Oh oh oh oh, Mr. Obama

[Ben Kenobi]

Wow. The ignorance is stunning.

I'm ignorant? Jackson and Von Buren founded the Democrat party in opposition to Quincy Adams after the defeat of Jackson in the 1824 election.

Yeah, because destroying the Second National Bank of the US was something a centralized government type was want to do.

Which is why he overrode Calhoun and crushed the Nullifiers who argued that States rights were paramount over the Federal government?

[Ben Kenobi]

Actually in many different ways in this one quote. The least being he never ran against a Federalist.

Adams was a Federalist.

I'm not sure where you are getting your history from, but it's not correct Imran.

Edit, Jefferson ran against John Adams, who was a federalist.

Jackson ran against Quincy Adams who were both in the Dem-Rep party in 1824. The loss by Jackson lead to the formation of the Democrat party along with Von Buren. Quincy Adam's half became the Whigs in opposition to the Democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is akin to if a group of moderate Republicans took the moniker "Repubs" and won an election in a one party Presidential nomination and someone said that the "Repubs" are a brand new party and the Republicans don't exist anymore, even though the "Repubs" were the same people as the Republicans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Adams was a Federalist.

I'm not sure where you are getting your history from, but it's not correct Imran.

Andrew Jackson never ran against John Adams. He ran against John Quincy Adams, who was clearly NOT a Federalist at the time. They were both members of the same party.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here is the 1800 election on Leip's election atlas.

Notice two things.

1. Dem-Rep Party.

2. Jefferson is running against a Federalist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's nice, but I don't see Andrew Jackson on that list.

[Ben Kenobi]

You need to read more carefully Imran. I was referring to Jefferson in response to your post where you claimed that Jefferson was a Democrat. He wasn't. Jackson was the first democrat presidential candidate in 1828, who founded the party in 1824 after the split.

Saying that Jefferson is the first democrat is like Republicans saying Hamilton was the first republican.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well duh, it's 1800.

Here's the 1824. As you said Jackson and Quincy Adams were all in the same party, the Democrat/Republicans.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Considering that Jackson was from the same party as Jefferson and all you had in 1824 was four candidates from the same party and then in 1828 and 1832 you just had two candidates from different factions of the same party fighting... yeah, same party. There is a reason that the Democratic claim of "The Party of Jefferson" is never really challenged (or at least challenged as much as the Republican claim of "The Party of Lincoln" is).

It wasn't until 1836 that Henry Clay decided to take his faction of the party and merge them with other groups into a new party, called the Whigs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now 1828:

See where Jackson is the first presidential candidate running for the Democrat Party?

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's the 1836 where we finally see the Whigs vs the Democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You do realize that the "National Republicans" didn't even have a convention prior to the 1828 election, right? It was just an ad-hoc coalition of Democratic-Republican party members who didn't like Jackson. It was still just a faction of the good ole Democratic-Republican Party. I was a bit off on when the the disaffected faction left to form the Whigs - it was 1833, for the 1836 elections.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering that Jackson was from the same party as Jefferson

Yes, in the same way that Luther was from the same party as Pope Gregory the Great.

Luther left the church to form his own church. Jackson did the same. This is why Jackson is the founder of the Democrat party along with Martin Van Buren.

Now, as you note, the party split. Why isn't Quincy Adams the successor of Jefferson, seeing as he was from the same party,

There is a reason that the Democratic claim of "The Party of Jefferson" is never really challenged (or at least challenged as much as the Republican claim of "The Party of Lincoln" is).

Only Democrats challenge the presumption that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Historians are generally of a consensus that the Democrat party was founded by Andrew Jackson after his defeat by Quincy Adams in the 1824 election.

Again, claiming that Jefferson is the founder of the Democrats is no different than saying that Hamilton is the founder of the Republicans, which is an argument you will hear from time to time in the Republican camp.

It wasn't until 1836 that Henry Clay decided to take his faction of the party and merge them with other groups into a new party, called the Whigs.

Again, which raises the question. Is Jefferson the founder of both parties? You could make an interesting case for either.

[Ben Kenobi]

You do realize that the "National Republicans" didn't even have a convention prior to the 1828 election, right? It was just an ad-hoc coalition of Democratic-Republican party members who didn't like Jackson. It was still just a faction of the good ole Democratic-Republican Party. I was a bit off on when the the disaffected faction left to form the Whigs - it was 1833, for the 1836 elections.

I'm aware of that, but that was the name they chose for themselves at the time, the same way as the pro-Jacksonian coalition (including Calhoun later on), chose to call themselves the Democrats back in 1824, when they were defeated by the Quincy Adams branch of the Dem-Rep party.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Luther left the church to form his own church. Jackson did the same. This is why Jackson is the founder of the Democrat party along with Martin Van Buren.

Other way around. John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and his friends left to form their own party because they had been outmaneuvered in their control for the Democratic-Republican Party.

Somewhat like how the Southern Democrats left for the Republican Party in the late 1960s/early 1970s after they had been outmaneuvered by the pro-civil rights Democrats. Doesn't mean the current Democrats aren't the same party as the Democrats of 1940s and 1950s.