Talk:Democratic-Republican Party

This was not a left wing party.

Why is the democratic republican party left wing? They are nothing like modern democrats. For one, they supported slavery, which is something dems don't. They also did not support big government. To me the Jefferson party was closer to modern libertarianism than progressivism. 76.137.118.7 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Federalist Party supported slavery, and nobody in that Party is notable for having opposed it. Conversely, Jefferson, while in the Virginia legislature, introduced a bill to outlaw slavery. His Vice President, Aaron Burr, did the same during his tenure in the New York legislature. Burr also introduced a bill to bar the government from discriminating based on racial background in any official capacity. He was also an outspoken proponent of the equality of women. I would dare you to find a more left-wing founding father than Aaron Burr, who for all intents and purposes invented the institution that is the Democratic Party as we know it today (and, his then New York based faction is what began calling it the Democratic Party as opposed to the Republican Party). SecASB (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" originated from the French Revolution. Supporters of the Revolution sat on the left. Opponents sat on the right. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French Revolution. By the most literal of definitions, they were left-wing. The rest of your statements are dubious, but this is really the only thing that bares saying on the topic. --2601:19C:4480:DF90:95DD:C1CA:6929:CE37 (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Political spectrum

The hidden comment at the very top of the page says to not add a political spectrum. However, there is a "center-left to left-wing" spectrum in the infobox. One of these should be removed, but I don't know which one. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 23:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

IIRC the comment was added this year, and the guy who added it was dragged to ANI over it. Regardless, the sourcing is marginal (one source is a consultant and professor of "instructional leadership"), and it's misleading to have in the infobox, since we know that 60% of mobile readers read no more than the infobox and lead, and won't see this information contextualized. Readers will wrongly interpret this in the context of the modern politics they're familiar with. It promotes assimilation over accommodation (Piaget), which an encyclopedia should avoid. DFlhb (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think all evidence shows that the Party in question (the Republicans, or the Democrats — as the New York faction under Burr, and Western elements of the Party under his younger allies like Jackson, increasingly called it) was the left-wing party in this particular Party Era.

First, the Federalist were more right-wing economically. Particularly under the policies promoted by Hamilton, they used the government to support the interests of wealthy elites such as bankers. Burr's whole gambit in creating the Manhattan Company, other than ostensibly providing clean drinking water to the seminal tenements in New York, was to undermine the Federalist-dominated banking clique of New York. They used the banking powers the charter granted, which they intentionally snuck through the legislative approval process, to give loans to renters for the purpose of collectively buying small parcels of land outside of the city where land was cheap — so they'd technically be landowners, so they could technically vote (for Burr's slate). Many of the then Federalist in New York at that time were former right-wing monarchists who were rallying under Schuyler, as the previous (pre-"anti-federalist") political identification of "violent Whigs" who Burr sided with had wanted to disenfranchise them for their treason during the revolution.

Second, the Federalist were more right-wing socially. While Jefferson and Burr both introduced bills to eliminate slavery in their respective state legislatures, their opponent Hamilton was a leader in the New York Manumission Society, which stated that slaves were still inherently property and therefore couldn't be freed except by voluntary action by the slaveholders. We see no efforts by prominent Federalist to eliminate slavery. Similarly, Burr being integral to the faction of the Party that eventually emerged victorious, we see that he was pro-immigrant, a proto-feminist who promoted womens' rights, and someone who sponsored bills to promote legal equality regardless of race.

I'd love to expand on any aspect of why the left-right understanding of politics absolutely does apply in this era, but I'll leave it at this for now and encourage debate. SecASB (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Infobox title

The title at the top of infoboxes usually contain the official name of whatever organization the infobox is about [ex: Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish Inquisition)], so I think at the top of the infobox it should say Republican Party, as that was the name the party actually used. MattiasLikesOxygen (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's possibly confusing to use the term Democratic Republican Party, as that was almost never used in actual history, other than in a few documented cases of local political clubs writing to Jefferson and congratulating him on his election. In this, we see that the Party was already at that time quickly shifting from describing itself as "Republican" to "Democratic." There are other cases still of local Party clubs that only call themselves "Democratic." And while the somewhat dominant Jeffersonian wing of the Party still preferred "Republican" at that time, the Burr faction (which started in New York, but fostered the Western adherents that would culminate in the election of Jackson) quickly adopted the title of "Democratic," and the end of the 'Era of Good Feelings' conceals a split in the Party that ended with the "Democratic" faction being eventually ascendant. SecASB (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren has an RfC

Martin Van Buren has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Why was the political position removed?

The political position (which used to say Left-wing) was removed from infobox and I don't know why. not that is needed, but it was perfectly fine to be there, tho Social Liberalism is considered centre to centre-left nowadays and Republicanism is "apolitical", for the time of the political party the description of left-wing is perfectly accurate. 179.125.243.167 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Due to the insistence of GlowstoneUnknown to remove it. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, GlowstoneUnknown is just plain wrong. You absolutely can obviously tell that this Party was the left-wing one just based on their attitude regarding the French Revolution versus what the Federalist thought of it, but also on any and every other issue prominent at the time — even with a rather modern lense. They might be overly reductive and think that the anti-federalist heritage of the Party in this timeframe is the same ideological nucleus as the "states rights" argument of the 1860s, but they would be very wrong about that. It's notable that the only reason Lincoln got elected is because the majority of the Democratic Party Convention Delegates in 1860 adopted anti-slavery platform planks at the 1860 Convention, so the southern delegates walked out and formed their own Party to nominate their own pro-slavery Presidential candidate, splitting the vote. SecASB (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Political position

Why do you define the Democratic-Republican Party as center-left? there isn’t any source for it. דולב חולב (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

They supported the French Revolution. The terms left and right originated in the French Revolution, supporters of the Revolution were left-wing, opponents of it were right-wing. Therefore they were by definition a left-wing party. Also, see above, this has been discussed to death. --2601:18A:817D:9320:7876:6587:EA32:76BF (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Larson, Edward J. (2007). A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign. Simon and Schuster. p. 21. ISBN 9780743293174. "The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others." - There's a source that used to be on the page before people just removed it for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:817D:9320:7876:6587:EA32:76BF (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

GlowStoneUnknown

At what point does repeatedly and unilaterally removing cited information for no apparent reason consitute vandalism?

@GlowstoneUnknown 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a reason, as stated in the edit summaries, that label is original research. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The cited source doesn't describe the party as "centre-left to left-wing", the only mention of the political left in the source is the phrase "the democratic wing of the republican party on the left[...]", which doesn't directly support the inclusion of either "center-left" or "left-wing" as a position for the party. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

1) That is an extremely bad faith reading of what is being said. By painting the Federalists as having right wing factions and the Democratic Republicans as having left wing factions the suggestion is explicitly that the Democratic Republicans were a left wing party.

2) This party supported the French Revolution. They were by definition left wing and suggestions otherwise are anachronistic.

3) You repeatedly removed the information, source or not, without responding or engaging with the talk page. I can also see in the history you removed a different source because it "only said Jefferson was left wing". Ok, so now we have published historians saying both the party founder/leader and factions within the party were left wing as well as basic historic knowledge...against your "nah dude trust me some chunk of them were somehow not left wing so that invalidates everything else and i'm going to repeatedly remove it without once engaging on the talk page." 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I saw that the label was added without consensus and, at the very least, the talk page questioned part of the label (the inclusion of "center-left"), so I removed it. It's completely irrelevant what the party's stance on the FR was, since WP:SYNTH applies in that case. And painting a party as having factions of a certain political alignment is *not* the same as explicitly describing the party as a position. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you actually intend to engage with the points being made or are you just going to nitpick technicalities to avoid the bigger point? 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I've addressed each of your points so far, and this will be my last reply in this discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 10:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No you haven't. You've just used technicalities to avoid the point I'm making. Essentially the higher intellect version of correcting someone's grammar. 2601:18A:817D:9320:A453:F62D:3C72:136D (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

−

position = [[Centre-left politics|Center-left]] to [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]]<ref name="Larson 2007">{{cite book |last=Larson |first=Edward J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MXcCdlmwwecC |title=A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign |year=2007 |isbn=9780743293174 |page=21 |publisher=Simon and Schuster |quote=The divisions between Adams and Jefferson were exasperated by the more extreme views expressed by some of their partisans, particularly the High Federalists led by Hamilton on what was becoming known as the political right, and the democratic wing of the Republican Party on the left, associated with New York Governor George Clinton and Pennsylvania legislator Albert Gallatin, among others. |author-link=Edward J. Larson}}</ref>

+

position =

Uncontroversial removal ([1], [2], [3]) of disputed content that is a result of original research and was most recently reinstated by an IP editor whose edit was in violation of the three-revert rule ([4]). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:04, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

To call removing it uncontroversial when it is the topic discussed most on this page - and current consensus is seemingly in favor of keeping it, with two users even citing @GlowstoneUnknown as the sole opponent to keeping it, is blatant dishonesty.

So too is calling it "original research" when it's cited. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The citation doesn't directly support the conclusion drawn, hence original research. And it's uncontroversial because 3 separate editors have all reverted it and another editor has disputed it on this talk page without making any edits. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The citation absolutely supports the conclusion, and to say it's uncontroversial when it's the most discussed point on this page is absurd. Multiple people have supported keeping it, and it's cited even if you want to dismiss that fact.

It frankly seems to me YOU don't want this on the page, and since you can't argue with the merits of the claim, you would rather find technicalities in the rules and play slight-of-hand tricks to get it removed. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that it's discussed has no bearing on whether it's controversial or not, and the presence of people favouring its inclusion doesn't matter without good arguments that are in line with Wikipedia's policies WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. And I've already pointed out that since the only source backing it up doesn't directly support the label "center-left to left-wing" which isn't a "technicality", it's the definition of original research. I'd also like to bring up the fact that Edward J Larson has no background in politics, as his field of study is "history of science", which doesn't lend him any credibility on the topic of political parties nor the positions of said parties. I won't continue to reply to comments that accuse me of bad faith or not engaging in proper discussion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 14:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As stated before, the suggestion is very clearly that the Democratic-Republicans were the left-wing organization and that the Federalists were the right-wing one. Frankly, I feel as if I could find a source that explicitly states "The Democratic-Republicans were left wing" clear as day and your response would still be to try to nitpick it and remove it anyway.

This page, as well as most Wikipedia articles, is absolutely chocked full of "original research". The article is two paragraphs in before a single citation to anything it says is given. Yet you're here targeting a cited claim. And not only are you targeting said claim, you're couching your arguments entirely in technicalities of the rules.

You've refused to engage in any sort of discussion as to why you actually disagree with the label in the first place - which suggests to me 1) you don't actually have any coherent argument as to why you're against it, and 2) the reason you're using rule technicalities is because that's easier to defend.

It's not even an accusation of bad faith, it's just a plain face analysis of your arguments. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

That first sentence is a very blatant violation of WP:AGF by suggesting a made-up scenario and implying that I'd behave poorly in such scenario.

The second sentence is blatantly false, the lead section of an article isn't required to have citations if the body already cites such information (which it does), and talking about other articles is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

I have actively engaged in discussion as to why I disagree with the label, and explained that it shouldn't be included because sources don't describe the party as such, hence the label's inclusion being a case of original research.

It's getting tiring to have to keep repeating myself. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

1) I told you the impression you are giving me, and I 100% believe what I said. When you have nothing to support your view except "well technically" and refuse to engage in the actual points, it makes it look like you're unreasonable. I do assume good faith - I think you genuinely think the left-wing label for this party is incorrect and therefore want it removed.

I also think that you think it's incorrect based on likely faulty logic that you can't defend, so you're hiding behind rule technicality.

2) There is countless uncited information all throughout this article, as is true of most Wikipedia articles. You are selectively targetting this information. It's selective rule enforcement, plainly.

3) You haven't explained at all why you disagree with the label. You have said you don't like the source provided and that you think it shouldn't be included without a source.

But as you're in zero rush to find your own source for the claim, the subtle implication is you just don't want the information included, period.

If you agreed with the claim and just didn't like the source, you could find another one. I'd do it myself - I doubt it would be too hard - but return to #1 and you'll see why I'm pushing that onto you.

Previously it's been pointed out that the terms left-wing and right-wing originated with supporters and opponents of the French Revolution respectively. This is a French Revolution era party that supported the French Revolution, ergo it was a left-wing party by definition. To suggest it's not based on modern standards of left or right wing is anachronistic.

You've yet to engage with any of these claims. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I refuse to repeat myself again beyond the following: WP:OR. The only potentially new argument there can be explained with WP:SKYBLUE. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Once again refusing to engage with the actual points and hiding behind rule technicalities.

Yeah, you don't need to cite the sky is blue, and you also shouldn't need to cite that a party that supported the French Revolution was a left-wing party when the term left-wing in the time period refers to a party that supported the French Revolution.

But since you don't like the citation, how about YOU find one that you're happy with? Unless you just don't think this party was left-wing, a point you've refused to discuss. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 15:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. Where are my assurances I'm not being sent on a wild goose chase by a guy who will always find an excuse to dismiss ANY source?

None, right. 2601:18A:817D:9320:1409:3753:96A9:49ED (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)