[BroJoeK]

Sherman Logan: "I'm a little vague on why you think you need to say this, since it's pretty much what I said in my post."

I'm willing to concede that our differing opinions may be only matters of emphasis.
If I understand correctly: you wish to emphasize that where the US was a fully functioning, compromising-as-necessary, representative republic before, say, 1850 -- after that date we became more fearful to protect our regions' interests, resulting in less compromise, more dysfunction and eventually secession, right?

My point has been to show that before 1850, really, before 1860, national politics were dominated by the alliance of Southern Democrat Slave-Power and Northern Democrat Dough-faces (big cities, immigrants).
This can be seen especially clearly in Andrew Jackson's election in 1828, but also clearly in several other elections (i.e., 1796, 1856).
Southern Democrat dominance allowed the Slave-Power to force critical compromises (1850) and rulings (Dred-Scott) which increased slavery's legal protections outside the South.

That in turn drove Northerners to support an anti-slavery political party, Republicans, and the rest, as they say, is history...

Bottom line: I don't agree there was no north-south political split before 1850 (or any other date), only that the north-south split was long moderated by Northern Democrat voters, who became less and less "dough-faced" and more "Wide Awakes"*, especially after Dred Scott in 1857.

*"Wide Awakes" = 1860 young Republicans.

[x]

My point has been to show that before 1850, really, before 1860, national politics were dominated by the alliance of Southern Democrat Slave-Power and Northern Democrat Dough-faces (big cities, immigrants).

Big city immigrants may have provided the votes, but the power belonged to native-born American leaders, largely of rural origin: Buchanan, Pierce, Cass, Douglas and their Southern counterparts (though Douglas's Southern-born second wife was Catholic and there was some speculation about whether he was as well). I always thought of "Doughface" as more of a native phenomenon, and don't really associate the term with Irish or Germans, whatever their politics or attitude towards slavery, probably because they didn't have much power in Congress yet.

[Sherman Logan]

I think we’re just going to have to disagree.

From what I can tell, you want to paint a history in which there is significant moral and ideological continuity between the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis and Stephen Douglas and today’s Part.

I don’t see it. The Democrats of 1840 or 1860 have almost nothing in common with today’s version.

The only continuity I can discern in the party systems of pre-Civil War and since is this.

The Whigs and later the Republicans have always been the party of those who are, or who see themselves as, or who wannabee, insiders in America.

The Democratic Party has always been the Party of those who were/are or who see themselves as outsiders, not fully accepted as “real” Americans.

Before the WBTS, this was (mostly) southerners, immigrants, Catholics, poorer people, etc.

The position of various groups has changed over the years, and in recent decades the split I describe has kind of fallen apart, but I think the basic notion is valid.

Republicans are American Insiders, Democrats are American Outsiders (even when they control the government, the media and the culture).