Posted on 08/23/2015 5:35:01 AM PDT by Hojczyk
You sound like you bought into the Schlesinger (liberal-to-marxist) interpretation of the "Age of Jackson." The truth is, Jackson was Van Buren's second choice behind William Crawford of Georgia (a wealthy planter) to premiere in his new Democrat Party.
Van Buren, as I have written in Seven Events that Made America America created a new political party to challenge the "Democratic/Republicans" who had pretty much started calling themselves just "Republicans" (the party of Monroe and J. Q. Adams) for one purpose only: to keep slavery out of the national debate. His idea was brilliant, if horrible. He would ask people to check their ideology at the door---either pro- or anti-slavery---and elect Democrat candidates and in return they would (depending on level of effort) be rewarded with party, then state, then national government jobs. (The "spoils system") I reiterate, the purpose of the Democrat Party AS FOUNDED was to protect and perpetuate slavery.
Crawford had a heart attack. Van Buren then had to fill in with Jackson, who in 1824 wasn't ready, nor was Van Buren's system. Adams's naming of Henry Clay as SecState allowed Van Buren and Jackson to scream "corrupt bargain," and they began running for 1828 immediately. The "common man" stuff had little to do with 1828. Rather it was a masterpiece of propaganda as Van Buren bought (yes, bought) hundreds of papers and personally named the editors to spread the Democrat word. Many still maintain the name "Democrat" in the masthead.
That's why Benson and McCormick and others were able to discover that the notion that Jackson's election represented the "common man" was a myth---one harped on constantly by Schlesinger, the most liberal of historians, and Charles Beard, the Marxist who said that in 1828 "democracy foamed perilously near the crest." Wow.
Yes, Harrison did pull one over on the Democrats. They accused him of being a lazy drunk who only wanted to stay in his log cabin and drink hard cider, so he made up thousands of little log cabins that he gave out at campaign events, and, of course, always had bottles of hard cider laying around.
As for "puppet masters," only Van Buren was that. Despite being "personally opposed" to slavery---as so many "anti-abortion" people are, he deliberately perpetuated slavery for another 30 years, although the wonderful irony is that he himself could not benefit from the system he created and was beaten by Old Tippicanoe.
dear LS,
re: “I think websites are a thing of the past-—useful in 08 but now old hat. Twitter, instagram, to a much lesser extent FB are now the sites. “
I’m so glad you think that, because that balances my thinking that all “the current social media” is for morons. I have no use for, neither do i use any of those “social media sites” mentioned.
But they will continue without your presence, I'm pretty sure.
Shhhh. Don't look now but FreeRepublic is a social media website.
dear LS,
re; “Shhhh. Don’t look now but FreeRepublic is a social media website.”
On the contrary, as you have defined it, FR is indeed an archaic thing, compared to the moronic Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, and the rest.
Write the words: “Mohammed’s mom wears army boots.”, and see how fast your account get blocked on those electronic media, not so here.
>> You sound like you bought into the Schlesinger (liberal-to-marxist) interpretation of the “Age of Jackson.” <<
Dunno. Never read any books or articles by Schlesinger. The only things I know about Jackson are what I read in Remini’s works. If Remini is another Marxist or leftist, then I guess I’ve been fooled.
But sincere thanks anyway for the detailed response. Gives one a lot to think about!
>> I have no use for, neither do i use any of those “social media sites” mentioned <<
You and me both!
I’ve taken an oath never to use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest and others of that ilk.
Moreover, I’m very pleased to report that so far, my life has remained very happy and very satisfying!
People do not give the messenger enough credit. The candidates could take over everything Trump is saying and they would not resonate. It is the messenger delivering the message in this case. If there is no Trump no one can take over from him.
Trump has a confidence that no other candidate has. They do not exude any confidence. They all look beaten and dejected.
Trump is so sure of himself that that is what sells the message. Ronald Reagan had the same confidence. It is the messenger that matters not the message.
Well, Remini is very good. I have been in many panels with him, but he does buy into the Schlesinger view. Last time I saw Remini he was looking like Jackson!
I said websites, meaning campaign websites as a source of info, as opposed to the web. Maybe I didn’t clarify. but you are participating in the very thing you denigrate.
“populist mantle?”
Like we need another Ross Perot or Huey P. Long...
dear LS,
I will accept your ‘mis-spoking’ about ‘websites’.
Have a good week.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.