The original American Political Party, the Bourbon Democrats, formed around the idea of freedom of the individual to pursue happiness chasing his or her own dreams, visions, interests and aspirations, unimpaired by any government imposed bubble around thought or box limiting action. They were the only party of their kind, standing against a myriad of parties and control freaks. FULL ARTICLE
|
 |
23 comments ↓
The Bourbons would be a welcome change over either of the two corrupt entities that are ruling over us today. Nice article, Clay.
I’d be even happier with a few anti-federalists – like Patrick Henry and Tom Paine. We’d be far better off if we had people who actually opposed all this power residing in the hands of a few hundred people running the federal government.
If you think that the Bourbon Democraticsw were harbingers of freedom for the little man, then you have never read a credible historical text, or you are in a state of psychosis.
The Bourbon Democrats were puppets of corporatacracy. They made every concession that they could to the big business interests that financed their elections.
The only thing about this article that is worthy of some adulation is that you are the first person in American history to not only defend the Bourbon Democrats, but to go so far as to say that they were exceptional leaders.
You must come from a planet far, far away, because this is the most outlandish essay I have ever encounter, perhaps, in my entire life.
Russell Cole
Interesting, Russell. Personally, I had never heard of the Bourbons before this article. My thoughts are – well, if they represented even just half of what Clay described them to be, they’d be far, far better than what we have today. Can you recommend any reading on the Bourbons if I decide to look into it further?
Are you kidding me? The Bourbons were probably the last consistent anti-imperialists that we had in this country – except for a few short-lived times of relative peace.
Since then we’ve had warmongering democrats and warmongering republicans. Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Truman, Nixon, Reagan and the rest.
I’d take Grover Cleveland over those thugs any day.
I admit to hyperbole. However, I stand by the crux of my earlier statement.
Yes, the Bourbon Democrats were anti-imperialist, but they were also in the pockets of big business, such as railroading and banking. Furthermore, their attempts at political reforms at the local and provincial level of federalism, led to a state were businesses were the financiers of election campaigns as opposed to the traditional systems of patronage, which reflected indigenous interests.
Everyone points out all of the war-mongoring figures in the Democratic Party at the time, and justly so.
However, Williams Jennings Bryan is left conspicuously absent. His Cross of Gold Speech was a direct affront to the Bourbon unwillingness to add silver as a precious commodity backing the dollar; a policy that would have had the effect of curbing the deflation resulting after the reinstatement of the Gold Standard, following the Civil War, which had the impact of placing the American Farmer into a state of surfdom.
This is way I think it is strange to call us the Populist Party of America, when we appear to revere the very forces against which populism defined itself.
Good Discussion, even though every one is wrong except for me,
R Cole
Russell
I have to agree that the Bourbon Democrats are lacking when it comes to the Ideals of Populism. No one would argue that they were the enablers of corrupt business practices and even though they professed to be anti-Imperialist, isn’t Imperialism the vehicle by which International Big Business spreads it tentacles into countries to steal their resources?
If I understand you correctly Cliff, I am in complete agreement. American imperialism – with the exception of Presidential fratboy, Teddy Roosevelt, has taken on a more subtle form. To use contemporary circumstances as an example. America attempts legitimize it imperialism through world institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. By pursuing our interests through these seemingly innocuous institutions, we can impose our neoliberal agenda upon developing nation-states, all of the while appearing as though we disdain imperialism and refuse to engage in the exploitation of other countries. It is not that we are not imperialists, we have simply found a way to do it where in remains inconspicuous.
Russell. Absolutely. I call that Financial Cabal and its associates (International Corporatism plus the Military Wing ) the Shadow Government.
That’s why I say that the real rulers of America are not necessarily Americans – They are the New World Order, The Elites, The Kleptocracy.
And they have enablers among us. Those enablers are the ones either corrupted by favors and those who practice Party First. I believe that both Parties are Corrupted.
We invent moral high ground for our immorality.
Support the troops is really a call to support the Imperialist designs of the Shadow Government. Because the best support we could give the troops is to get them out of the fields of sacrifice that has been chosen by the Shadow Government.
How many of the dead since WWII have died to protect the United States from enemies abroad and how many have died to enrich the bottom line of what I call the Blood Profiteers. They are those who rally the masses around to slay the boogey man. Someone they created as the straw man that they will protect us from if we will only sacrifice for them.
Sacrifice our constitution, our rights, our American dream, our financial freedom, our moral and ethical life. We are induced to do this by those who profit from our Patriotism.
We suffer and die for their elitism.
Yes Russell, you have me figured out.
If people think the imperialism isn’t as obvious as it has always has been, they’re blind. Or ignorant.
The US military – with its presence in 700+ locations world wide – is the greatest (worst) imperialist force in world history.
And to consider imperialism to be international business only is missing the point completely. If it were just businesses going around the world and setting up shop, that would be fine – but imperialism, force, and all the associated pain, cannot come without the backing of the big guns….the military. No US government, no US corporate imperialism.
Anyone who understands the real threats faced by people around the world has to realize that the ultimate threat is always that the us will invade if they don’t do what the us government wants.
And, as far as WJ Bryan – not a bad one, really. Well, except for the fact that he was a rabid prohibitionist……..which is completely repugnant to the ideals of a free society.
Gee too bad many in either house of congress forget that they are there to serve…not to be served…But the Christopher Dodd’s who forgot that…are the turkey’s who since the beginning of the Clinton era, allowed what has happened fiscally to america as it has happened. Between a pea poor trade practices, out sourcing, we the people beliving the advirtisers on tv,radio, add and blend well with very liberal I’m or you’re ok college professor’s and teachers,more so than our grand parents, who were too old, too square and dumb as a bag of rocks…so who was right ? Did we the people fall for a economic lie, in trying to have a burger king life, when we really couldn’t afford it, and lied to ourselves as well ?
The military industrial complex is part and parcel of economic imperialism. However,, how often does America actually engage in wars of conquest with adversaries other than banana republics, against whom we are certain to win decisively. We have a massive military presence around the world, but it is subsidiary to economic interests, which America prefers to impose through coercive incentives orchestrated by world economic consortia, rather than using vulgar displays of military force.
I think this discussion of the root cause of imperialism – corporate vs government power – is an essential one. I stand strongly on the side that says government is the root, and therefore, limiting its power should be our greatest concern.
Think of it this way – without corporations, government would still exist. It would still have its massive coercive power, it would still be able to raise funding through taxation, borrowing and printing of money. It would still have its massive armies.
On the other hand, without government, corporations would cease to exist entirely. Why? Simply put, corporations are nothing more than a legal fiction created by government to enable people to get away with things they wouldn’t be able to as an individual.
Corporations exist solely as an offshoot of government, and to think that a branch can exist without the main stem is bordering on the absurd.
So, you are saying Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Polk and Cleveland, all admitted Bourbon Democrats, are the real bad folks in American Politics? Was the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance, written by Jefferson also frought with cabal-like conspiracies to rule the people? Because the Bourbons were against Hamilton’s control of money not backed by metal a bad thing?
I didn’t know that Jefferson was a Bourbon, myself – going to have to research that a little more. But, what I do know is that he was heroic in his opposition to Hamilton on virtually every front – the first central bank being the big one.
If there’s ever been a conspiracy in this country it’s been the interests of those who want to grow the power of corporate cronyism-government at the loss of our liberty.
I’ve read some excerpts and some great reviews of Tom DiLorenzo’s “Hamilton’s Curse“ might be time to pick that one up.
I am writing a book, titled THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BOURBON DEMOCRATS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. You can Google Bourbon Democrats. They are the only party that clung to the idea of individual legitimate self-interests being more important than are the interests of community. Every other party departed in one way or another, such as Hamilton’s elite managing the nation and the money, the Henry Clay Whigs, the Lincoln Republicans including Teddy Roosevelt, all of which were meddlers and manipulators. I cannot understand Russell Cole’s view of Jefferson and Madison being in the pocket of the merchant class.
Clay, you are mistaking the Bourbons with a more general ideology at the time that can be described as petty capitalism. It is sometimes called Bryanism. Personal responsibility and reliance were core values. However, as the term, petty, indicates, there was a mistrust of the overgrown, robberbarron corporate entities that had a disproportionate impact upon government and its policies. This is what differentiates the Bourbons from the Bryans. The Bourbons cozzied up with big business, while the Bryan populists wanted to ensure competition and the free market by curbing corporate excess where large firms could corner markets and artificially inflate prices, due to the lack of competition.
Let me know how the book goes.
Best,
Russell Cole
In my book, I describe William Jennings Bryan, a silver tongue orator, like the one we have today, with taking the Democrats from Cleveland toward the left. Bryan was an interventionist much like Hamilton, maybe not as clever. I see the Jefferson-Madison Bourbons as non-interventionists into the interests of people, and as a party, they stayed the course and did not meddle as was the case with every other special interest party. Check my site, ClaysAmerica.com for more.
Clay,
How can you compare the Bourbons to the Jeffersonians. The Bourbons were pro-industry and pro-big-business. These values are antithetical to Jeffersonian republicanism, which envisioned an egalitarian state comprised of yoeman.
Tell me how you reconcile this seeming divergence in ideology.
Best,
Russell Cole
I suggest you Google Bourbon Democrats and you will see, from all sources, they are the Bourbons.
Clay
Clay, I’ve been trying to do some research here – well a little – and am not able to find anything that says Jefferson and Madison were bourbon democrats. Every source I’ve found on Google is telling me that the Bourbons were around from around 1876 to 1904. From my own study and understanding, Jefferson in particular, was founder of the Democratic-Republican party which was in opposition to the Federalists of Hamilton.
While I strongly agree with many of the principles mentioned in the article here – and with much of the jeffersonian system of government, I can’t find anything that ties him with the Bourbons. I do think that’s a semantic issue that’s not nearly as important as the nature of government, but it’s interesting nonetheless……..
Here’s a link to my google search.
Is there anything specific that you can point to for people to look up and verify this Bourbon/Jefferson/Madison connection?
Samuel Tilden was a Bourban Democrat – He was also known as the Greatest Democrat ever and the Great Reformer in 1876 when he ran and WON the Presidency… If you would like to know go to his webite. Currently i'm producing a documentary about him…all out of pocket.
This is insane. Grover Cleveland was the most prominent Bourbon Democrat, and the Populist Party was motivated primarily by opposition to Cleveland’s hard-money, anti-labor policies.
No one before the Civil War was a Bourbon Democrat. The term has a specific meaning.
Bryan was an anti-interventionist in most cases, the unfortunate exception being the Spanish American War. One of the purposes of that war was to sabotage Bryan and the Populist Party, which had come frighteningly close to victory in 1896, and the sabotage was pretty effective.
Opponents of WWI and the various imperialist adventures preceding it were mostly third-party members and progressive dissidents of both parties, not Bourbons.
Conservatives, libertarians and paleos really have to sort out federalism, anti-federalism, Jeffersonianism, Hamiltonianism, and Populism. These are five different things, sometimes overlapping and sometimes contradicting one another. A lot of what I read, including here, is a weird mix of all five.
For example, a lot of contemporary “populists” are gold bugs, whereas the actual Populists advocated greenbacks and a state bank — they were the American spokesmen for fiat currency. There’s no way to make sense of gold bug populism.
Leave a Comment