic-Republican party are contradictory to those of the modern democratic party. The modern democratic party puts a large amount of power into the government and redistributes wealth and property, these are measures contradictory to the ideals of a limited government. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, its founders, were of the primary writers of the constitution. The origional US constitution, sharing the exact ideals of the democratic-republican party(you may note our government is a democratic republic), values the right of property considerably more then the modern democratic party. The beginning of the democratic party was with Andrew Jackson, he even made the modern symbol. He was considered stubborn and someone called him a jackass in his campaign, he liked it so much he made it the party's symbol. -Uvirith

First, political parties change over time, so the question of whether the ideals of today's Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party are the same is a moot point. The Republican Party started as a radical anti-slave party and is now quite conservative. Second, the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson was anti-elitist. This is very much in line with modern Democratic Party. Griot 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Political parties do not change overtime, the status of whether they are 'liberal' or 'conservative' changes based on what the status quo of the current government is, but their ideals remain the same. At the time slavery was a problem, the republicans were liberals because their ideals were against slavery and as it was an idea they wanted to change the government with, it was a liberal idea, but then once slavery was abolished, it was the status quo and was now a conservative ideal. In modern day politics the republicans are liberal in some things and conservative on others, they wish to make abortion illegal which is a conservative idea, but they also want to eliminate gun control, and make marijuana and prostitution legal which are all liberal ideas by the current status quo. A political party's ideals will always remain the same over time, the difference is how they are classified, by either as liberal or conservative, a conservative ideal being one in the status quo and a liberal idea being one they would like to instill in the government. Their ideals never changed. Anti-elitism is a belief about social structure, but has nothing to do with government, unless, like the democrats you try to eradicate elitism by redistributing wealth through the government. However, The Democratic-Republican party did not go about it in this way, and didn't violate property rights. Andrew Jackson having created a new party in a time where the party still existed, obviously would not have created a new party from an existing party if he had ideals consistent to those of the Democratic-Republican party.

It should also be noted that Thomas Jefferson hated Andrew Jackson, he is quoted speaking of how he would greatly fear seeing a man who so blatantly abuses the powers of the constitution in office, even in the archaic political Arena, Andrew Jackson's party was a competitor to Jefferson's ideals.

Actually anti-elitism is contradictory to the ideals of the democratic party. The economic model of the democratic party is that of socialism, in a socialist society there is no means for the rich to generate wealth for the poor, the rich live in the lap of luxury sacrificing only enough to support the poor's ability to live, and the poor eat shit on a lowly level of society, never gaining the opportunity to become anything but poor.

Er, so political parties don't change over time? Are you really saying that? And also, Andrew Jackson was able to attract most former members of Jefferson's party to support him, even though his part had ideals "inconsistent" with the Jeffersonian Republicans? Also, if "the economic model of the democratic party is that of socialism" and "political parties don't change over time," does that make Andrew Jackson a socialist? I'm astonished that you seem to know about obscure late Jefferson quotes, but to be entirely unfamiliar with the generally understood history of American political parties, or, really, of any political parties. john k 08:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never read anywhere of the Republican Party laying claim to a heritage spiritual or otherwise from the Democratic-Republican Party. Let's remember that the States Rights argument was made originally by Southern Democrats starting shortly before the Civil War, and that it was Southern Democrats who supported States Rights up until quite recently in the 1960s, when the Democratic Party abandoned States Rights and the Republican Party took up this mantle as part of is southern strategy.

I propose removing this section about both parties having an equal claim to the Demo-Republican Party until someone can demonstrate that the Republican Party makes this claim. I have never heard any Republicans make it. GriotGriot

You might ask why they took the name "Republican". Some of the GOP founders had been closely associated with Henry Clay, the Republican leader in Congress circa 1800-1820 who wanted to keep the name going. Gould in his standard history of the GOP (203): p 14 "Why did the name "Republican" gain such favor? [in 1854] Simply as a title it connected voters with the original political organization of Thomas Jefferson in the 1790s." Rjensen 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I phrased it so that people will know that popular history says one thing and scholarly history says another. Rjensen 10:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suits me. Thanks for hearing my side of the debate. GriotGriot

• There's a statement in the article about "Remini's 1959 book" disputing the link with the modern-day Democratic party, but this book isn't cited in the References. Could someone please provide this reference? --JW1805 (Talk) 00:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is accurate to assert "only the Democratic Party has a direct link to the original Democratic-Republican Party, and indeed the party says on its official website that it was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson.[1] The Democratic Party is often called 'the party of Jefferson'; whereas the Republican Party, which was founded in 1854, is called 'the party of Lincoln.'" No proof is provided to validate the claim. Just because the Democratic Party is referred to as "the party of Jefferson" does not mean that it in any way reflects the attitudes of Thomas Jefferson and the early Republicans. Furthermore, do you really believe that a party website is a legitimate source of information?

I have removed all of the unsourced claims from the section. Feel free to add material back or add new material provided that it is sourced. The section is too contentious and vulnerable to POV to allow unsourced claims in it. Kaldari 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Remini book = Remini, Robert V. Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party (1959) cited in DEM party history page. The Democrats in fact do claim Jefferson as a founder. Read Peterson on "Jefferson Image" for full details. Rjensen 00:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The new version is slightly improved, but still not sourced. Please add citations to the article for each assertion. Yes, I know the Democrats claim Jefferson as a founder. That statement is cited, that's why I didn't remove it. All the other statements will be probably get removed again unless they are given sources. This is wikipedia policy. Please see WP:V. Kaldari 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The best sources are Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (ISBN: 0195006984) 1960 and also Wiltse, Charles Maurice. The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy (1935). They will supply all the info you seek. Rjensen 01:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the most contentious claim in the section is: "only the Democratic Party has a direct link to the original Democratic-Republican Party". This sentence is going to be subject to endless edit wars until someone provides some sort of quotation or specific reference to back it up. I have no intention of reading two out-of-print books to verify the statement. Either provide an accessable and specific source, and link the statement to the citation or I will continue to delete it (not because I disagree with it, but because I'm sick of the endless edit wars over it's wording). If you believe it should exist in the article, provide a specific reference to show why it should be worded in whatever way you want to word it. Otherwise, these edit wars will continue ad nauseum. Kaldari 02:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But Peterson goes over all this: The Dem party claims the PARTY heritage and the GOP never mentions it. Both claim a JEFFERSONIAN heritage. So I rewote to try to say that. Kaldari perhaps has a different text to propose?? Rjensen 02:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no text to propose. I propose citing some specific references in the section so we can leave it alone for good. If we have no citations, I prefer your wording to Griot's, not because I think it is more accurate, but because it is less strongly worded. Kaldari 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where the "strong words" are. The fact is, the modern Democratic Party has a direct link to the Democratc-Republican Party by way of Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. The modern Demos are an offshoot of that original party. I really don't see where the controversy is. GriotGriot

The party split. One half became today's Democratic Party. The other half became the National Republican Party, which soon died off. The Democratic Party has a DIRECT link. Today's Republican Party has at best an INDIRECT link, i.e. it is several degrees of separation and roughly three decades away. - JP

The National Republicans did not "soon die off." They merged with dissident southern ex-Jacksonians to form the Whig Party. After the Whig party collapsed as a national party in 1854, the remaining northern Whig state parties, most notably that of New York under William H. Seward, went over wholesale to the Republicans. Furthermore, the name "Republican" was clearly chosen to show the party's purported lineage back to Jefferson. I would agree that the Democrats have a more direct link than the Republicans to the old Jeffersonian Party, but I also think that we should be careful about saying that "only the Democratic Party" has a connection to the Jeffersonian party. john k 16:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do remember that many of the National Republicans were former Federalists, who joined the Democratic Party under Madison and JQAdams - when it had no effective opposition. Let us not encourage, even inadvertently, the modern partisan hooey. Septentrionalis 18:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but many Democrats were also former Federalists. James Buchanan and Roger B. Taney, for instance. john k 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. This discussion has already been had twice, and at length. Twice. Let's leave as is. Griot 19:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. AGAIN. This subject has been rehashed many times. The Democratic Party has a genuine link to the old Democratic-Republican Party, and indeed the Demo Party believes strongly in this link. Why delete it from this article? Why go around and around this subject again? Griot 17:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Online encyclopedias Britannica and Encarta both use "Democratic-Republican" party. A Google search for this term yields about 43,300 hits. This is in no way the obsolete term that you seem to think it is. No one disputes that the party was called "Republican" in its day. However, the current usage, to avoid confusion with the modern day Republican Party, is to use "Democratic-Republican". --JW1805 (Talk) 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Britannica says that the party was originaly called "Republican" (1792–98), but were called "Democratic-Republicans" by the Federalists, who were attempting to link them to the French Revolution, and the Republicans officially adopted "Democratic-Republican" in 1798. This seems to contradict information in this article, which claims the term was "never actually used". --JW1805 (Talk) 03:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with JW. Let's fix this. Somebody fix this error, please. GriotGriot
    • I suggest the textbook evidence is more useful than encyclopedias that are recycling articles written decades ago. For article name how about "Republican Party (Jeffersonian)" Will that satisfy everyone? Rjensen 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Wiki IS an encyclopedia, not a text book. Before I came here, I never heard it called otherwise than the Democratic-Republican Party.
        • That certainly has no bearing on what we are here to decide. Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That is the name scholars have given it. Why screw around with this. Griot 22:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Griot
        • "Scholars" have said that the earliest name of the party was The Republican Party. Why screw around with this? Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Agree with Griot. Strongly disagree with Rjensen. It should stay as Democratic-Republican. I also don't agree with Rjensen's going around other Wikipedia articles changing all instances of "Democratic-Republican" to "Republican". This is just confusing to readers, and will require a disamb statement in every article that it is used ("Note that this is different from the modern day Republican Party"). Is that really desirable? I think not. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are arguing convenience should be the best measure. That is certainly not the way to refine an encyclopedia. Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I certainly agree with Rjensen. The term "Democratic-Republican" is mostly not used anymore, and is anachronistic. I'd also prefer Republican Party (Jeffersonian), or something similar. Even if we don't move the article, we certainly shouldn't use the term "Democratic-Republican" any more than is necessary for basic disambiguation. john k 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Republican Party (Jeffersonian). Skyemoor 01:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The problem here is the identity of the party exclusively with presidential politics. Sam 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page for documenting Britannica errors here.

Some of this is discussed in the above sections, but I just wanted to summarize it separately here. I added a "Disputed" tag because some information in the article contradicted information given in the Encyclopedia Britannica. See the article here, which says that the party was originally called "Republican", but "... the Federalists soon branded Jefferson's followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798." Now this is a very specific statement from a very reputable source. The article as written had said that "Democratic-Republican" was "never actually used" and further down in the article said it was "rarely" used. I then corrected this discrepancy. My edit was modified by a user saying that "official name 1798 not accepted by most sources". I am going to rvt back, since I consider Britannica to be a reputable source. If someone can provide a simmilarly-reputable source that contradicts this information, then we can discuss it here. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No other reference book or history book has picked up the EB assertion. Probably because it's a misunderstanding--the statement is very vague about who did what. There was NO national D-R or R party meeting of any sort in 1798 so who adopted the official name? It's odd that some people are reverential toward a vague statement in an old book, in an unsifned article, but disputatious towward real live experts right here. Rjensen 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The statements in the article (that the term "Democratic-Republican" was "never actually used") were so completely contradicted by the Britannica article, that I really had no choice but the change them. Again, if you can provide a specific reference that makes this claim, let's discuss it. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki says don't rely on other encyclopedias--especially a short staff-written piece that is unsigned and does not have many details or bibliography. EB is full of little mistakes that we should not copy! Wiki says use best reference sources. Jefferson's complete works are online. He never uses D-R to refer to his party, always Republican. Check it out at [5] Likewise Madison never used term in his collected writings. So who used it in 1790s? evidence please. Rjensen 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made a claim that the term "Democratic-Republican" was "never" or "rarely" used. We need more than a listing of table of contents from textbooks to prove this. I also am not convinced by the text below from 1922. Do you have a source that specifically addresses this, or specifically refutes the 1798 date from EB? Also, the question isn't simply "What did Jefferson call the party in his writings?" We have to consider: What did other people call the party? Did grass-roots members ever call it "Democratic-Republican", did the Federalists ever call it that? I presume the bit in the article about the Democratic-Republican Societies being "entirely separate" from the Party was written by you. But was that really the case?--JW1805 (Talk) 00:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ency Brit is full of little mistakes. No other reference bnooks picks up this absurd clain: no one for example told Jefferson or Madison about it, no history book mentions it, What does a mistake look like? The rule in making encyclopedias (and I have edited several) is do NOT rely on other enycyclopedias. Wiki rules list the good sources to use and they certainly do not include a brief, unsigned staff-written minor entry in an old encyclopedia. Wiki can do better. Read for example the following standard history that shows the D-R name was first used after 1820, and only in some states. Note the quality difference between solid scholarship and short encyclopedia entries. [User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] 00:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is your claim that the entire quote above is false? Do you deny that the Federalists called them "Democratic-Republicans"? --JW1805 (Talk) 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I recently made an edit, and six minutes later Rjensen reverted to the previous version, because I had cited Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta. His reasoning was "do not use encyclopedias-- use scholarly sources". My edit was in complete accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines.[6] If Rjensen believes that Wikipedia guidelines suggest otherwise, I ask him to please point me to the exact page, section, paragraph, and sentence. If he cannot do this, then I ask him to undo his reversion. If he disputes the facts, that's fine, but don't say not to use references that are acceptable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. - JP

EB is full of mistakes and when we spot one we do not want to use it. The statement that "The party officially changed its name to the Democratic-Republican Party in 1798" is false--and really impossible since the party was in disarray in 1798 and did not have a convention that year. Does the Encarta say "Today's Democratic Party is a direct descendent of the Democratic-Republican Party [Encarta Encyclopedia, 1999]" -- well the word "direct" is hotly disputed and Encarta (a reworking of the old supermarket Funk and Wagnals encyclopedia) is not a strong basis for handling this sort of issue. Look at Remini (1959) who says "Van Buren's first concern was creating the Democratic party," [Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party. p 232] To be better than EB and Encarta Wiki has the genius of daily corrections. Rjensen 08:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The EB by the way copied the naming infor from the Dem party website, which says: "Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic Party in 1792 as a congressional caucus to fight for the Bill of Rights and against the elitist Federalist Party. In 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. Jefferson served two distinguished terms and was followed by James Madison in 1808. Madison strengthened America's armed forces — helping reaffirm American independence by defeating the British in the War of 1812." [Note that the Bill of Rights was a done deal before 1792, and that Madison's role is badly misstated. the phrase "party of the common man" comes from the 1830s] You can read the rest--it's low quality history Rjensen 10:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So now you're saying that Britannica copied info from the Democratic Party website? You said at Talk:Thomas Jefferson that the name change info in Britannica was copied from "Lalor's encyclopedia of 1880" (see here for the Lalor article, which does say "Upon its absorption of the French or democratic faction, in 1793-6, it took the official title of the democratic-republican party". If anything, the Democratic Party website copied it from Britannica. Also, I think you are missreading the "Bill of Rights" bit. "to fight for the Bill of Rights" doesn't mean "to fight for the ratification of the Bill of Rights"! They are just saying that he was fighting for the principles in the Bill or Rights. Anyway, that's beside the point, the link between D-R party and D party isn't just from this website, it is found in many other sources as well (some of which are cited above).--JW1805 (Talk) 16:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

People today are still fighting for the Bill of Rights, because even though it exists doesn't mean that the government always abides by it. - JP

Yes, I know Encarta is based on the old Funk and Wagnals encyclopedia, but it still meets Wikipedia's reliable sources standard.[7] No, Encarta does not say "Today's Democratic Party is a direct descendent of the Democratic-Republican Party" because that would have been plagiarism on my part. It actually says, "Although the party was also known as the Republican Party and the Jeffersonian Republican Party, in fact it was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party." I think it is clear even from what you posted in the "Let's read some history" section of this page that both the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party were direct descendents. I think it is quite odd that this Wikipedia article makes no mention of the National Republicans. I can see in the history that it used to. Also, do you dispute the claim that today's Republican Party is named after this original Republican Party? I ask because you reverted that as well. - JP

Britannica seems to disagree with itself about when the name "Democratic-Republican Party" was used. Britannica's article on the National Republican Party states, "U.S. political party formed after what had been the Republican (or Jeffersonian Republican) party split in 1825. The Jeffersonian Republicans had been the only national political party following the demise of the Federalists during the War of 1812. During the contested election of 1824, followers of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams began calling themselves National Republicans, while backers of Andrew Jackson emerged as Democratic Republicans. By the election of 1828, the Jacksonians were simply called Democrats." - JHP 08:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Wow, that's a lot of text! I am not familiar with this author, and have no idea if he is credible. It is also an "old book", as you said about the EB. Anyway, this seems to be about the later period when the party became the modern-day Democratic Party, and thus doesn't seem to specifically address the issues that I had with the earlier version of the article.--JW1805 (Talk) 00:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson was famous for his attacks on activist judges (esp John Marshall!) which modern day GOP echoes. As for the heritage bit, I think almost everyone refers to Jefferson's heritage with very little mention of Madison, Gallatin, Monroe etc. Peterson (1960) makes that clear as does Wiltse. Rjensen 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The term "activist judge" as it is understood today was never used in the 1800s. The concept simply hadn't been invented. You have a political agenda which you are ramming into this article. Please stop. You are already the subject of one Wikipedia alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#January 30, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Griot (talk • contribs) 14:27, February 17, 2006.

Agreed. You can't just say "Jefferson opposed activist judges". That's a modern term. You need to attempt to be more precise, and present sources and specifics. I know Jefferson did have a problem with English judges incorporating Christianity into the Common law. That seems like something the modern-day Democrats would agree with, and not evidence of continuity with the modern-day Republican Party. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Feds did occasionally attack the Republicans as "Democrats" and rarely "D-R". The reason is that Washington made an all out attack on the D-R societies that ruined them. But Fed leaders like Hamilton and Adams did not make that crude gesture. The R party never adopted those terms--no other reference book or scholarly book repeats the error of the anonymous EB staff writer. Rjensen 01:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson strongly attacked the federal judiciary because he thought it was impsoing its views in undemocratic fashion. What better term than "activist judges" would you recommend? Jefferson himself said, "They [the judges] are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States, and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate" Sounds "activist" to me. Rjensen 08:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like he was attacking them as Federalists, rather than as "activist" (which is a modern political buzzword that didn't exist at the time). --JW1805 (Talk) 20:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"activist" is the term used in 2006 to describe judges who overturn laws passed by Congress. That was Jefferson's complaint and he repeated it many times over the years. He did not call the judges "Federalists" he called them usurpers. Rjensen 23:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with claiming that "Jefferson opposed activist judges" is that the statement assumes that there actually is such a thing as an "activist judge," which is a matter of debate. Also, even if TJ referred to Marshall as an "usurper", it does not mean that Marshall actually was an usurper. We need to distinquish the difference between accusation and fact, because otherwise we are essentially using the Complex Question fallacy. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "activist judge" accusation means more than a judge who overturns laws passed by Congress. The term implies that judges make decisions based on their own wants, rather than based on the U.S. Constitution. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed and that seems to be Jefferson's point as well. By 1820 quote, over 90% of the federal judges were Republican appointees so he's complaining not about party but about the power that all judges grab when they get their robes. Rjensen 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the claim that all (or any) judges grab power when they get their robes is an unsubstantiated claim. I would even say it's a false claim. See fallacy of many questions. - JHP 130.76.96.17 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki should not make judgments about judges one way or the other. We should say exactly what Jefferson said and did on the matter (and TJ did take action like abolishing all new judgships, impeaching 2 judges, and appointing his own people.) One reason TJ is so important is that he represents an anti-court positition that has echoed in history (Lincoln on Dred Scott, TR in 1912, FDR in 1937, many conservatives today). Rjensen 01:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is that you are making judgments about judges. That's my whole point. It is the way you phrased the statement that is the problem. You are implying that judges actually are activists. You are using a complex question logical fallacy in your statement. To say that "Jefferson opposed what he considered to be 'usurper' judges" is one thing, but your statement implies that judges actually are/were activists/usurpers. Furthermore, your unsubstantiated claim that all judges grab power when they get their robes seems to reveal an alternative motive on your part. - JHP 02:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're making broad generalizations about Jefferon's actions using modern terms and concepts. What did Jefferson do? He:

1. Attempted to remove Federalists judges. This was part of a general "purge" of Federalist office holders. He wasn't "anti-court", he just wanted his people in the courts.
2. Was against the concept of judicial review. That seems to be what his point was in the 1820 letter to Jarvis. He was against the Marbury decision. That doesn't correspond to the modern notion of anti "activist judges". You aren't seriously saying that the modern-day conservatives want to overturn Marbury are you? That's just absurd. The article should just say what Jefferson and the party did. Don't confuse the issue by using modern terms out of context. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

well first of all I personally disagree with Jefferson and I do NOT myself oppose what people today call judicial activism. I hope that answers the question of my bias. All Jeffeerson biographers agree he was intensely anti-judiciary. Read Garry Wills (2005) for thr latest example. Wiki's job is to reveal Jefferson. It was no secret. And yes indeed, modern conservatives are unhappy with Marbury for the same reason TJ was: it allows unelected judges to cancel the laws passed by elected officials. (and again, I support Marbury myself). The "activism" we are talking about is not marching in the streets, it's overruling the elected branches of govt and means the same in 2006 as 1806. Rjensen 02:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Name one Republican elected official, or one Republican-appointed judge that has publicly stated that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned. Not even Clarence Thomas thinks that! --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

More TJ quotes:

1822: We already see the power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions, for the annihilation of constitutional State rights, and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the ingulphing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part. [* * *] Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and removable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipoise between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative houses. That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demarit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency. — TITLE: To Wm. T. Barry. EDITION: Washington ed. vii, 256.

• Or this from 1823: At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the Constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is [Col 2] not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account. — TITLE: To A. Coray. EDITION: Washington ed. vii, 322.[8] Conclusion: TJ DEEPLY distrusted federal judges, Rjensen 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he was against life appointements. Again, this is not something that modern-day conservatives would agree with. Maybe some would, but there certainly isn't any broad support for changing this. There most certainly isn't any support for Jefferson's idea of letting judges be removed by the President! --JW1805 (Talk) 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

On conservatives who attack Marbury: [from Amazon.com] "Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America's founding fathers. The court, in Levin's estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government. Levin examines several decisions in the court's history to illustrate his point, beginning with the landmark Marbury v. Madison case, wherein the court granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional. ...To his talk-radio listeners, Levin's hard-charging style and dire warnings of the court's direction will strike a resonant tone of alarm, though the hyperbole may be a bit off-putting to the uninitiated. As an attack on the vagaries of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and on some current justices, Men in Black scores points and will likely lead sympathetic juries to conviction. --John Moe " So, yes, Marbury is still in dispute--read the National review every week for more on this. As for TJ's plan to remove judges. Well TJ's supporters DID carry that out in many state constitutions (putting in elected judges for fixed terms), and of course FDR had a plan to add 6 more judges right away. Rjensen 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way Scalia in 2005 said flatly that "Marbury v. Madison is wrong" and illegitimate. [9] Rjensen 03:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what he said. He said that if you think the Constitution is about evolving standards of a civilized society, then Marbury v. Madison is wrong, because there's no reason that it should be up to 9 lawyers to determine the standards of a civilized society. If, on the other hand, like Scalia you believe that the Constitution is a binding legal document based on the original intentions of its drafters, then Marbury v. Madison is perfectly fine. john k 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [10] Rjensen 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

I wanted to bring this up again. Rjensen is totally right that in recent works, "Republican" is overwhelmingly more common than "Democratic-Republican," which is rapidly becoming an obsolete term. I would much prefer to move this article to something like Republican Party (Jeffersonian) or Republican Party (1792-1824), or something.

But if there's a consensus to leave it here, I don't have a serious issue with that. What I do have an issue with is Griot's claim that because the article is here, we have to refer to it as the "Democratic-Republican Party" in every other article on wikipedia. That is ridiculous, and not in line with any wiki policy that I am aware of. john k 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

John K is absolutely right. As I showed above the textbooks have made the switch already, so that students will be confused when they comne to Wiki for help. Rjensen 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

John K. is not right, and I direct everyone's attention to the debates found higher in this page. We went over this topic in depth two months ago. It's called "the Democratic-Republican Party" in the Britannica, in Encarta, and the World Book Enyclopedia. The Columbia Encyclopedia says the early party "called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans" [11]. Historians called it the "Democratic-Republican Party" for that reason and to distinguish it from the modern-day Republicans. It's called the Democratic-Republican Party in hight school and college textbooks. Please read "Name of Article" above before you weigh in here. There's no point in going over old ground if you don't have to. Griot 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've read that. You, so far, have only cited other encyclopedias. Rjensen has cited from numerous textbooks. The latter is a better model for how we should title the article than the former. If you want to demonstrate that it was called the "Democratic-Republican Party" at the time, you'll have to cite something other than an encyclopedia - my understanding is that this term was only used after 1824 for supporters of Jackson. For instance, my copy of the Encyclopedia of American History by Richard B. Morris (a book dating back to 1976, but highly useful, and which refers to the party in question mostly as the Republicans, but occasionally as the Democratic-Republicans) has this to say: Over the winter of 1824-25, the Republican party divided into two groups. The Adams-Clay wing became known as the National Republicans, while the "Jackson men" emerged as the Democratic Republicans. To demonstrate that high school and college textbooks use Democratic-Republicans, you'll have to, you know, cite textbooks, instead of just asserting it. So far, Rjensen surveyed 8 textbooks, 6 of which used "Republicans" and only one of which used "Democratic-Republicans". JP additionally cited a textbook which uses "Democratic-Republican", and provided a scan of a page of it, but did not say what textbook it was, leaving it essentially useless as a citation (it may, for all we know, be the same one that Rjensen found which uses "Democratic-Republican"; or it may be an older edition of a textbook which has since switched to "Republican".) So, yeah, I've read the earlier discussion, and I find it completely unconvincing. You've been particularly unhelpful about citing any useful sources beyond encyclopedias. john k 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)\

"You, so far, have only cited other encyclopedias." I hate to be the one to remind you, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. Editors of encyclopedias have the problem of classifying articles under specific topics -- a problem that most scholars don't have. For consistency's sake, we have to select terms for use and stick to them. Why not take the lead of the Encyclopedia Britannica and leave it at that. I'm tired of this sophomoric carping. Griot 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You yourself have repeatedly said things like "history books use Democratic-Republican" and "textbooks use Democratic-Republican," and yet you have not cited any. I take it that this statement is an admission that, in fact, you have no interest in providing support for these statements, and that you're content to simply follow Britannica usage. If you want to do that, fine, but it's not an open and shut case, and I think there's plenty of good reasons (starting with the fact that use of "Democratic-Republicans" is anachronistic and misleading) not to use "Democratic-Republican" in any situation but ones where it's necessary to distinguish the party from the modern Republican Party (in lists of officeholders spanning the time period from the first party system to the third, for instance). It's not good enough to just point to Britannica and say it's a done deal - there are plenty of articles we give different titles to than other encyclopedias. The basic fact is that, whenever possible, an encyclopedia cannot base itself on another encyclopedia. It should base itself on more specialized sources. If we just parrot Britannica, we're completely useless. While for article titles, there is sometimes reason to defer to usage in other encyclopedias (for formatting issues like how to title articles on British peers, say), I don't think that applies in this case. And your dismissiveness does not make for a terribly constructive atmosphere. john k 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of usage in other articles, I think the standard should be that we use "Democratic-Republican" in contexts where there might otherwise be confusion with the modern Republican party (lists of officeholders, for instance), and "Republican" in contexts where there is no confusion. Obviously, both names should be mentioned on this page. john k 18:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done a JSTOR search on the use of the term "Democratic-Republicans" in history journals after 1990 (JSTOR only goes up to about 1999, so this would exclude the most recent usage, but still should be fairly useful). There are 108 results for Democratic-Republican, but let's follow up...

1. "Republicanism in the Age of Democratic Revolution: The Democratic-Republican Societies of the 1790s," by Matthew Schoenbachler, Journal of the Early Republic, 1998. This article uses the term to refer to societies, rather than to the party. It notes in a footnote that the societies were given various names, including "Democratic," "Republican," "Democratic-Republican," "True Republican," "Constitutional," "United Freemen," "Patriotic," "Political," "Franklin," and "Madisonian," but that he will use "Democratic-Republican" to refer to them. However, he refers to the party as the "Republican Party."

NOT APPLICABLE. THIS IS FROM A FOOTNOTE.

What are you talking about? In the text of the review he uses "Republican" to refer to the party. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Review by Charles E. Clark of Richard N. Rosenfeld's American Aurora: A Democratic-Republican Returns. The Suppressed History of Our Nation's Beginnings and the Heroic Newspaper That Tried To Report It. in the Journal of American History, 2000. Whatever the book itself does (It is unclear from the title whether it would refer to the party as the Democratic-Republicans), the review author uses "Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN (the book is about Jefferson's followers; "...his history depicts a radical 1790s Democratic-Republican point of view..." [12]

The review refers to the party as the Republicans. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As does your H-Net review. john k 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3. Review by Dean Albertson of Irwin and Debi Unger's Turning Point: 1968, American Historical Review, 1990. This usage is irrelevant to the discussion, referring to Democratic-Republican disputes in the 1960s.

NOT APPLICABLE

4. Review by William M. Fowler of Gene A. Smith's "For the Purpose of Defense": The Politics of the Jeffersonian Gunboat Program. in the Journal of the Early Republic, 1995. Uses "Democratic Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

5. Review by Harry Ammon of Robert Allen Rutland's The Prediency of James Madison, Journal of American History, 1991. Refers to the party as the "Democratic Republicans"

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

6. Review by Cathy Matson of John E. Crowley's The Privileges of Independence: Neomercantilism and the American Revolution. Uses "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

7. Review by Marianne Persiaccante of Michael G. Kenny's The Perfect Law of Liberty: Elias Smith and the Providential History of America, uses "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

8. Review by Nicole Etcheson of Donald J. Ratcliffe's Party Spirit in a Frontier Republic: Democratic Politics in Ohio, 1793-1821, refers to the party as "Democratic Republicans"

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

9. Review by Robert Allen Rutland of Stuart Leibiger's Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic, Journal of American History, 2000. Refers only to the "democratic-republican societies," not to the party. :NOT APPLICABLE -- party not named

10. Review by Conan Fischer of Robert Gellatley's The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933-1945., English Historical Review, 1994. Obviously an irrelevant reference to the Nazis. :NOT APPLICABLE

11. "The First Party Competition and Southern New England's Public Christianity" by Jonathan D. Sassi, Journal fo the Early Republic, 2001. Uses Democratic-Republican for the Party.

Supports DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN.

12. Review by Robert M.S. McDonald of The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 28: January 1794 to February 1796, ed. John Catanzariti. Uses the term to refer to the Democratic-Republican Societies, not the party. :NOT APPLICABLE -- party not named

Of the first 12 results, only half use "Democratic-Republican" for the party. Taking that as representative of the results as a whole, we can assume only 54 uses of "Democratic-Republican" to refer to the party in JSTOR since 1990.

I don't understand your point here (or your math; much more than half use "Democratic-Republican"). Your research seems to show that the majority of historians use the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Further, your comments below about the difficulty of searching JSTOR seem to prove the value of keeping the name "Democratic-Republican Party." A search for "Republican Party" will find the GOP 99.9% of the time. Griot 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to explain again. I wanted to compare usage of "Democratic-Republican" with usage of "Republican". This is difficult, because both terms, especially the latter, are used to refer to things other than the political party in question. In the first case, I just did a simply search on "Democratic-Republican" since 1990. This search turned up 108 results. I wanted to determine how many of these results were relevant. Based on analysis of the first twelve, about half are relevant, meaning about 54 relevant results for usage of "Democratic-Republican" in all historical journals sincec 1990. For Republican I couldn't do the same thing, as the vast majority of references to "Republican" are going to be to other things. What I did do was a much more limited search - for "Republican Party" in two journals devoted to early American history. That search turned up 73 results. By the time I did this one, I was too tired to do a full analysis, but, again, about half were irrelevant - references to the later Republican party. That means that, in two journals, there were 37 references to the term "Republican Party" (that is to say, not including references to "the Republicans" or "Republican politician so-and-so"). That is to say, 54 references to "Democratic-Republican" in all journals vs. 37 references to "Republican Party" in two journals. By extrapolation, I think one can say that there are more references in JSTOR to the party as "Republicans" than to the party as ";Democratic-Republicans", although it would take more work to demonstrate this conclusively. john k 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other half, however, is not talking about the Party at all. Septentrionalis 23:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. I was doing a search of "Democratic-Republican." My only point here was to demonstrate that of the 108 results, many were not referring to the political party. I wanted to compare that number with the number of references to "Republican", but that's very difficult - I made an attempt below to do a much narrower search, which turns up nearly as many results as the much broader search for "Democratic-Republican" in general. john k 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of the much greater frequency of references to the modern Republican Party, it is pretty hard to figure out how often the Jeffersonian party is being referred to as simply the "Republicans". However, a JSTOR search limited to usage of the term "Republican Party" (and excluding articles which use "Democratic-Republican") in two journals focusing on earlier American history - the Journal of the Early Republic and the William and Mary Quarterly - turns up 73 results. While perhaps half of these actually refer to the modern Republican party in the 19th century, we should remember that this is a much more limited search - it doesn't include references to "Republicans," it doesn't include references to the Republican Party in articles which might mention "Democratic-Republican" in other contexts (as several of the Democratic-Republican articles do), and it only refers to 2 journals, rather than the 38 history journals JSTOR has in total. Which is to say, there are about 54 references in all of JSTOR's history journals to the "Democratic-Republicans" since 1990. In the same time period, there are nearly as many uses of the restrictive phrase "Republican Party" in just two journals. Although it'd be hard to say conclusively, because of the extent to which we're going to be swamped with references to the modern Republicans, it seems to me that this is fairly clearly indicative that Republican is more common in specialist publications than Democratic-Republican. john k 16:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Two more textbooks, courtesy of my roommate, who studies 19th century US history.

• Hugh Brogan, Longman History of the United States of America, Longman, 1985. Uses "Republican." Two new factions began to form: the followers of Hamilton took to themselves the honoured name of Federalist; his opponents began to call themselves Republicans; The question dovetailed all too easily into the controversy between the Federalists and the Republicans; The Republicans were solidly entrenched in power; The triumph of the Republicans had been due as much to their ability to rouse their fellow-citizens, and to the Federalists' disdainful reluctance to compete, as to any intrinsic virtue in their cause;
• George Brown Tindal and David E. Shi. America: A Narrative History, 4th Edition, Norton, 1996. Uses "Republican." Madison and Jefferson became the leaders of those who took the name Republican and thereby implied that the Federalists really aimed for a monarchy; Jay entered the negotiations with his bargaining power compromised by both Federalists and Republicans; The rising strength of the Republicans, fueled by the smoldering resetnment towards Jay's treaty; and later Firmly grounded in Republican principles, monroe failed to keep up with the onrush of the new nationalism; Whatever his limitations, Monroe surrounded himself with some of the ablest young Republican leaders; The Republican party was dominant — for the moment. john k 16:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, I need remind you, is an online encyclopedia. Let's look to other encylopedias for guidance about how to settle this issue. You've done a search of scholarly papers written by people well versed in American history. How about a little consideration for the lay reader -- one who would be easily confused by the term "Republican Party" being used to describe a circa. 1800 party. I've already demonstrated that encyclopedias and textbooks used the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Why change this convention? Griot 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot, certainly other encyclopedias are one source to use, but I dispute that they are the best source. I would suggest textbooks - either surveys of American history, or surveys of particular periods in American history - would be a better way to go about determining things like this. Encyclopedias should, if possible, not base themselves on other encyclopedias. We have our own naming conventions, and they do not say, "Use what other encyclopedias use." Beyond the scholarly papers, Rjensen cited 8 textbooks, of which only one used "Democratic-Republicans" and 6 used "Republicans". I cited two more textbooks/surveys of American history, both of which use "Republicans," as well as the Encyclopedia of American History (which is more of a handbook than an encyclopedia - it's arranged chronologically, like the Encyclopedia of World History at Bartleby's). It seems to me that, in most wikipedia article title disputes like this, we would look to textbooks and the like, rather than to other encyclopedias, to determine what we should call an article. I would add that you have yet to demonstrate that textbooks use the term "Democratic-Republican Party."

I suggest online encyclopedias as the first test and high school text books as the second. Remember: People come to Wikipedia by searching on the Internet, which makes the online encyclopedia our best guide in this matter. Readers are general interest readers, which makes high school textbooks a good secondary guide. Griot 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Beyond this, your idea of "misleadingness" is simply not true. In cases where confusion is possible, it's perfectly fine to use "Democratic-Republican" (or "Jeffersonian Republican") for disambiguation purposes. In this article, we can simply include a section explaining that this party was called the Republican Party, but that it is not to be confused with the modern Republican Party, which was founded in 1854. There are plenty of things that shares names without us having to make up artificial names to call them so that people "won't be confused."

Also, a direct question: do you, Griot, accept the fact that the party primarily called itself the "Republican Party?" john k 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

C'mon. Why would I object to that? Griot 01:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you seem determined, in the Democratic Party (United States) article, that we not mention this, so I was making sure.

Some more sources:

• William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854, 1990 - uses Republican
• Harry L. Watson Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America, 1st edition, 1990 - uses Republican and Democratic-Republican interchangeably
• American Social History Project. Who Built America: Working People and the Nation's Economy, Politics, Culture, and Society, 2000 - uses Democratic-Republicans (but not focused at all on political history)
• Eric Foner. The Story of American Freedom, 1998 - uses Republicans
• Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846, 1991 - uses Republicans
• Robert V. Remini The Life of Andrew Jackson, 1988 - uses Republicans
• Edward Pessen Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics, 1985 - uses Republicans
• Daniel Boorstin The Americans: The National Experience, 1965 - uses Republicans

All of these books are textbooks or books for a general audience. Most of them, except the one least concerned with political history, use "Republican". john k 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Do these books really use the term "Republican Party" throughout to describe Jefferson's party, or do they, like the wiki article, mention that the party was called "Republican" during its time, but then refer to the party as the "Democratic-Republican Party"? I ask because I'd be very surprised if this is the case. Are these narrow interest books? And did you find any in your search that use "Democratic-Republican"? Griot

Most of them use the term Republican Party throughout to describe Jefferson's party. The Social History Project book uses "Democratic-Republicans" throughout. Watson's book uses the two terms interchangeably, but tends to use "Democratic-Republican" more. Freehling, Watson, Sellers, and Pessen's books are the kind of books that are assigned in midlevel-undergraduate history classes, and that might be read by a general reader interested in history (well, maybe not Pessen's book, which seems more textbooky). Remini's book won the National Book Award and is intended for broad audiences. Boorstin's book is also a popular book intended for a general audience. The Social History Project is an undergraduate textbook. I cited two books earlier which were general surveys of American history, either for undergraduates or for the general reader. I may be able to provide contextual quotes from these books, if necessary, but my roommate has been packing his stuff, so it's possible these books have been packed and I don't have access to them anymore. But Freehling, Sellers, Pessen, Remini, and Boorstin definitely use "Republicans" or "Republican Party" exclusively to refer to the party. john k 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, hello, anybody out there? If the discussion has ceased, I'll post a WP:RM later today. john k 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

I vote to keep this Democratic-Republican. Changing it to Republican would be needlessly confusing, as this party is different from the modern Republican party. The title should remain the same, if only to differentiate the two. -- Fearfulsymmetry 21:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What's with all this voting? There's no official "Requested move" yet, as a) I hoped, vainly I think, to deal with this through discussion; and b) one of the main issues is not about the location of this page, but how to refer to the party in the text. Also - is it confusing when any two things have the same name? Should we not refer to the American Whig party as the "Whigs" out of the potential for confusion with the British Whigs who were completely different? john k 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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):

1. 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.
2. 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."
3. 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
4. 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.
5. 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)

As to the idea that calling Jefferson's party "Republican" gives credence to the Bush administration in some way, this is absurd. Lincoln was indisputably a Republican, and the Democratic Party at the time of the Civil War was indisputably pretty awful. Does this association make Bush look any better? Does it make FDR look worse? These kind of concerns are insanely subjective, and there's no place for them in an encyclopedia. john k 16:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not following you around. I was discussing your conduct in this article, which has been, in my opinion, marked by use of dishonest debating tactics. I set out to catalogue this, and to make arguments against your points. I don't see how this is any less legitimate a use of my time than any other stupid wikipedia talk page activities. john k 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Have I "located" the books? I will make a list of them shortly. Griot 19:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would be very awkward to read if Democratic-Republican is used throughout - use the name 'as it was in use at the time' to provide appropriate context. Just make sure that the modern Re[publican party is identified as modern every time it is mentioned (which it appears to be now). Please note that this is the first time I've actually bothered to read about this aspect of American History (like I'm Canajun, eh?) and I don't find it the least bit confusing.Bridesmill 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I take it we mostly agree that whatever the title of the article, references inside the article should be to the "Republican party" or the "Jeffersonian party." Very few readers will get Madison mixed up with McKinley, I hope. Rjensen 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not agree on that. Why this will to confuse people? Consider the example of Mark Twain. Twain was born Samuel Clemons but took up the name Mark Twain in his twenties. What if an article only referred to Samuel Clemons or referred to Clemons and Twain interchangeably. This would be confusing to readers. Similarly, in our article, we should mention that the party was called the Republican Party in its time, but that, by convention, it is now called the "Democratic-Republican Party." I don't understand this persistence in wanting to confuse people, especially in light of the fact that people who are new to or unversed in American history would be doubly confused by the notion that they are reading about the modern-day Republican Party. Griot 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

And this reader totally unversed in American Political History disagrees; the Twain analogy is a bit different - how about the analogy of Upper Canada - now known as Ontario - any legible article discussing these refers to it as Upper Canada pre 1867 and Ontario post. Same applies here - it helps maintain the context & any fan of Sapir-Whorf will recognize the importance of calling it as it was. Honest, us foreigners aren't 'that' easy to confuse.Bridesmill 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Upper Canada? That's like, the Yukon, right? I'm sorry. I'm very confused here. Griot

That would be as in Upper Canada {I will hold my tongue ;-)}Bridesmill 00:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Griot believes "but that, by convention, it is now called the "Democratic-Republican Party." That is false. It is called the Republican party by historians and textbooks. Rjensen 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, speaking like a diety or oracle, proclaims, "It is called the Republican Party by historians and textbooks." You know very well that some historian and some textbooks call it that, but the majority of historians and textbooks call it the "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

well actually I spent a few hours tracking down the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks: results = ONE D-R, one Jeffersonian Rep, and six Republicans. That's what proof looke like. I would say that 70-80% of historians since the year 2000 use the term "Republican party", and the others are split between DR and Jeffersonian Rep. Rjensen 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've gone from "it is called" to "70 to 80 percent of historians use the term," so we're moving in the right direction. May I have the URLs of these "eight major current 2006 textbooks"? I'd like to see for myself how the terms are used in these books, presuming you can open them online. In exchange, I'll provide you with 12 online encyclopediae were the preferred term is "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 00:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you admitting, then, that you can't find any textbooks that use "Democratic-Republican"? And it's pretty rich for Griot to be complaining about somebody else "speaking like a diety [sic] or oracle," when he continues to claim that the majority of textbooks call it "Democratic-Republican" without having provided any evidence that this is true, and, so far as I can tell, without even pretending that he will ever do so. john k 00:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

John, this is getting ridiculous. The four textbooks I have at hand all use the term "Democratic-Republican Party." Even rjensen's argument is that the term is becoming outdated, and that post-2000 textbooks use the term "Republican Party," while textbooks prior to that use the other term. I'm going to test his theory with a trip to the library later this week. These hissy fits are getting tiresome. I seem to have touched a raw nerve with you somewhere, and for that I apologize. Griot 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is getting ridiculous is that you still have yet to cite these "four textbooks" of yours. In terms of older vs. newer textbooks, I fail to see any reason we should not look at usage in the newest editions of textbooks - schools tend to get new versions of textbooks when they are issued (or, at worst, they gradually move towards the newest editions), while undergraduates certainly buy the new versions. john k 01:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The four textbooks on my shelf were published after 2000, and they use "Democratic-Republican." In the scholarly community, I've heard of no movement to start calling it the "Republican Party," which is why I'm surprised by this brouhaha. I'm going to make a trip to the library, investigate as many books as I can, and post the results later this week. Griot 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, cite your damned textbooks. If they're on your shelf, you should be able to provide basic bibliographical information in response to our repeated requests. john k 01:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

add an elementary school 8th grade textbook: Houghton Mifflin (1999 edition, same in 1991 edition) Chapter 5, Lesson 2: Jefferson and the Republicans (pp. 146-151) [13] Rjensen 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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” [14]

Longman: [15]

• 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 [16]

• 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

[17] so the textbooks vote is 7-1 against D-R and 6-2 in favor of Republicans

You wrote earlier, "I spent a few hours tracking down the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks: results = ONE D-R, one Jeffersonian Rep, and six Republicans promised me 8 URLs." Then you've posted this stuff. I asked for URLs. You've provided only four URLs in the list below:

The first, the Norton, doesn't open.

It opens just fine - you need to get adobe acrobat. It's not rjensen's fault you don't have a pdf reader. john k 01:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Got it. One chapter heading. What about the other seven URLs he promised? Griot 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The second, Allyn & Bacon, takes me to an online catalog with a bunch of links. Which link do I click? Which of these books includes our term?

":

The third, [Bedford/St. Martin's http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/history/bcs/index.html], takes me to an online catalog where I can find no mention of our term.

The fourth, [18] Roark], takes me to a "Recommended Study Plan" again, with no mention of the terms.

I asked for eight URLs, and that is what I expect, rjensen. You found the term "Republican Party" or "Democratic Party" on "the websites of 8 major current 2006 textbooks," so you said, which means you ought to be able to direct me to the right pages online. You ought to be able to provide the URLs so I can read them, too. I'm beginning to think you're leading me on a wild goose chase. Griot 01:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, tell us the name and dates of the textbooks you have mentioned so many times. Rjensen 01:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I want the seven other URLs. I've been hearing about the "eight textbooks" for some time and I'm beginning to think someone threw them down the Lost Dutchman mine. Griot 03:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record: Here are four I scrounged from my shelves, each of which is a general-survey textbook that uses the term "Democratic-Republican Party," not "Republican Party," to describe the party Jefferson started in 1792: 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). However, these books were written for students aged 15-20. I have other U.S. history books, but they are of a more narrow interest are not for the general reader. I'm going to the library to see what some other books say if I can find the time this week. I'm curious what survey trade U.S. history books say. Griot 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we should restrict ourselves to basic textbooks. Books that are mass marketed for general readership, or that would commonly be read in undergraduate classes, ought to be acceptable for determining what the most commonly used name is. Thanks for (finally) giving the references - why on earth didn't you do it earlier? john k 03:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think we should limit ourselves to general-interest and survey type books: Your average wiki visitor is the kind of person who reads those books. Why didn't I give the references earlier? Fella, if you saw the state of my office, you'd know why. Griot 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should use books that aim at a wide audience, as I said, "books that are mass marketed for general readership, or that would commonly be read in undergraduate classes." I don't think that specialist monographs should be the primary consideration here. I don't see why we shouldn't expect wikipedia readers to have read books like, say, Remini's life of Jackson, which won the National Book Award. Or whatever. john k 04:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfair to say that the 2002 (12th) edition of The American Pageant uses "Democratic-Republicans". (I don't have the 11th edition handy at the moment, so I can't say if this is a relatively recent change). Until the section in chapter 10 titled "Fderalists Versus Democratic-Republicans," D-R only appears when called Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and often just Jeffersonians. However, even at this point, I only count a couple uses of just D-R in the text (I'd say 4, but I skimmed several pages). After this, they are still called Jeffersonians, now frequently called Jeffersonian Republicans, and even just Republicans. It is certainly worth noting that the book does give some sort of support to the use of D-R: "Leading the anti-Federalists, who came eventually to be know as the Democratic-Republicans or sometimes simply Republicans…."

That being said, I'm not sure that there's a solid reason to change the name of this article yet, though I confess that's merely an opinion based on what I still perceive to be the common usage when I hear it come up. - user:rasd

Both South Korea and Croatia have "Democratic-Republican" parties, and maybe others.Rjensen 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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" ([19]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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. "[20] 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."[21] Add the official state of North Carolina site at [22] The most popular website on biography is NNDB It calls Madison a Republican [23]

and Jefferson a Republican [24] as well as Gallatin [25] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Another online encyclopedia is Columbia. They don't have an article on Jefferson's party, but in the article on Jefferson, it calls the party the Republicans. Note also that in Britannica's article on Jefferson, it uses "Republican" to refer to the party: But an embryonic version of the party structure was congealing, and Jefferson, assisted and advised by Madison, established the rudiments of the first opposition party in American politics under the Republican banner. john k 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think I told you already how much I value brevity. I'm not the only one. Griot 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

????? Griot 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Apology accepted. Maybe all of us should take the day off. It would be good for us. Griot 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Here are 10 current textbooks that use "Republican", with URLs (you may have to click through to the appropriate chapter).

1. America Past and Present, Volume I (to 1877), Primary Source Edition, 7/E [26]; has chapter 8. Republican Ascendancy: The Jeffersonian Vision; Yes, it says the "Republican Ascendency," but this refers to republicanism, not the Republican Party. I see no mention of "Republican Party" or Democratic-Republican Party" here. - Griot

   From the context, the Republican Ascendancy is obviously referring to the political ascendancy of the Republican party, not "republicanism". john k 15:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Obviously referring? "Republican," I think, is being used here as an adjective to modify "ascendency," not to refer to a member of a political party. Did you visit the Web page? You will also find "Republican experiment" listed here. That doesn't refer to the political party. Griot

   It is an adjective which, in context is obviously referring to the ascendancy of the Republican party. That you are not willing to acknowledge this obvious fact shows that you are not engaging in debate honestly. john k 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Why don't you get off your self-righteous high horse and visit the Web page referred to? Did you visit it? Under the "Republican Experiment," the chapter are headings "Defining Republican Culture" and "The States: Experiments in Republicanism." The authors are treating republicanism as a political philosophy, explaining to the young students how American's new experiment in republicanism is playing out. What even makes you think that junior high students would be expected to follow the intricacies of a political party's growth? Griot 18:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Obviously the "Republican Experiment" is not referring to the party. "The Republican Ascendancy," however, obviously is referring to the party, as shown by the fact that the end of the chapter says "republican legacy." As an ideology, republicanism lasted well beyond the existence of the Republican Party of Jefferson. But yet, the book is summing up a "Republican Legacy" in 1816 or so. This is obviously a summation of the legacy of the Republican Party, not of republicanism, which went on strong long after the break-up of the party. john k 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. American "Nation, The: A History of the United States to 1877, Volume I, Primary Source Edition, 12/E; Mark C Carnes and John A Garraty ISBN: 0-321-42607-X; Publisher: Longman Copyright: 2007; ch 5 has section: Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties. You have not provided a URL for me to confirm this, nor does this heading indicate whether the authors are discussing political parties or federalism v. republicanism. -Griot

   Oh, please. You've not provided any urls for your textbooks either. When the section is called "Federalists and Republicans: The Rise of Political Parties," it is obviously referring to the Republicans as a political party. john k 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Oh, please" yourself. Maybe rjensens will provide a sentence or two from the text. Remember that the early political parties got their names from the political ideals they were advancing. This chapter could well be about how those ideals were fashioned into political parties. Anyhow, I'd love to know which term is used for the Democratic-Republican Party in the text. Griot

   The parties were called Federalists and Republicans. The obvious implication is that that is what is being talked about - the section is on the rise of political parties, for god's sakeWe have no reason to assume that is not what is meant. And the idea that somehow the ideals of "federalism" and "republicanism" inspired the development of political parties is absurd - as Jefferson said in his inaugural address, everyone was both a small-f federalist and a small-r republican. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3. America and Its Peoples: A Mosaic in the Making, Volume I (Chapters 1-16), 5/E by James Kirby Martin, etc ISBN: 0-321-16213-7, Publisher: Longman Copyright: 2004 Format: Paper; 544 pp, ch 8 The Jeffersonians in Power, 1800-1815 (uses "Jeffersonian Republicans" [27]. Yes, "Jeffersonian Republicans" is used to refer to the Democratic-Republican Party here. There is no mention of the "Republican Party." - Griot
4. Houghton Mifflin 8th grade textbook (1999 edition, same in 1991 edition), Chapter 5, Lesson 2: Jefferson and the Republicans (pp. 146-151), [28]. There is no mention of the "Republican Party" here. The text refers once to "Republican ideas." -Griot

   Again, come on. The "Republican ideas" in question are ones which Jefferson brings into government, and are contrasted to the "Federalist ideas," some of which he retained. The reference is obviously to the political party. john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Come on yourself. Did you visit the Web page? The sentence written for 8th graders is, "Under Jefferson's leadership, Republican ideas changed the government, while still retaining some Federalist policies." Do these refer to Republican Party ideas or to the principles of republicanism? I think the latter. Griot

   Yes, I visited the web page. I don't understand how "the principles of republicanism" are possibly relevant here - the federalists also believed in the principles of republicanism, and the use of capitalization for "Republican" and "Federalist" obviously implies that the proper nouns - the political parties, and not the general principles, which would not be capitalized, are meant. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Narrative History of the American Republic 3/e ch 8: Key Differences

between Republicans and Federalists, by Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle, and Stoff [29]. This table of contents doesn't mention the "Republican Party" anywhere. It mentions "Republican Experiments," "Republican Society," and "Differences between Republicans and Federalists." - Griot

1. Again, you are being purposefully dense. Any time "Republicans" are contrasted with "Federalists," the Republican Party is clearly intended. 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   "Purposefully dense?" You'd don't really mean to say that the "experiment" and "society" here refer to a political party? Did you even visit the URL? The headings are taken from Chapter 7, "Crisis and Constitution," which describes the America of 1776-1790, before the Republican Party was even born. Griot

   I am saying that "Differences between Republicans and Federalists" obviously is referring to the Republican Party. The other two do not seem to be, as you say. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. Unto a Good Land: A History of the American People 2005 by David Edwin Harrell Jr., [30] uses "Republican" (I have a paper copy). The URL you give me does not have the words "Republican Party." How is the Democratic-Republican Party described in the text of this book? What term is used? - Griot
3. Edward L. Ayers, Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky, Jean R. Soderlund, American Passages - A History of the United States, [31], 3rd Edition, © 2007 ISBN: 0495050156 "The rise of the Republicans under Jefferson and Madison was also the downfall of the Federalists. Explain the events that brought on the demise of the Federalists." The sentence you quote is not on the URL you proved. Further, does "Republicans" in this sentence refer to the Democratic-Republican Party or to adherents of republicanism? The "Republican Party" is not mentioned by name. - Griot

   Obviously it refers to the Republican Party. The Federalists were adherents of republicanism, too. Again, any time when "Republicans" are contrasted to "Federalists," it is safe to assume the political parties are being discussed. john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   I want to see the URL and judge for myself. I'm not in the habit of assuming in scholarly matters. It's a bad habit. Griot

   You are already assuming that nobody is ever going to be referring to the party, even in cases where this is the obvious inference to be made. john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

4. Speaking of America - Readings in U.S. History, Vol. I: To 1877 2nd Edition by Laura A. Belmonte © 2007 [32] has A Republican Broadside (1796). The table of contents at this URL has the term "Republican broadside." A broadside is a full-on cannon attack by a ship at sea. This one obviously does not refer to a political party, but to an attack by people who believe in republicanism against their opponents. - Griot

   Are you serious? It could refer to an attack by members of the Republican Party against their opponents? john k 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Then why doesn't it say "Republican Party broadside"? I really wish rjensen had fulfilled the task assigned to him, to find actually references to "Republican Party" in the text. Griot 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Why on earth should it say "Republican Party broadside"? Why would we expect this at all? john k 18:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

5. brand new text: The Founding Principles of the United States, Volume 1 1st Edition by Steven Bullock 0495030015 2006, [33]. "Republican goverment" is mentioned three times on this book description page, but there is not mention of a "Republican Party." Again, this refers to republicanism, not to a party. - Griot
6. John M. Murrin etc Liberty, Equality, and Power - A History of the American People, Volume I: to 1877 (with CD-ROM), 4th Edition ©2005 ISBN: 0495091774 [34]. I cannot find the word "Republican" anywhere on this Web page. - Griot

Rjensen 07:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is not a moot point. Your point is completely absurd. The Linnaeus comparison is ridiculous - Linnaeus was writing about taxonomy, not about, well, everything. As I said, the only reason I proposed a move was because of this ridiculous position of yours. But the positions remains utterly absurd. For instance, in articles about people whose names change throughout their lives, we use whatever name they were known by at the time. Benjamin Disraeli is "Disraeli" before he's made an Earl, and "Beaconsfield" afterwards. I'd also note that for writers with pen names, there is no clear single standard - the Twain article mostly calls him Twain. The article on Stendhal generally calls him "Beyle" for the period before he started writing, and "Stendhal" thereafter. The article on Lewis Carroll calls him Dodgson throughout. The article on George Eliot refers to her as Mary Ann Evans in discussion of her personal life, and George Eliot in discussion of her work. There's simply no rule doing what you claim. john k 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 <ref></ref> syntax for footnotes. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Agreed. Good section, it shouldn't have been deleted. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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) Chronicler3

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)

My reply then would be to adjust the text to say something along these lines: "although the Caucus assembled in 1820 and 1824 to nominate candidates for president and vice president, low attendance indicates that the caucus system had collapsed" rather than suggesting that the party held no national caucus after 1816. The text as it stands is not historically accurate. Chronicler3 10:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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":

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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)

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)

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)

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)

[Warning: The following post is long.]

Before we start, I am going to caveat all of the following with the comment that I don't subscribe to the idea that whatever “professional historians” do is dispositive as to what Wikipedia's policy on this naming issue should be. For one thing, the term “professional historian” is not well-defined: witness the dispute above between Griot, who thinks that textbook writers are “professional historians” and Richard Jensen, who does not. For another, I think that there are other factors to consider, such as what the people of the time actually named the party, and not confusing our readership with an ambiguous name. Anyway, on to the experiment….

When Griot pointed out his 25 books to me, my first response was, “Wow. That's different from my experience.” And, indeed, I went through my bookshelves (still only partially unpacked from my most recent move) and found the following books that discuss this period of American history:

• Ackerman, Bruce (2005). The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy.
• Amar, Akhil Reed (2005). America's Constitution: A Biography.
• Blum, John M. (1963). The National Experience: A History of the United States. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Butterfield, Roger (1947). The American Past.
• Ellis, Joseph J. (1996). American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.
• Ellis, Joseph J. (2001). Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation.
• Holt, Michael F. (1999). The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War.
• McCullough, David (2001). John Adams.
• Schweikert, Larry (2004). A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Of the above books, only Holt doesn't refer to Jefferson's party exclusively as “Republicans” but instead as “Jeffersonian Republicans”. (Tellingly, it covers the historical period starting with their breakup and starting with the creation of the modern Republican party; in other words, Holt needs to disambiguate.) Ellis (2001) does refer to “Democratic-Republican societies”, but does not so refer to the party in this fashion.

Of course, there's an obvious problem with my above list. It suffers from a selection bias, insofar as these are books that interest either me or my wife. It may be that I am predisposed to liking books that have properties that predispose them to using “Republican” over “Democratic-Republican”. I then contrived to perform an experiment. I went to my local Barnes & Noble and did a quick survey of the books in the American history section. I had about 25 minutes to do this survey before the store closed, so I was only able to get at about ten books that referenced Jefferson's party. (The first books are from the “New Releases” section, followed by the general section in alphabetical order by author.) Here are the results:

• Bender, Thomas (2006). A Nation Among Nations : America's Place in World History.
  • one reference each to “Democratic-Republican” and “Republican”
• Groom, Winston (2006). Patriotic Fire : Andrew Jackson and Jean Laffite at the Battle of New Orleans.
  • refers exclusively to “Democratic Republican” with no hyphen
• Wood, Gordon S. (2006). Revolutionary Characters : What Made the Founders Different.
  • refers exclusively to “Republican”
• Ackerman, Bruce (2005). The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy.
  • refers exclusively to “Republican”
• Allgor, Catherine (2006). A Perfect Union : Dolley Madison and the Creation of the American Nation.
  • uses both “Democratic-Republican” and “Republican”
  • This book specifically says that “Democratic-Republican” was being used by the War Hawks in 1810–1812 and the the use of “Democratic” was being “rehabilitated”.
• Ambrose, Stephen (2003). Undaunted Courage : The Pioneering First Mission to Explore America's Western Wilderness.
  • refers exclusively to “Republican”
  • skipped other Undaunted Courage books by Ambrose
• Bennett, William J. (2006). America: The Last Best Hope (Volume I) : From the Age of Discovery to a World at War.
  • three references to “Democratic-Republican” and at least eight to “Republican”
  • footnote refers to an evolution in naming from “Republican” to “Democratic-Republican” (and thence to “Democratic” for Jackson's faction, although Bennett doesn't distinguish the Jacksonians from the rest of the former Jeffersonian party)
• Boorstin, Daniel J. (1967). The Americans: The National Experience.
  • refers exclusively to “Republican”
• Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812 : The War That Forged a Nation.
  • two references to “Democratic-Republican” and many to “Republican”
  • notes that switchover of party name to “Democratic-Republican” occurred near the beginning of the war
• Burns, Eric (2006). Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism.
  • refers exclusively to “Republican”

The results of this experiment are interesting to consider. First of all, only one of these books uses “Democratic-Republican” exclusively; four others use both, and five use “Republican” exclusively. The ones that are mixed tend to use “Republican” more often than “Democratic-Republican”. Thus, among popular history books, it seems that both are used, with a bias towards “Republican”. (Keep in mind that this is a small sample size; a larger sampling might indicate a different bias.)

What is more interesting, however, is that, of the four books that use both, three refer to a shift in usage from “Republican” to “Democratic-Republican”, and two peg the timing of this shift to the beginning of the War of 1812. If in fact it is true that the name “Democratic-Republican” picked up currency around 1810–1812, that should influence how we refer to the party: we should use “Republican” or “Jeffersonian Republican” for articles whose subject matter is prior to 1810–1812 and “Democratic-Republican” or “Democratic Republican” for articles whose subject matter is later.

Anyway, that's my two cents worth for the moment. Comments?

— DLJessup (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• The key thing to remember is that Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia that coveres a wide range of topics from all periods of history. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal of early American politics. In such a journal, the word "Republican" is easily understood to mean Jefferson's party. However, in a general-purpose encyclopedia, when you say "Republican Party" most people are going to think you are talking about the modern-day Republican Party. If this term is spread about many articles about different time periods, then it will be confusing to the average modern reader. That's just a fact. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. We have to write these articles in order to avoid needless confusion. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading this discussion with some interest. I agree with the above statement by JW1805, in so much as Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and is not just for scholars but the public at large. When considering nomenclature., we must take into consideration what is generally held as acceptable terms by the general-political-academic community as it display's this article's topic to the public:

• From the Democatic Party webpage (concerning their own history): 1798, the "party of the common man" was officially named the Democratic-Republican Party and in 1800 elected Jefferson as the first Democratic President of the United States. [35]
• From the Encyclopedia Brittanica (argues both cases, which is correct in context): originally (1792–98) Republican Party first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party. and Although the Federalists soon branded Jefferson's followers “Democratic-Republicans,” attempting to link them with the excesses of the French Revolution, the Republicans officially adopted the derisive label in 1798.[36]
• From the Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers: It at first (in 1792-3) took the name of the republican party... and Upon its absorption of the French or democratic faction, in 1793-6, it took the official title of the democratic-republican party, which it still claims. About 1828-30 its nationalizing portion having broken off and taken the name of "national republican" (see WHIG PARTY, I.), the particularist residue assumed the name of "democrats," which had been accepted since about 1810..."[37]
• From the White House (biography of Jefferson): Sharp political conflict developed, and two separate parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, began to form. Jefferson gradually assumed leadership of the Republicans, who sympathized with the revolutionary cause in France. Attacking Federalist policies, he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states.'[38]

It seems to me that both Democratic-Republican and Republican are used to describe Jefferson's party that competed with the Federalist's represented by Adams and Hamilton and by inference Washington (although he didn't belong to any party). I side then with both terms used in context. I think we as a community can find a way to do just that like some of the quotes provided above. --Northmeister 02:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points here:

1. The Democratic Party and Britannica references to some sort of name change from "Republican" to "Democratic-Republican" in 1798 are entirely unsupported by any literature I have ever read on the subject. I have no idea where this idea derives from.
2. The 25 sources listed by Griot do not seem to be terribly convincing. Some seem useful, but many of them are a) guides to elections throughout American history; such books are highly like to use Democratic-Republican to avoid confusion with the later Republican party; or b) books not at all focused on the era in question, but about a different era and referring back to Jefferson's party; once again, this is a context in which one is much more likely to find use of "Democratic-Republican" to avoid confusion.
3. I think the DLJessup's examples, as well as some that I cited earlier on the page, are fairly demonstrative that when looking at books actually about the period when the party was in existence mainstream history books, including both more scholarly and more popular works, tend to use "Republican."
4. I think that it has also been demonstrated that textbooks, at the very least, frequently use "Republican Party."

I'm not sure how all this information weighs against the disambiguation issue. What I do think is that the usage information so far brought forward supports the following:

1. On this page, and on other pages primarily dealing with the history of the period when the Jeffersonian Republicans existed, we should probably refer to the party in the article text as "Republicans," or "Jeffersonian Republicans" if disambiguation is needed.
2. On pages mentioning the Jeffersonian Republican party, but largely dealing with a later time period, it might make sense to prefer usage of "Democratic-Republican. Again, this is with respect to how the party is referred to in the text of the article.
3. The title issue isn't so important to me. I'd suggest a posting on requested moves, and see what happens. Whatever happens, though, I think that the two above points should remain unchanged - "Republican" in this article and others about the early 19th century; "Democratic-Republican" for later references, and perhaps for lists encompassing all of American history.

Any thoughts? john k 23:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Frankly, this whole debate gets a little silly. But if you all are going to have this debate, I'd really recommend some real original documentation to take it to the right level. Citing encyclopedias, websites, and a bunch of dusty academics won't convince anyone. Best source I know of on-line is the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs collection[39], which has millions of lithographs and prints, many, many of them going back to this period. Campaign handbills and the like are good sources. The American Antiquarian Society probably has the most complete collection[40], but has to be accessed from a library that subscribes (or, with proper credentials, you can visit it in Worcester, MA, since it's just a great place anyways). Sam 00:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't mind seeing more of the 1828 and on period under the Democratic Party (can go in either in my view), but we may want to add a "see also", and I don't like the tag of "Last Years, 1816-1824" for two reasons: it seems funny to have a party sound like a lame duck at a time when it is as dominant as any other political party in the history of the country, and, arguably, they aren't the last years, since there is ongoing continuity into the Democratic Party. Just some thoughts.

I especially like the handling of Van Buren, however. One of the most underappreciated figures in our history. Sam 23:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no reason whatever to call the party D-R inside the article. Rjensen 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Sam 00:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I've given numerous reasons above why that term "Democratic Republican" ought to be used and the term Republican used only in reference to the original name and how they often referenced themselves. This is how it is usually done and it common practice. Further confusion is removed by doing so with the later Republican Party whose ties to the old Democratic Republican Party were with the National Republican element best represented by Clay and J.Q. Adams and originally by Calhoun who switched sides. Jackson represented a populist opposition to the Bank of the United States, a Jeffersonian notion of limited government, and organized the Jeffersonian elements of the Democratic Republican Party or coalition into the Democratic Party or Jacksonian Democrats. --Northmeister 00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Sam 00:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No it is NOT usually called D-R in recent history books; 80% of textbooks since 2000 reject that term. Students looking for help will be badly confused by an obsolescent name. The party NEVER gave itself an official name--the 1798 story is not mentioned in any standard history of the 1790s or the party. (It crops up in an unsigned Ency Brit article that is unsourced and written by some staff non-historian). Rjensen 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The textbooks are wrong historically as they seem to be these days on a number of items. But that is moot, what did the Party call itself, that is what is important. Further students need a clear definition of the modern Republican Party as opposed to the then Democratic Republican Party to clear up confusion that will result from your continued lack of accepting a common place term in American History to describe the party of Jefferson-Madison-and Monroe. --Northmeister 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No the textbooks are written by the best scholars and revised every couple years: they strongly reject D-R. (Only one uses the term). That is also the case with the major scholarly books and articles in recent years. GRIOT went to the library and found only 3 or 4 recent scholarly books that use the old D-R term. Millions of students are taught "Republican" or "Jeffersonian republican" nowadays. A great virtue of Wiki is that it is up-to-date. Let's keep it that way. !!!!

New is not right. Actual facts of history are more important. Are you rejecting the claim that the party accepted the term Democratic-Republican Party? I can go with Jeffersonian Republicans as a definition of the original party members until after the War of 1812 when the party embraced much of the Federalist policy on economic matters regarding tariffs, banking, etc. that Hamilton called for - then it is not proper to call them Jeffersonian Republicans. We are both right in a sense and arguing over nothing also in a sense. That is the Democratic-Republican Party was divided into two factions that came together only under the Era of Good Feeling after the War of 1812 and split into the National Republican and Jacksonian Democratic Party's of Adams and Jackson. The Jackson wing embraced traditional Jeffersonian principles whereas the Adam's or later Clay wing embraced the post-War of 1812 Era of Good Feeling principles. Thus the formation of two new party's that became the Democratic and Whig party's who contested one another in the 1840's-1850's timeframe. The Republican Party of 1850-1930's represented the old Whig-National Republican-Dem-Republican-Federalist tradition wheras the Democratic Party represented until 1932 the Jacksonian-Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans tradition - the roles are essentially reversed now. That is how confusing the situation will be for students. But, I am getting off point - Solution proposal: Let's keep the title header Democratic-Republican Party - indicate the roots of both modern party's therein in the two factions-refer to the party in its proper context of as they referenced themselves "The Republicans...." whereas in reference to the party overall "The Democratic-Republican Party nominanted..." in that context. --Northmeister 01:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re, the bold above: the act of historical revisionism that attempts to link the modern Republican party historically with the Republican party of Jefferson is unappealing to me, and one for which, frankly, there is simply no historical basis. Comforting for the libertarian side of the Republican party, perhaps, but historically inaccurate. If you wish to find a philisophical link, have at it, it will do the Republican good. But the Republican Party itself has a rather grand historical origin in the fight against slavery and the incredible compromisess made by the dominant political players. Why not embrace what is really there? Re: the proposal to treat Republican as a faction of Democratic-Republican, do you have any evidence (real evidence, not secondary) for the use of the names in this way in the period covered? Sam 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that 1798 supposed official act might convince me to care at some point - it's on the Democratic Party's website, too. Can anyone come up with a copy of the original document? Sam 00:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to get any original documents, I thought I'd show everyone the one thing I could find in the LOC Prints and Photographs collection clearly using the term Democratic Republican:

It's a bit late in the day, isn't it? Perhaps someone's trying to appeal to two traditions by this time. No sign anywhere of that 1798 usage - can someone point me to a primary source? Sam 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it certainly seems ironic to me that the one bit of documentary evidence for the name Democratic-Republican Party in an article about the Democratic-Republican Party uses the name some 16 years after it was supposedly gone. That's four full election cycles! Sam 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

1840 election--amazing! for a good discussion of the name issue after 1816 see the long excerpt near the top of this page by Gammon Rjensen 02:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just looking for someone to find a use of the phrase in an original document from 1792 or so through 1820 or so to give some basis for using D-R in the period. As to the 1840 use, I just think it goes to the overall fuziness of the transition to the Democratic Party. But I heartily recommend that database for this kind of thing. Sam 02:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term "Democratic-Republican" had an original contemporary use as a synonym for "Democrat" - it was used in this sense much more than it was ever used as a synonym for Jefferson's party... john k 17:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Morphh. I think it's important to mention that the Democratic-Republican Party is the precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party in the Democratic-Republican and Thomas Jefferson articles. The earlier party is the seed of the modern-day party. It's quite amazing if you think about it that a party Thomas Jefferson created in the 1790s is still alive today, albeit in a different form. If you say that Jefferson created the Democratic-Republican Party without also mentioning that this party is the precursor of a modern party, you don't convey how amazing Jefferson's work was. Griot 11:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I'll post it to the talk page as I think it should get some discussion. I do think it is important to mention in the D-R article but in the context of history and not in the first sentence. It was the precursor to the beginning of the modern party in 1830 as described in the article. Jefferson's amazing work was a precursor to many of today's parties. What is his work? Is it a name or a philosophy of U.S. government? What is a party but the ideas of political philosophy? Yes there is a direct link by name to the Democratic party but this is far from Jefferson's classical liberal philosophy. Putting this statement in the first sentence without the historical context gives the impression that the philosophy of the Democratic-Republican party is today's Democratic party. I consider the Libertarian party much closer to Jefferson's philosophy. I understand the direct link and put in context it makes perfect sense as does the development of other parties that have claimed Jefferson's principles. I just think it is unnecessary and gives the wrong impression in the first sentence. Morphh 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a currently longer version of this discussion at Talk:Thomas Jefferson#Democratic Party. I've been asked to bring my comments over here also, and have chosen to bring that portion that I consider best presented, with some minor copyediting primarily to fit it into this context. Both of the above discussers have seen this before, and responded over there, but I bring it here for the benefit of other eyes that might help resolve the discussion.

For at least each of the two major American political parties parties, there are some of the views of this party that they represent better than their opponent, and some that they represent a major difference of perspective on. This is all too complicated to address in the intro, and this article already addresses it in the "Modern claims to the party's heritage" section.

There is no party today that bases its policies primarily on either Jefferson's philosophy or on the views of this party. Discussion of how Jefferson's philosophy influences modern politics today is encyclopedic, and belongs somewhere. It may well merit an article of its own. My belief is that a NPOV version of that article could in its intro have to reference the official Democratic Party line but if it did must also in the intro say that this is contrary to the general consensus of historians. Not being a professional historian I could be wrong about the general consensus. However, my general knoweldge, plus articles like United States presidential election, 1828 that are the work of other editors, show the Democratic Party as either a new organization or at most a splinter organization at the time of Andrew Jackson's election to the presidency. Including the official Democratic party claim in intros is to my eyes unacceptable political advocacy, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. GRBerry 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This underestimates the degree of institutional continuity in 1828, and overestimates the degree of ideological continuity to be expected of a long-term political party. The British Conservative Party do not hold the same views as Disraeli, much less Castlereagh, (and there have been splinters and realignments); but they are the same party. Septentrionalis 20:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I kind of like the idea of thinking of the party forces that are led by the President as just a "splinter organization", especially when they already controlled the party machinery in most states (and, in cases like NY, actually created the party machinery!) as well as nationally. I do think there was quite a bit of year-to-year continuity throughout this time, even if the effect over a couple decades was radical change. Sam 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with either of these points. I agree. What I have a problem with is the placement and context. I believe the correct context and placement is presented in this article already in the history section. I have an issue with the first sentence as there is no historical context around the statement - "the precursor of the modern-day Democratic Party". I would remove this section and let the history describe it. A compromise would be to leave it but put the correct context around the statement. However, I believe this would be duplication. Morphh 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of a partisan Democrat in 2006, the most important thing may be the ancestry issue. But from the historical point of view the party is much more important as a vehicle for Jeffersonian ideas and polcies--for what it did and what it represented in the 1790s-1820s. So I tried to untangle the legacy issue some more--it is a tangled question to which McCormick 40 years ago devoted a whole book on the origins of the 2nd Party System. Rjensen 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson change to add this as its own sentence toward the end of the intro is acceptable to me. It contains just enough context to give credit to the relationship but show the history. Morphh 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Using Republican in this article as a header title is highly misleading. I've stated before, that I do not approve, and neither do scholars overall. I DO NOT accept a change without verifiable documented evidence, that such a change of history is necessary. Democratic-Republican has always been the name used in the United States, for this party by historians - regardless of anyones opinion. --Northmeister 03:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Further J.Q. Adams was a Democratic-Republican only until the party splintered in 1824 when he organized the National Republican Party and Jackson men became what would be the Democratic Party. --Northmeister 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The term most often used by scholars and historians for 50 years has been "Republican party." Second has been "Jeffersonian Republican"; in last place has been the D-R term. Fewer than 10% of current textbooks use D-R. All this is documented above in great detail--look also at the titles of the books in the bibliography. Rjensen 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again as on numerous occasions you are wrong. What current text-books use, as I mentioned before does not matter and is YOUR opinion. Democratic-Republican is what the party has been referred to in American History, and as standard usage for over one-hundred or more years. First, you reject legitimate sources who have published for leading magazines and newspapers, and for Simon and Shuster Press (especially an anthology) and now your rejecting the actual name of a party? What is your point of insisting wrongly that this party be called the Republican Party, when they accepted Democratic-Republican as official in 1798 as I have shown above. --Northmeister 04:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually looked at the websites of most of the current textbooks. See above for elaborate details, and also details on usage in current scholarly journals. It is NOT true that a majority of historians have ever preferred that D-R term. It has always been a minority and now is down to the 10% level. I argue Wiki should be current. Students who turn to this article after studying Washington and Jefferson will be totally baffled--9 of 10 will be mystified by this strange name. Rjensen 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with your analysis - where do you get this stuff? Wikipedia should be accurate and Democratic-Republican is an accurate description. As also shown above, Van Buren's party continued to use that name "officially" although together simply with "Democratic Party" during his election in 1836 against the Whigs who came from the National Republicans who also called themselves "Republicans". --Northmeister 04:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

read The Presidential Campaign of 1832. By Samuel Rhea Gammon Johns Hopkins Press. 1922. "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." That's solid evidence. What evidence can Northmeister cite???? Rjensen 04:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What did parties call themselves in 1830s? Here's the hard evidence state by state--it's fun to browse through. Note that "D-R" is used by Van Buren people in late 1830s. [41] Rjensen 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

proof: 1832: Jacksonian national convention: call themselves "Republican delegates". [42] Rjensen 04:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a checkable source by all:

• "DEMOCRATIC - REPUBLICAN PARTY, The (IN U. S. HISTORY), the political party whose theory has aimed at the increase of direct popular control over the government, the widening of the right of suffrage, the limitation of the powers of the federal government, and the conservation of the powers reserved to the state governments by the constitution. (See STATE RIGHTS, under STATE SOVEREIGNTY.) It is therefore a strict construction party (see CONSTRUCTION, I.) and has always operated as a check upon the nationalization of the United States. (But see CONSTRUCTION, III.) It at first (in 1792-3) took the name of the republican party, which more properly belongs to its present possessors (in 1881; see REPUBLICAN PARTY), and was generally known by that name until about 1828-30. Upon its absorption of the French or democratic faction, in 1793-6, it took the official title of the democratic-republican party, which it still claims. About 1828-30 its nationalizing portion having broken off and taken the name of "national republican" (see WHIG PARTY, I.), the particularist residue assumed the name of "democrats," which had been accepted since about 1810 as equivalent to "republicans," and by which they have since been known. Some little confusion, therefore, has always been occasioned by the similarity in name between the strict construction republican party of 1793 and the broad construction republican party of 1856." Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and the Political History of the United States by the Best American and European Writers,

- this source pretty much sums up my argument. Democratic-Republican was used with Democratic Party together (the party members called themselves both names) and National Republican was used then dropped to become Whig Party of Clay and Webster - to then become the Republican Party of Fremont and Lincoln.--Northmeister 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. See it adopted the name "Democratic-Republican" as early as 1793-6. I'm putting that in the article. Griot 04:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before this supposed business of the Republican Party "officially" taking the name "Democratic-Republican" goes into the article, we need to find something which is not a brief entry in a (19th century natch) encyclopedia that explains the context of this. Something is not a fact because it's repeated in a bunch of dubious sources (in different ways - note that the other sources which make this claim say 1798, while this one says 1793-1796.) Also notice that this source does say that the party was generally called the "Republicans." john k 09:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Both sides are using sources out of copyright, as most available. Rjensen's source is Harding-era historiography, so this is between the pot and the kettle. (And we are not supposed to determine "facts"; we are supposed to state what's out there. If Griot's claim has been refuted, the refutation should be findable - and included.) Septentrionalis 15:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A somewhat moroe recent historian (Monaghan: John Jay, p. 396) speaks of Freneau as a Democratic journalist, when writing about 1795. The only modern tendency against DR is the partisan tracts DLJessup lists far above. Septentrionalis 20:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Partisan tracts?? What in the world are you talking about? DLJessup listed a lot of popular history books, by well known historians. Which side is supposed to be writing the partisan tracts? How does it advance a partisan interest to refer to a political party by the name it was mostly known as at the time? Have you even bothered to read the whole page before commenting? There've been a ton of sources cited that use "Republican". john k 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of sources from 1792-1828 that use Republican; there are (perhaps somewhat fewer) tons of sources from that period that use Democratic. This is how they came up with Democratic-Republican in the first place. There are also modern historians who use all three. The partisan and tendentious ones will always use Republican or Democratic; the non-partisan ones tend (not always) to use Democratic-Republican, for the same reasons of disambiguation we should. Septentrionalis 23:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To be more specific: Federalists used the term "Democrats" (but never D-R), while Jeffersonians used "Republican" (and occasionally used "D-R"). There were very few "nonpartisan" sources. The D-R term did come in local use in some areas after about 1820, but was never official. The first important historian was Hildreth in 1840s, who was strongly pro-federalist. He used Republican about twice as often as he used Democratic, but he never used D-R. Sometime after Hildreth some historian started using the D-R term -- that must have happened in 1850-1880 time span (Lalor uses D-R in 1881) but I have not figured out which historian. Rjensen 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The books DLJessup listed are partisan tracts because you've already decided that any source which uses "Republican" exclusively is a partisan tract? That's a pretty clear instance begging the question, surely - you are "proving" that all sources that use "Republican" are partisan tracts, on the basis of the "fact" that only partisan tracts would use "Republican". That's a pretty textbook case. At any rate, as has been exhaustively demonstrated here, most historians now tend to use "Republican". This is not a matter of partisanship (most historians are not, in fact, trying to slyly claim Jefferson for the GOP, what with most historians being Democrats), but a matter of using the term which the party most often used to refer to itself, I imagine. At least, this is what you'll see if you look at the H-Net discussion Rjensen started on the subject (I think it's linked somewhere above). I think I'll ask again whether you've actually read the earlier discussions on this subject. There is simply no basis for the claim that 'Republican' is primarily used to score partisan points. (And if anyone in this discussion has clearly had a partisan axe to grind, it is Griot...) john k 00:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since johnk has confused when I am talking about the DR's and when about the moderns, I propose to call those writing about the Party during its existence contemporaries, and the moderns moderns (historians is not wholly accurate, and may have contributed to the confusion.)
• johnk's position about contemporary usage may be a tendency; as a rule, it appears to be simply wrong. Dumas Malone (III, p.121) says that there was a network of Democratic and Republican societies, so called; the oldest is the Democratic Club of Philadelphia, founded 1793. He also quotes Jefferson's correspondence on Washington's suppression of the "democratic societies". Ibid, p.189

My understanding is that in the early 1790s, "Democratic" and "Democratic-Republican" were often used, especially for the Democratic-republican societies, but that from the late 1790s on, the party was normally referred to as the Rpeublicans. The name "Democratic-Republican" was not a post hoc construct, and was used at the time, but it wasn't the main name. I've never read anything by an actual historian on the subject that contradicts this understanding. john k 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Malone also says (on the same page) that "democratic" and "republican" were becoming interchangable (c. 1794). If johnk wishes to argue that they became differentiated for a while after the crisis of 1798, he may well be right, but I really don't see it as particularly important. Septentrionalis 15:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• As for the moderns, johnk has misread me.
  • I dismiss Jessup's list as partisan tracts, because several of them are. William Bennett, for Heaven's sake?

Sure, William Bennett is. Most were not. It's ridiculous to dismiss his whole list as partisan tracts - of the authors I'm familiar with, none seem to be authors of partisan tracts other than Bennett. Even so, it's a stretch to claim that Bennett is engaging in partisan polemic. john k 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambrose does not write tracts, but I would certainly not call him non-partisan. Septentrionalis 15:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I did not say the usage of Republican is always partisan; it isn't.
  • But, however many historians are Democrats, Republicans write on history (Vandenburg, for an older example) without being historians - and their use is partisan. (Democrats dabble in history too; but less often on the 1790's.)

How can you demonstrate this? At any rate, considerable proof has been shown that the term is used frequently by real historians. john k 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Demonstrating who writes on the 1790's would be a job which I would only do for an article; and I don't propose to write American historiography this week. But this is my experience; which is worth mentioning on a talk page.
• I concur that all three terms (Democratic perhaps least often) are used by real historians. Septentrionalis 15:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Jensen is fully as partisan as Griot, and with less excuse. If you can find the link to his list, I will look at it. Septentrionalis 16:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jensen has provided actual evidence as to what textbooks do. All evidence which has been prevented is on this page, I think - it's never been archived. Griot has repeatedly cited incredibly dubious sources as "evidence" for his claim, and made completely insupportable assertions. He's also made wild accusations of partisan bias with no basis. (I'm a Democrat, for instance, and have no interest in letting the Republicans claim Jefferson on the basis that their parties had the same name.)

"Incredibly dubious sources" like the 25 textbooks I listed, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, or the Democratic Party iself, whose claims I think ought to be respected? I never said the Republican Party didn't take ideas from Jefferson. I only said there is no direct historical connection between the Democratic-Republicans and the modern Republican Party. The historical connection between the Demo-Repubs and the Democratic Party, by way of Jackson and others, is a historical fact. Griot 21:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of partisan bias, I think the basic issue is this. Sure, one can use it for partisan purposes. But there's a difference between bragging about being a member of the "Party of Lincoln" and saying that Lincoln was a Republican. Because Lincoln was a Republican. One shouldn't assume from this that he would agree with the present Republican Party, but it's a fact that they were members of the same party. I don't see how this is terribly different. Jefferson's party is normally (but not always) referred to as just the Republicans. This can be used for a silly partisan purpose, but there's no reason to suppress facts on this basis. john k 13:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

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 [43] for solid proof. Rjensen 05:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Jensen has no objection to nineteenth-century sources here.[44] 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)

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: [45].

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) (Didn't you find it curious that that particular database didn't have any earlier uses of the term?) Sam

I bolded a point in your post. All I'd like is an original document to support the point in your post I've bolded. If it was "official", was it incorporated - then there will likely, at the time, be a legislative act incorporating it (this is before state incorporation statutes, an invention of the Jacksonian era). If it was unincorporated, how about an official publication identifying it as such? Letterhead? Masthead of a party organ? A caucus or convention resolution? If you must, a statement in a period newspaper would be helpful (though less convincing, since that goes to use rather than "official" status). In my quick searches, I can't find anything to support party usage of D-R pre-Jacksonian era, other than the Democratic-Republican societies that were clearly separate. --On the other hand, I'd also like to see the same documentation for use of Republican. I see it in secondary sources, but an original document would help. Sam 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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"[46], lists comparing "Federalist" and "Republican" officeholders[47], letters from varying groups of republican citizens,[48], letters to Madison on party affairs ("I have a letter.... which supposes the republican vote of N. Carolina will be but a bare majority."),[49], 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[50], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

rank	Liberals (n=190)	Conservatives (N=50)
1	Lincoln	Lincoln
2	FD Roosevelt	Washington
3	Washington	FD Roosevelt
4	Jefferson	Jefferson
5	T Roosevelt	T Roosevelt
6	Wilson	Jackson
7	Jackson	Truman
8	Truman	Wilson
9	LB Johnson	Eisenhower
10	John Adams	John Adams
30	Coolidge	Carter
31	Pierce	Nixon
32	Buchanan	Pierce
33	An. Johnson	An. Johnson
34	Grant	Buchanan
35	Nixon	Grant
36	Harding	Harding

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't see how you can have it both ways; Republican AND Democratic Republican. "According to Federalist Noah Webster, the choice of the name "Republican" was "a powerful instrument in the process of making proselytes to the party.... The influence of names on the mass of mankind, was never more distinctly exhibited, than in the increase of the democratic party in the United States. The popularity of the denomination of the Republican Party, was more than a match for the popularity of Washington's character and services, and contributed to overthrow his administration.""

All the textbooks I've seen have termed this party "Republican". It's odd that some are choosing to use the artificial name that neither Jefferson nor Madison used. And the above quotes are derogatory in tone, instead of providing valuable information. It is clearly attempting to spin the success of Jefferson's and Madison's party on the name alone, based primarily on the sour-grapes opinion of one of their opposition. It should be struck. Skyemoor 01:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

As for the hyphenation, it's probably grammatical. "We are Democratic Republicans" [nouun], but "Democratic-Republican Party" [adjective].Septentrionalis 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have taught middle school US history. It is far more NPOV than anything I heard in history classes at university - although since I am a serious student of history, I also recognize how many ridiculous statements make it into school textbooks and require purging at some point.

Anyway, the point is that what passes for "common knowledge" on this subject is that the party is known to posterity as the Democrat-Republican party, even though it was commonly called the Republican party in its day. One of the reasons this name is chosen is that both of the modern day political parties in the US like to trace their roots to Thomas Jefferson, even though Jackson and Lincoln are the de facto founders of the modern day parties.

The Federalists have no real decendents in modern America. Their ideas, perceived as pro-monarchist and pro-class, were discredited, especially as a result of the Whisky Rebellion and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Much of what passes for acceptable political ideas in American politics was shaped by this debate. For example, the GOP might attack the Dems for being too statist, Washington centered, and tax-and-spend, while the Dems will accuse the GOP of being classist and overly pro-business (and might see something like the Patriot Act as being akin to the Sedition Act). Basically - as is wont ot happen in the revolutionary political climate that persists in the US to this day - Federalist ideas gradually became viewed as "un-American."

Really, Jefferson's victory in 1800 was instrumental in defining the ideals of a young democracy, and both modern parties construct and reconstruct their political ethos from the raw intellectual capital of Jefferson's philosophic victory over the Federalists. It forms the boundary of the debate (with apologies to those who extended it, such as TR, FDR, and LBJ). I suspect that the naming of Jefferson's party in the history books stems from a desire to reflect that reality - so important to understanding the rest of US history - which was viewed as more instructive than teaching the literal (but relatively pointless) fact of what name was actually used in the newspapers in the early 19th century. The fact that one of the modern parties is called "Republican" just bolsters the case, since it avoids confusion. In any case, 95% of the educated adults in the US know this party as the "DRP" - though whether an encyclopedia ought to refect this or the literal fact is very debatable.

But to say that the "DRP" is more the forerunner of the Democrats than the Republicans is misleading as well - Jacksonian democracy may seem closer to Jeffersonian democracy than to Lincoln's abolitionism, but then again, it was separated by fewer years. Certainly today the case is muddy. Republicans in pro-states-rights middle America seem to have inherited more of Jefferson's legacy than the urban ideals driving modern Democratic politics (though both sides seem to be steeped in competing forms of Lincoln's moral fervor).

In any case, I linked to this article from the Hamilton article, which refered to the "Republican party" (linked here) as well as to the "Republican party (linked to the GOP article) in the same paragraph. I was previously aware of the historical accuracy of calling Jefferson a "Republican" but nonetheless my first instict was to change it, since it is confusing and out of the norm. Sure, some ultramodern middle school texts have reverted to this - though not the one at my school six years ago - but ours also credited the Iroquois for inventing democracy. Just because history textbooks have changed something in the last 10 years doesn't make it more true - in fact, it makes me less likely to believe it, if anything, since there has been such a violent flurry of revisionism in school texts in recent years. I found it jarring that the text of that article referred to the Republican Party as the party of Jefferson and would have fixed it, except that I have no wish to get drawn into the flame war underway on THAT page.

In any event, if we are going to keep the name of the article as one thing, then the links to it should say the same thing. We are trying to create an encyclopedia, and on a point like this - where there is a pretty sound argument for doing it either way - the value of consistency probably is paramount. It is dodgy to grugingly agree to keep the old name, but then sneak around using the other name in all other articles, where the discussion is bifurcated. That is even worse - we leave the confusing text, AND link to an inaccurate name.

I suggest that - since it seems to have stuck - that we keep the name DRP as it is now, and explain the naming issue at the top of the article - then use Republican the rest of the way. That seems to be the status quo. BUT - the links from the other articles should say, in the text, "DRP," since that is the naming convention used in the title. Not everyone will be happy with this but it is consistent, and fully informative for anyone who reads the article. Cheers Kgdickey 02:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

it is NOT true that "95% of the educated adults in the US know this party as the "DRP" -- certainly not if they attended college--the great majority (90%) of history textbooks since 1980s do NOT use the DRP terminology. It's obsolescent because of the rise of the interest in republicanism in the last 30+ years due to Bailyn, Woods, Ellis, Morgan, and many others. Rjensen 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I attended university, beginning in 1989, and DRP was still in broad usage (which proves nothing, obviously). But I think that the section of the debate which is most convincing is the exchange between you and Griot, above. He cites 25 books, which you attack as being "not scholarly" and even point out that one is "for third graders." The group of books you respond with is very much made up of more modern and scholarly works, true, but they also are heavily revisionist, political, and all have a heavy POV. My argument here is not that you (speaking to Rjensen here) are wrong - you are not. My argument is that for the purposes of WP, books written for third graders are possibly better sources when trying to resolve POV or "common usage" arguments than modern scholarly works with titles such as "The Failure of the Founding Fathers." Brilliant as Ackerman's book is, it is not NPOV by any stretch, nor is it written for a lay audience who are trying to sort out details of which party was which.

But in the end I am not trying to have this debate with you - it has been beaten to death already and in the end, as a point of fact, I don't even disagree with you. The purpose of my post was to make two points - first, to muse about the reason that so many lay (or third grade if you will) sources use the term DRP - and point out that there were reasons behind it. It wasn't just bad research, but the name was more descriptive to a lay audience who was primarily studying the party in order to understand its historical context (as well as distinguish it from the GOP). Second, I was arguing for consistency, since it appears that a de facto compromise has been reached, let's apply it in other early US history articles as well. Can we do that? Remember, if you have a point of view, and use WP editing to tirelessly maintain the facts that back up your point of view, you are violating the spirit of the thing, even if you can argue that you are only debating facts, not opinion. On the other hand, the ability to accept a compromise that the vast majority of editors have forged is not only in the spirit of what it takes to create an encylopedia, but it also frees said editor to work on other articles, instead of being stuck on a treadmill on the handful of articles in which one's heels are dug in. Cheers. Kgdickey 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm going to stick with the compromise, but I don't like the title of the article. I've always known the party as the Democratic-Republican Party. How do we know that 90% of textbooks don't use D-RP? From what I've learned in school, the "Democratic Party" name comes from Andrew Jackson's peeling away from the D-RP. This was just a few concerns. --myselfalso 19:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

On what basis is it "undesirable and misleading"? Skyemoor 10:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
• Support per above. Sam 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 21:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sam has set the ball rolling (to quote a different party). It looks like the AfD will succeed, so we might as well set out positions. I would at least wait to contact WP:RM, or take any other action, until it passes, as looks likely.

The fundamental consideration here is that Republican Party and Republican Party (United States) are both unavailable for this article; arguments which tend to prove that it ought to be so named are therefore pointless. All the names that could be used instead have disadvantages; but Democratic-Republican Party has the fewest:

• It was actually used as a name for the party by some of its members;

How early and how many members? This was not the original name and is therefore misleading.

• It is a traditional solution to the problem among later historians (For a recent example, there is American Government by Karen O'Connor and Larry Sabato (1997));

Should we repeat errors? Does the sun revolve around the earth?

• It avoids the appearance of partisanship;

It seems to impose partisanship by name-grabbing revisionism.

What revisionism? DR's been in common use for at least 190 years; and is older. Septentrionalis 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• And it can be used in running text.

I don't see how this has any bearing on truthful reporting of encyclopedic information. Skyemoor 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republicans is shorter, and has the advantage of not claiming this body to be a party in the modern sense, so it would be my other choice. Septentrionalis 18:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the title that reflects the original party name. Skyemoor 23:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a vote;

Then why are you wasting your time?

• There was no "original party name"; they didn't have a founding convention.

That is not a prerequisite, especially at that time.

• I have seen no evidence of "Jeffersonian Republican Party" as used by the DRs; either Jeffersonian or Republican would be more defensible.

Republican is fine with most, except for those that insist on DR.

• • Since "Democratic-Republican" was occasionally used before 1816 (see above) it has a better, if slim, claim, even to that. Septentrionalis 05:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all.

1) "the term "Democratic-Republican party" was not used by anybody before 1816 or so.

2) Historians once did use the term. In the last 25 years they prefer "Republican Party" by a large majority (according to the titles of articles in JSTOR and books).(This is documented above, and note the titles in our bibliography)

3) D-R rarely appears in history textbooks since 1990; we actually did a check of all college textbooks (only one used D-R)

4) D-R DOES appear in come political science textbooks (like Sabato) The Welch politics textbook uses "Jeffersonian Republicans"

5) D-R DOES appear in older reference books, like the Ency Brit

6) D-R falsely suggests some sort of coalition, like the "Democratic Farmer Labor Party" which is the name of the D party in Minnesota.

7) The Federalists often ridiculed the republicans by calling them democrats. But I believe they never used the D-R terminology. (D-R does not show up in the online works of Hamilton, Adams or Ames, or in online Federalist newspapers.)

recommendation: "Jeffersonian Republican" is in current use, offends no one, and confuses fewer people. Rjensen 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Democratic-Republican" is also in current scholarly use.

You would need to show us that it is the majority position. Rjensen has done his homework to collect the evidence to support his position; you merely make pronouncements.

If DR is more commonly used by political scientists, and R is fashionable among historians, so what?

We are reporting history, not current political posturing.

We are not here to take sides in departmental squabbles. I don't see why Democratic-Republican Party is confusing to anyone, except those people like Nikpapag who would like to use "Democrat Party"; but if it makes it seem less like a fusion, I have no objection to Democratic Republicans Septentrionalis 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And I have no objection to Early Republican or Jeffersonian Republican.Skyemoor 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Democratic Republicans spent a long time denying that they were a party; so did the Federalists. They used various names for themselves and their friends, including "Jeffersonians", "Republicans", and "Democrats"; "Democratic-Republicans" is one of these.

The current OED, btw, accepts "Democratic Party", and defines it as Name of the political party originally called Anti-Federal and afterwards Democratic-Republican, initially favouring strict interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the powers of the general government and of individual States.. with citations from 1800 and 1812; their first citation of "Republican" is from 1806 and is clearly hostile: Benjamin Tallmadge saying "Our exclusive republican Brethren, those dear Lovers of the people." Septentrionalis 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is revisionist in the extreme: you've seen many references above to the party being called Republican, even with Noah Webster stating such most clearly. Skyemoor 00:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As revisionist as the National Endowment of the Humanities, the Britannica, Encarta and the OED (just quoted). Clearly, Skyemoor is a Lone Hero standing for Truth against a vast Revisionist Conspiracy, which dates back at least to the 1911 Britannica.

But, seriously, this claim of revisionism is sourceless and erroneous. The group in question had several names, all of which were used; the oldest may be "anti-Federalist", or "anti-monocrat". Works of general reference, when they have not asserted identity with the Democratic Party (which is a branch of the DRP), have tended to avoid both "Democrats" and "Republicans", both for non-partisanship and to avoid simple confusion. They have also restricted "anti-Federalist" to the opponents of ratification of the constitution, again, for convenience. Prudence, indeed, suggests that we should follow this example.

So Noah Webster, highly touted by some for his accuracy, is considered sourceless and erroneous when he referred to them as Republicans? Was this typical of a Federalist? Skyemoor 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Noah Webster was the highest of High Federalists; sufficiently so that his politics were a laughing-stock in his own time. If Skyemoor wants to find out what the DRs called themselves, Webster is the last place to look. I do however note the use of Republican by an opponent. Septentrionalis 22:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you don't trust Noah Webster to accurately reflect the extant party names, but you'll scrape the barrel to find secondary hearsay references that you will build the biggest part of your case on. Sorry, you can't throw out the evidence you don't like and keep the few you like. It may work in blogs, but an encyclopedia must be held to higher standards. Skyemoor 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that the DAE and OED are better dictionaries, in part because they have Webster as a substrate on which to found corrections. I didn't find Cumings; they did. Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Some historians, especially those who write only about the period and not about Jackson or Lincoln, have used Republicans; some (not as many) have used Democrats. Such historians can take for granted that they can avoid ambiguity; and they have usually been writing for an audience who already know the basics of American history. WP can assume neither. Septentrionalis 04:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

in recent decades over 80-90% of historians use either "Republican" or "Jeffersonian Republican," exceptions are rare. The journals, textbooks and monographs are the evidence. Why confuse our readers with obsolescent terms? (Calling it the "early Republican party" is even worse--better to call it the "early Democratic party"!!!) Rjensen 05:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Skyemoor's judgment is right; we should not endorse a recent innovation,

Don't put words in my mouth. I said 'original', not recent. Skyemoor 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

or name this article in a partisan fashion, or use an unhistoric term. That is revisionism. Can Rjensen provide any usage of the compound "Jeffersonian Republican" earlier than the OED's citation of 1838? Septentrionalis 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Early or Jeffersonian can be used as adjectives, not formal constructs of the party title to provide the disambiguation that some current Republicans seek to avoid confusion. Skyemoor 18:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And so can Democratic. Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Its use was so limited in this context that at best that term can be mentioned in a footnote. Skyemoor 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The contemporary situation was summarized thus: "There are two parties, which style themselves Federal republicans and Democratic republicans, but who speaking of each other leave out the word republican and call each other Federalists and Democrats". (DAE, citing Fortescue Cuming's Western Tour, 1810) For an example of this, see George Washington's letter of 30 September 1798, when he was feeling partisan in retirement. (I observe that the editors of Washington's diary use "Democratic", unmodified, without caution or explanation [51] Septentrionalis 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuming's Western Tour specific page link Settler 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This use is at best hearsay. One must give priority to primary citations when determining the actual use. Hence, what did Jefferson, Madison, et al say their party was called? Skyemoor 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:Wikilawyering; this is not a lawsuit,

Read it yourself. It refers to Wiki Policy, not article content. Skyemoor 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

and Cuming is primary evidence for what usage he himself heard. (And I doubt this would be hearsay, if it were.)

Please read HearsaySkyemoor 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Very well; make that "doubt this would be excluded as hearsay". Exclusion requires that the statement must be offered to prove the truth of what the statement asserts if anything. Cumings is not being "summoned" for the truth of any statement made to him about the DR's; he's providing evidence that he heard the words. Septentrionalis 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again,this use is at best hearsay, as Cummings is a secondary source. I never said to 'exclude' him as a reference, only that it has lower priority than a primary reference. Skyemoor 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson and Madison said several things; probably the most common was that "there is no party, and we would not belong to any", but also both "democratic" and "republican". They did not use "Jeffersonian Republican", or "early Republican"; I see no evidence they used "Jeffersonian" at all. Hezekiah Niles used "Jeffersonian", but not JR; he did not use it as a party name (he used Madisonian in the same sentence); and he was already using "Democratic-Republican". "Anti-federalist" probably is the oldest name for the connection; and Maclay so uses it; but I do not support that move. Septentrionalis 21:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson always used "republican" as did Madison. The Federalists called them "democrats" as a term of derision. The first examples of republicans calling themselves democrats comes out west (where there was no federalist party to heckle them), circa 1810. Noah Webster, by the way, was not a "high federalist"--he had quit politics by the time that term came in use and devited himself to speller and dictionary. It's hard to think of anyone as knowledgeable about word usage. Rjensen 23:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosh. Not only is Cuming speaking of established usage throughout the whole country p.71 (in 1807, btw);

Bosh yourself, that's not what he says. Read it again. Skyemoor 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Politics, throughout the whole of this country, seems to be the most irritable subject that can be imagined. There are two ruling or prevailing parties: one, which styles inself Federal, ...[desc. of Federalists omitted]...The opposite party is one which has since sprung up, and styles itself the Democratick republicans..." is not clear? Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

but he brings up the subject again on p. 85 because social life in Pittsburgh was was divided between the two parties, who argued continually. "No federalists to heckle them", indeed! Septentrionalis 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You avoided the point; he wasn't talking about the whole country, and you haven't taken his own bias into consideration. That's a critical problem with hearsay. Skyemoor 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated bias; and on p. 71 he is expressly talking about the whole country (and provides his readers an overview of American political history in general). Septentrionalis 17:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The context was "The Western Tour", and he said "the whole of this country" referring directly to the sparsely populated western portion of the US. If you would like to make some other case, we'd like to hear it. Skyemoor 12:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia online from Thomas Jefferson Collection Electronic Text Center, U of Virginia Library

1. A division, not very unequal, had taken place in the honest part of [Congress in 1791] between the parties styled republican and federal. The latter, being monarchists in principle, adhered to Hamilton of course, as their leader in that principle, and this mercenary phalanx, added to them, ensured him always a majority in both Houses; so that the whole action of the Legislature was now under the direction of the Treasury. Still the machine was not complete. The effect of the Funding system, and of the Assumption [of the State debts] , would be temporary. It would be lost with the loss of the individual members whom it had enriched, and some engine of influence more permanent must be contrived while these myrmidons were yet in place to carry it through all opposition. This engine was the Bank of the United States. TITLE: The Anas. DATE: 1818 (this was a memoir written years later)
2. An attempt has been made to give further extent to the influence of the Executive over the Legislature, by permitting the heads of departments to attend the House, and explain their measures vivâ voce. But it was negatived by a majority of 35 to 11, which gives us some hope of the increase of the republican vote. DATE: Nov. 1792
3. Hamilton is really a Colossus to the anti-republican party. DATE: 1795
4. I was in the habit (1798) of giving to others in distress, of the federal as well as the republican party, DATE: July. 1802
5. where I then (1798) presided as Vice-President. Remaining at our posts, and bidding defiance to the browbeatings and insults by which they endeavored to drive us off also, we kept the mass of republicans in phalanx together, until the Legislature could be brought up to the charge; and nothing on earth is more certain, than that if myself particularly, placed by my office of Vice-President at the head of the republicans, had given way and withdrawn from my post, the republicans throughout the Union would have given up in despair, and the cause would have been lost forever. ...
6. I owe infinite acknowledgments to the republican portion of my fellow citizens for the indulgence with which they have viewed my proceedings generally. — DATE: May. 1809
7. As to the patronage of the Republican Bank at Providence, I am decidedly in favor of making all the banks republican, by sharing deposits with them in proportion to the dispositions they show. If the law now forbids it, we should not permit another session of Congress to pass without amending it. It is material to the safety of republicanism to detach the mercantile interest from its enemies and incorporate them into the body of its friends. —DATE: July. 1803
8. I, as well as most other republicans who were in the way of doing it, contributed what I could afford to the support of the republican papers and printers, paid sums of money for The Bee, the Albany Register, &c., when they were staggering under the Sedition law; DATE: 1802
9. I suggested to some republican members of the delegation from his State, DATE: Jan. 1811
10. I observe old Cushing is dead. At length, then, we have a chance of getting a republican majority in the Supreme judiciary. —DATE: Sep. 1810 Rjensen 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And how exactly does all this justify a name like "Jeffersonian Republican", which Jefferson never used, and which did not exist until 1838, long after his death and tbe break-up of the Party? Septentrionalis 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson was too modest -- it's others who called the party Jeffersonian. But the "republican" term is very well anchored. (offhand I cannot think of any American party whose leader named it after himself... but it's common to talk about Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, LaFollette's Progressive Party, Wallace's party, or Perot's Reform Party. Rjensen 05:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• they referred to themselves as a republican party - but we cannot call them that now. They did not call themselves the Early Republican party either. They referred to themselves as republican much more than as democrat(ic). D-R looks like a coalition of 2 parties, which it was not. People are regularly confused by D-R. Jeffersonian Republican is descriptive & far less likely to be confused with anything else --JimWae 05:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  Would Democratic Republicans be less confusing? Septentrionalis 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

All the available choices have problems. The problems with Jeffersonian Republicans are

• They did not use it themselves
• It was not a single-person party; they were not all Jeffersonians. I have seen the phrase "Burr, the Jeffersonian Republican" in researching this; but I would prefer to avoid it here.
• The present party using the name is too small to be a real source of confusion, but it should be noted.

That being said, it may well be better than any Republican (xxx) form. I merely think that Democratic Republicans would be better still. Septentrionalis 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I merely think that early Republicans, Republicans (Jeffersonian), or Jeffersonian Republicans would be better still Skyemoor 21:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Republican Party (United States, 1792) sounds like an approach that can remove this roadblock, Democratic-Republican is clearly unworkable. Skyemoor 18:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

No reason to give the party a name it didn't originally have. That's revisionism. Skyemoor 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Settler, do you still support your suggestion of a name such as Republican Party (United States, 1792)? Skyemoor 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thomas Jefferson called his party "Republican." The parties didn't have conventions at that time, so Jefferson's writings provide the most offical definition of the party's name. I don't see why a name change would create any problem with ambiguities or references in other articles. Just redirect from "Democratic-Republican Party" to "Republican Party (Jeffersonian)" or "Republican Party (1792-1825)". Aside from the fact that it wasn't the actual name of the party, the phrase "Democratic-Republican Party" has confused many people into thinking that the Democrats and Republicans were factions of a Democratic-Republic Party that split and evolved into the modern Democratic and Republican parties. The Jeffersonian Republican Party split into the Whigs and the Jacksonians. There was no question of one faction being more democratic or republican than the other. Both groups were variously called "republican" and "democratic." It took the Jacksonians over ten years to settle on "Democratic Party" as their official name. The split was not ideological, but related strictly to opposition or support for Jackson, who was better known as a war hero than for any political view he held. The modern Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery group in 1854. In short, the idea of Democrats and Republicans as two opposed groups or parties didn't arise for more a generation after the original Republican Party had dissolved and the issues involved were not connected to the 1825 split.Kauffner 06:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Skyemoor 08:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a number of choices, all of them flawed. Any dates in the title are disputable and should be avoided; "Jeffersonian Republican" is a complete anachronism (and inaccurate), and should be avoided; use of a present party name is an unnecessary confusion.

Bosh. When is the truth an "unnecessary confusion"? Skyemoor 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The major flaws with the present name are the hyphen;

And the fact that it isn't the party's name until much later. Skyemoor 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

and that they did not organize as a party until after Jefferson's election (and they were using "Democratic Republicans" and "Democratic-Republican Party" widely and quasi-officially by 1811).

POV. You only have a limited number of organizations that called themselves that name at that time. Skyemoor 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Republicans is the least bad of a bad set of choices;

Your opinion, which does not make for WP content. Skyemoor 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

which is why no choice has become universal outside Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 18:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been shown how the majority of referenced textbooks use Republican. Skyemoor 19:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, we haven't. Even ignoring all of Griot's references, and taking Rjensen's statistics at face value, all they show is that a majority divide between "Republican" and "Jeffersonian Republican". They do so because both are weak choices: Republican invites confusion; Jeffersonian Republican is an inaccurate anachronism. Septentrionalis 20:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Too say Democratic-Republican would go against any usage of the terms used from the start. Republican solves that, and Republican (United States 1792) would resolve any confusion. Skyemoor 14:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

here's the critical letter of Jefferson from 1792: TO T. M. RANDOLPH, JR. PHILADELPHIA, November 16, 1792. An attempt has been made to give further extent to the influence of the Executive over the Legislature, by permitting the heads of departments to attend the House and explain their measures viva voce. But it was negatived by a majority of 35 to 11, which gives us some hope of the increase of the republican vote. (note:ie Republican vote in Congress) However, no trying question enables us yet to judge, nor indeed is there reason to expect from this Congress many instances of conversion, though some will probably have been effected by the expression of the public sentiment in the late election. For, as far as we have heard, the event has been generally in favor of republican, and against the aristocratical candidates. (note: Republican candidates in 1792 election) In this State the election has been triumphantly carried by the republicans; their antagonists having got but 2 out of 11 members, and the vote of this State can generally turn the balance. Freneau's paper is getting into Massachusetts, under the patronage of Hancock; and Samuel Adams, and Mr. Ames, the colossus of the monocrats and paper men, will either be left out or hard run. The people of that State are republican: but hitherto they have heard nothing but the hymns and lauds chanted by Fenno. (note: J stresses role of party newspapers). Rjensen 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's "my friends are republicans; your friends are aristocrats." Observe that he avoids both capitals and the word Party. Septentrionalis 21:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that TR sees an alignment in the Congress and in eelctions in different states. He calls his people republicans. Now let's track down the word "party". Rjensen 21:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I documented this a while ago in my files noted above in HTML and PDF form. From various sources I've read from, this is one of the first statements in relation to formation of a republican party. "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists, who, tho they dare not avow it, are still opposed to any general government: but being less so to a republican than a monarchical one, they naturally join those whom they think pursuing the lesser evil. Of all the mischiefs objected to the system of measures before mentioned, none is so afflicting, and fatal to every honest hope, as the corruption of the legislature. As it was the earliest of these measures, it became the instrument for producing the rest, & will be the instrument for producing in future a king, lords & commons, or whatever else those who direct it may chuse. Withdrawn such a distance from the eye of their constituents, and these so dispersed as to be inaccessible to public information, & particularly to that of the conduct of their own representatives, they will form the most corrupt government on earth, if the means of their corruption be not prevented. The only hope of safety hangs now on the numerous representation which is to come forward the ensuing year. Some of the new members will probably be either in principle or interest, with the present majority, but it is expected that the great mass will form an accession to the republican party." --Thomas Jefferson, May 23, 1792 Letter to George Washington

Jefferson all the way until his death in 1826 referred to the existence of the Republican party in Congress, and that there were Federalists and their new recruits that had hijacked the Republican name while enacting Federalism with the assistance of apostates from within their ranks. Settler 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In 1793 Jefferson and Washington talk about the "republican party" meaning the D-R party. p 394 Jefferson's Works

Jefferson Conference with President Washington August the 6th, 1793. regarding "what is called the republican party here," ...I could undertake to assure him [Washington], from my intimacy with that party in the late Congress, that there was not a view in the republican party as spread over the United States, which went to the frame of the Government.... He [Washington] said he believed the views of the republican party were perfectly pure, but when men put a machine into motion, it is impossible for them to stop it exactly where they would choose" So we have Washington and Jefferson discussing the "republican party" and using those words in 1793. Rjensen 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Note, however, that the phrasing clearly implies that Jefferson is intimate with the party, but is not a member of it. Septentrionalis 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit is a marked improvement. Thanks. Septentrionalis 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson was not a member of Congress (he was secretary of state) and so he was not a member of the party in congress. Madison was the head of the congressional party. Rjensen 22:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely; Jefferson is not speaking of a party in the modern sense of the word at all. Septentrionalis 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Madison on party 1792: James Madison Substance of a Conversation with the President, 5 May, 1792. Madison Papers (Congress ed vol 1, p.554)

"that with respect to the spirit of party that was taking place under the operations of the Government, I was sensible of its existence…that in one party note: Republicans—but no name used there might be a few who, retaining their original disaffection to the Government, might still wish to destroy it, but that they would lose their weight with their associates by betraying any such hostile purposes; that although it was pretty certain that the other note: Federalists, no name used were, in general, unfriendly to republican Government, and probably aimed at a gradual approximation of ours to a mixed monarchy, yet the public sentiment was so strongly opposed to their views, and so rapidly manifesting itself, that the party could not long be expected to retain a dangerous influence.... [as to successor to Washington:] With respect to Mr. Adams, his monarchical principles...with his late conduct on the representation bill, had produced such a settled dislike among republicans every where, and particularly in the Southern States, that he seemed to be out of the question. Rjensen 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"while most political science textbooks prefer Democratic Republican." I didn't see the evidence for this claim, who did the research? Skyemoor 10:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I found that by looking at the pol sci textbook websites, and the AP Government website. Specifically:

1. American Government: Continuity and Change, 2006 Election Update (Hardcover):8/e 2007 | Longman | Cloth; 832 pp ISBN-10: 0321434625 | ISBN-13: 9780321434623 Karen O'Connor Larry Sabato
2. Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, Brief Edition:8/e 2006 | Longman | Paper; ISBN-10: 0321318137 | ISBN-13: 9780321318138 George Edwards Martin Wattenberg Robert Lineberry

http://wps.ablongman.com/long_edwards_gab_8/0,10654,2189791-,00.html

1. Tannahill American Government: Politics and Policy 8th Edition Companion Website. http://wps.ablongman.com/long_tannahill_ag_8/0,10611,2145317-,00.html
2. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics 5th edition by Benjamin Ginsberg, Theodore J. Lowi, and Margaret Weir pp 337-43
3. Challenge of Democracy Seventh Edition ch 8 Kenneth Janda, Northwestern University Jeffrey M. Berry, Tufts University Jerry Goldman, Northwestern University. Rjensen 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these, but how does this small subset translate into "most"? Skyemoor 11:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at some others indirectly using their test banks. Please go ahead and look at other textbooks and tell us what you find! Note that the AP Government test uses D-R terminology, and has over 100,000 students a year. Rjensen 11:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

The view that Athenian government was a form of anarchy was general during the time period considered here (i.e. pre-George Grote) and not particular to William Mitford. If you want to single out one historian, Edward Gibbon was more widely read and influential than Mitford. It's a view that can be traced back to Thucydides, who was first translated into English by Thomas Hobbes in 1628.(This is my source. [Subscription required.]) It is striking ironic that the Federalists used the word "democracy" in a derogatory way. They would have had first-hand experience with New England town meetings, whose structure was very similar to that of the Athenian government.Kauffner 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The visible portion of this quotes Gibbon's private letters of 1791, which are unlikely to have been influential on the Washington administration (and which are presumably part of the Burke controversy). Is there more in the subscription text? I do not recall anything from Decline and Fall but a passing mention of the Thirty Tyrants, who were not democrats. Septentrionalis 16:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Found the full text; Gibbon is only a peg to hang this on; while I have no doubt that Cartledge is right in estimating what Gibbon's estimate of democracy was, there is no evidence that this was visible in the Decline and Fall. The actual article text skips from John Gillies to Mitford to Lord Byron.

Cartledge's point is that the eighteenth century abhorred, and the Federalist deplored, direct democracy. link to text. This is true, and should be clear in our article. Kauffner is right that this is odd among New Englanders; but they may have seen New England as successfully managed democracy. Septentrionalis 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the word "democracy" ever implied direct democracy only, much less a hostility to the idea of representation. The meaning of the Greek root is identical to the meaning Latin root that the word "republic" is derived from. In ancient Greece, Thebes was a representative democracy. (The Theban federation was arguably more democractic than the Delian League run by Athens, since the citizens of federated cities could also vote for central government representatives).

Jefferson drew up a detailed proposal to create town meeting system in Virginia, so he obviously didn't see direct democracy as incompatable with republicanism. Representives were necessary when the geographic unit was too large for citizens to discuss the issues face-to-face. Representive vs. direct democracy is a thus a technical issue, not an ideological one. Historically, the Athenian government has been much condemned for executing Socrates and because it lost to Sparta in the Peloponesian War, so there were other issues involved besides the representative vs direct issue.Kauffner 09:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson supported direct democracy, but Jefferson was -er- very much opposed by the gentlemen of whom you speak. I believe the use of Socrates in political discussion dates from Mill, but I am open to correction. What Cartledge, a quite reputable classical historian, says on the subject is:

It was a like aversion that motivated the American Founding Fathers when they consciously repudiated the ancient Greek model of democracy for their fledgling federal republic (see Barry Strauss' article in this issue). 'When the deliberative or judicial powers are vested wholly or partly in the collective body of the people', wrote Alexander Hamilton, 'you must expect error, confusion and instability'. What was required, rather, was 'representative' democracy; that is, government for, but neither of, nor by, the people, 'where the right of election is well secured and regulated, and the exercise of the legislative executive and judicial authorities is vested in select persons'. This form of democracy, as Jeremy Bentham hastened to emphasise on this side of the Atlantic, was the antithesis of the ancients' direct democracy.

He is plausible, and I think consensus, on the Federalist; both Hamilton and Madison, as I read it. Septentrionalis 15:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In principle, Republican Rome was a direct democracy as well. Popular assemblies wrote the law, subject to to the "advice" of a Senate made up of former elected officials. I still think the republic vs democracy issue is separate from the representative vs direct issue. Given 18th century technology, you could not create a direct democracy for an area as large as the U.S. Hamilton was just making a virtue out of necessity.Kauffner 11:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken, or at least misleading. I would certainly not say any of the several concilia and comitiae "wrote the law"; they could enact or refuse proposals by magistrates, but did not amend. At Athens, quite clearly, one did not need to hold office to propose legislation, and the Assembly did amend. And I would require a very good source to dismiss the Federalist's arguments that representative democracy gave office to the better citizens as making a virtue of necessity. Septentrionalis 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rome had 10 tribunes elected annually by the Popular (plebian) Assembly and any one of them could introduce legislation. No meeting of large group can get work done if just anyone can propose anything or without preparation by a leadership group. In Athens, there was a representative legislature called the Council of Five Hundred which set the agenda for the Eklesia (popular assembly).Kauffner 13:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all legislation was prepared by the Boule; for example, the second Mytilene Decree was not. Septentrionalis 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then the term "Democratic-Republican Party" should not be used. Skyemoor 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreed. So I made a simple change up front that is addressed in the Party Name ection. Skyemoor 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is better than Republican Party; it is at least a name found in the DR correspondence. I have now read through Cunningham 1957, and almost all his quotations (all, of course, by March 1801) have some form of republican (never, however, Republican Party, so capped). Rjensen and I have gone into this at some length. There is also an issue of technical accuracy: "Republican party" was not the earliest, the "original name", even assuming that means anything for an informal league, not a body corporate.

In this form, Skyemoor's hobby horse is merely unnecessary and pointless repetition, not active misrepresentation; I wish to acknowledge the improvement. Septentrionalis 23:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"merely unnecessary and pointless repetition" is a sword that cuts both ways. I have no axe to grind; some seem uncomfortable with a name that was reused by a later party. I'm strictly an independent personally. Skyemoor 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why are you grinding it? An inaccurate and confusing statement is undesirable on both grounds. Septentrionalis 00:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely the reason I'm correcting your POV insertions. Skyemoor 11:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

their early partisans formed democratic societies is both Cunningham's fact and Cunningham's phrasing; not close enough to be a copyvio, but partisans and democratic societies are both his; early is not, but he has room to make clear he is discussing 1792-4. Removal of sourced references approaches vandalism; the source here is pp. 63-6 of the work cited. 17:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The importance of this is not clear; we are talking about parties and you are referring to societies. Provide support for the widespread use of Democratic-Republican from the start or quit harrassing this group. Skyemoor 17:03, 20 October 2006 )

I'm not harrassing the group; I'm joining Bkonrad in reverting unsourced, inaccurate and partisan edits by a POV-pusher who has presented no evidence or sources.

I've supplied many references which obviously annoy you as you remove them. Don't then complain that there are no references.

(The ones you borrowed from Jensen show Jefferson and Madison writing about other people.)

(!) They show clearly that they were referring to the Republican party. How much clearer proof do you need than primary sources from the party cofounders?? Skyemoor 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Do try reading Cunningham's book; or indeed try citing the talk page for what it actually says.

Do try looking at the dozens of other books, instead of hanging your hat on one source from the 1950s. And look at the historians and contemporary history textbooks, instead of children's books, as you've provided in the past.

Then again, an editor who makes a citation request for information fully sourced in the footnote at the end of the sentence, as here, is not editing with full seriousness. But this is an editor so partisan that he objects to the presence of Democratic-Republican Societies in a masked link. Septentrionalis 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The partisan here is the one who refuses to recognize the use of Republican party by both Jefferson and Madison, and who also cannot provide a source for the use of DR party affiliation before 1803. I'm an independent, btw, so whatever your political predilections are, they should be left out of WP. Skyemoor 18:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This ridiculous back and forth with the name has now brought on an anonymous user who is doctoring direct quotations and screwing up all the party names. (sigh) Settler 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolved over time is perfectly acceptable. I don't see it making much difference in force; but if Skyemoor does, some reader will. So I will defend it. Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I fully consent to having the DR uses in text and the Federalist ones in a footnote. Septentrionalis 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

What is that supposed to mean? older ≠ wiser 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

"The Democratic-Republican Party was one of the political parties that dominated U.S. political life during the First Party System, from the 1790s to the 1820s. The party was originally called the Republican Party, but the name evolved over time, and the party was known as Democratic-Republican Party by 1815."

This pretty much sums up the situation, though one could say "republican party" or "Republican party" instead. It is concise and does not leave the reader with ambiguity about how it evolved. Skyemoor 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with this is that that ("Republican Party", however capitalized, and with or without the party), was not the only name for that group in the formative stages.

What other names did Jefferson and Madison call it? Are you referring to what the Federalists called it? If so, then we need to re-examine the name of the Federalists to add monarchists, aristocrats, monocrats, and Anglomany, as those were labels (among others) attributed to them. Skyemoor 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no organizational convention in which the guys got together and decided "hey, let's form a political party and call ourselves the 'Republican Party'". I think any phrasing stating "the original name was" or that it was "originally called" is inherently problematic and inaccurate. older ≠ wiser 01:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If that is truly the case, then one must eliminate the reference to any point in time that such a group had not had an organizational convention. When was the first organizational convention for the Democratic-Republican party? Then we need to start the article at that point, and start another article about the early Jefferson/Madison movement. This may be the only compromise to the arguments of the Federalists here. Skyemoor 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

it never had, or needed, any organizational convention; its greatest level of formal organization was the Congressional caucus, and the quote from Gallatin should make clear how little that usually amounted to. Septentrionalis 19:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

So then, using your logic as espoused here and at the James Madison article, we would need to change the eventual name to "Democratic-Republican" party. Yet I doubt not that you would resist the application of your rules to your POV labels. Skyemoor 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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.^[1]" 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)

Fair enough. Septentrionalis 19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• The reference does not support a Democratic party national label during Madison's term as President.
  • The letter refers to "friends of the present administration", supporters of a particular Congressional candidate, (I forget who) as Democrats.

Unsupported - Does not refer to the name of the national party

• • It is dated August 11,1812 - not only in Madison's term of office, but before his re-election.
  • It is the first of several such instances in that volume of Madison's papers.

We would need to evaluate each on its own merits

• • Abolishing is removal of a sourced fact, which is deprecated.
• I moved the unsupported sentence and reference to this page, which is acceptable.
  • I am uncertain whether to regard Skyemoor's claim as OR, confusion, or something more deprecable; I await an explanation. Septentrionalis 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this clears up your confusion. Skyemoor 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• rvt vandalism of names in this section)
  • This changes Democratic-Republican back to Republican from an anon edit. Neither is vandalism; both are partisan; and I will leave whichever is easier, in repairing Skyemoor's other mischief.

You use the word vandalism much more loosely than I, and your mischief is more pervasive. Skyemoor 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• rmv unfounded POV statements, correct chronology, refer to names republicans called federalists
• This is largely a collection of Skyemoor's own POV statements; variegated by a flat chronological error.

And we are to assume all of your statements are NPOV? And you prefer to mix up the chronology so that it is not 'flat'?

• • due to the many name changes, history textbooks seek to reduce confustion by sometimes referring to this party as the Jeffersonian Republican Party, and its members as "Jeffersonians."
    • As a generalization, this is unsupported by the evidence. JR is rare, in part because it is an anachronism; the OED's first citation is from 1838, and does not capitalize "republicanism"; it was introduced as a clarification in 1888.

Note the use of the word "sometimes". This use is backed up by references, so your complaint is specious.

• • Federalist" and "Republican" were common words in the 1790s,
    • No, they were positive, that is what Cunningham (and Dahl) say, and why they were used.
  • the Virginia Federalists capitalized on the more popular name by calling themselves the "American Republican Ticket" in 1800
    • Unsourced, and if Skyemoor had consulted the source he would have found that republican was more popular in Virginia. Pointlessly misleading.

Re-read the sentence and you'll see that I was referring to 'republican' being more popular.

• • Equally, the republicans called Federalists "aristocrats", "monarchists", and "monarcrats", decrying Hamilton's (prior) openly professed adoration of Britain and the British governing structure.
    • Irrelevant here (and partisan:

This was an action by the party, so it makes perfect sense to mention it where similar actions are discussed by the opposing part. Partisan? I suppose if one were a federalist they might think so...

• • • Even Hamilton's deplorable speech at the Convention did not amount to "adoration")

adoration. (n.d.). n.

  1. The act of worship.
  2. Profound love or regard.

Hamilton clearly expressed profound regard for Britain and the British governing structure. Unless you choose to disagree....? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved October 29, 2006, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adoration

I'm glad to see Skyemoor has learned to cut and paste from a dictionary; it arouses hope that he may eventually recognize that even the metaphorical use of "adoration" is excessive here. Septentrionalis 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The national party gradually assumed this name, until it split into Democrat and Republican in the 1920s.
    • I trust 1920's is a typo; although the change is the only warrant for the uncivil sneer about chronology in the edit summary.

The 9 should have been an 8. As to the sneer, physician heal thyself.

• • • More seriously, calling the National Republicans Republicans is an error, more confusing and less forgivable than calling the subject of this article Republicans: it is neither contemporary nor retrospective usage.

Odd, then you strenuously disagree with Madison and many others of the time period, but that's nothing new.

• • • Most seriously, the suggestion that the DR's split into two parties is nonsense; it forgets the Crawford men and (insofar as they differ) the Calhoun men.

Feel free to add more splinters.

• • Some members of the Party even referred to themselves as "Democrats" by 1812.
    • This is actually useful phrasing, the only improvement here, and I shall retain it. Septentrionalis 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The national party gradually assumed this name, until it split into Democrat and Republican in the 1920s.

Um, what the heck? That is not correct at all. I'm going to have to change it. (n/m got there before I did.) If you want to indulge yourselves in some original research into party nomenclature, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better source here than anywhere else on the English language web (scroll down). Yeah, I'm tooting my own horn here. Settler 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the 9 should be an 8, and see similar discussion above.

And kudos on the sources; you've clearly pulled together a considerable amount pertinent documentation. Thanks Skyemoor 03:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And the discussion of party name is now, I think, finally all in one section. It needs consolidation there; but that may be less urgent. Septentrionalis 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• "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)
    • Dahl notes Madison's idiosyncratic distinction in the Federalist; I don't think it would add anything here, but feel free to include it. Septentrionalis 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• They themselves used the name much less often, if at all, during the troubles with France from 1794 to 1800.
  • Unsupported, and presumes a usage that has not been established. Skyemoor 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read Dahl and Malone, as cited. Septentrionalis 21:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You would need to define 'They' first. Skyemoor 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. Skyemoor 11:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Skyemoor should remember that WP:MOS is a {{guideline}}; 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)

If this continues, I will mark and defends tags guarding against these misrepresentations. Septentrionalis 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In order to effectively use [online article], one must first register at at http://journals.cambridge.org . I too thought the link was broken on first try.

"The Republican Party, founded by Jefferson and Madison, was swiftly renamed the Democratic Republican Party and its successor, in 1828, the Democratic Party." Settler, which part of Dahl's quote do you take exception to? He doesn't give a timeframe for the transformation from Republican to Democratic-Republican, so "swiftly" is therefore relative and ambiguous. Skyemoor 11:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For one, it's obvious that he just copied and pasted from any random encyclopedia. Reality was quite different; there was no universal adoption of any single one name throughout the Union during the time period of 1792-1840 or so, though Republican came the closest to a preeminent name. Our article here is quite pedantic in about every facet; his statement is misleading. It's probably enough for 4th-grade history text books for social studies class or something, but our article is more detailed than anything they'd read. Settler 12:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful, see Robert A. Dahl Septentrionalis 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's demonstrably misleading, regardless of any of his credentials. Settler 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That half-sentence? Yes, and I've removed it before now. Septentrionalis 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we take it that, in your opinion, this reference can be construed to be inferior on the whole? If so, I'll not use it in the future. Skyemoor 13:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Dahl quote--half a sentence, unfootnoted and vague on dates--is poor quality. Let's please not use it. Rjensen 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I was referring to the article itself.

The article is far more detailed, and complex than that half-sentence, which is from its intro, if I recall correctly. Septentrionalis 13:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence quoted seems misleading. The party wasn't "swifty renamed" Democratic Republicans. There was usage of both names, with "Democratic Republicans" gradually coming into more use, possibly. The idea that "Demcoratic Republican" was changed into "Democratic Party" in 1828 seems clearly wrong - as far as I understand it, the party name Jackson ran over in 1828 was by a wide margin most commonly called "Democratic Republican," and the two names were both commonly used in 1832 and 1836. Let's avoid sentences that are actively misleading. john k 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pmanderson|Septentrionalis had agreed to the wording of the first sentence (he wrote it himself) then choose to simultaneously counter the usage of Jefferson, Madison, historians, history textbooks, and WP:MOS by removing "Party" and bolding of the alternate names, hoping to swing world opinion instantly in his direction. Fortunately, he does not have control over the world's libraries and the internet, so the evidence against his position remains as strong as ever. Skyemoor 11:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit, which bolds "Republican Party" and leaves the other alternate names unbolded, is unacceptable partisanship. "Republican Party" is unsourced to begin with.

Well over a dozen sources have been provided, you are simply ignoring anything outside of your opinion.

Please recapitulate; I see nothing on this page, aside from the (convenient but anachronistic) modern usage, which supports Republican Party (so capped). Septentrionalis 16:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If the contemporary historians and modern history textbooks referenced are convenient but anachronistic", so be it. People will come looking for the Republican Party that their history books stated Jefferson and Madison started, and it makes perfect encyclopedic sense to help them understand up front that they are at the right place. Skyemoor 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the question of bolding the alternate names at all, I find the italics far less jarring; but if a third party thinks they should be bolded, I will go along. Septentrionalis 13:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide, it's already in WP:MOS, whether you approve of the manual or not. Plus, [[52]] just recently bolded them as well. And I'm surprised to see that you stooped to editing the section heading above; I've restored it and will continue to do so. It seems you are having issues with Wikipedia:Civility. Skyemoor 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NB:Because you spammed him. here. I'm whelmed. Septentrionalis 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like cabals, then don't start them yourself. I learned the 'spamming' from you. Skyemoor 01:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also curious what POV I am supposed to be promoting. I know what view bolding Republican Party alone or in preference to the other alternatives tends to promote. Septentrionalis 18:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you should ask: you've been denigrating my input as partisan for so long, and stressing the words "Democrat" and "Democratic" so fiercely that I've come to assume you have a partisan bent yourself. I'm completely independent, and will fight to ensure that WP entries are free from partisan propaganda, subtle or otherwise. Skyemoor 18:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Try harder. My position has always been that these are the Democratic Republicans;

Didn't exist in the 1790s unless you are referring the Societies, which is another article altogether. Even after the 1790s, Madison, Jefferson, and others at the national level continued to use 'Republicans' and 'republicans'. Consistently. Skyemoor 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

And this article covers the DR at least through 1829; by which time DR was the predominant usage. Septentrionalis 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

and effort should be taken to avoid confusing them with the present Republicans.

History textbooks now say 'Republicans', so it is now you who are confusing the matter. Skyemoor 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some history textbooks; political science books say DRP. Septentrionalis 16:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Until I saw how well Settler sourced the usage, I was content to leave out Democrats altogether. Septentrionalis 18:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to want to put your words in other's mouths quite frequently. Skyemoor 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)