I've long felt that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a dumb idea because it split power 50-50. Democracy works on the principle of majority rule. If there's no clear majority, democracy can't work. That's what finally happened in the 1850s - nonfunctioning government ie, gridlock. We see this in Lincoln's "House Divided Speech." He's clearly talking about slavery and not industry, but I think he and I would have agreed that 50-50 power sharing doesn't work:
"In my opinion, [slavery] will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
When we look at the different party platforms we see the Democrats, clearly the friends of slavery, with a very different economic agenda than the other parties that drew most of their support from the North. For instance in 1848:
The Whig Platform mostly talked about the military virtues of Taylor but when they did mention economic policy they said: "Of Prosperity—now more than ever needed to relieve the nation from a burden of debt, and restore industry—agricultural, manufacturing and commercial—to its accustomed and peaceful functions and influences."
Whig Party Platform of 1848 | The American Presidency Project
That year (1848) the Free Soil Party Platform mostly spoke of ending slavery but they also mentioned:
"13. Resolved, That river and harbor improvements ... are objects of national concern, and that it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power, to provide therefor.
14. Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers ... of reasonable portions of the public lands under suitable limitations, Is a wise and just measure of public policy...
15. Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practical payment of the national debt, and we are therefore in favor of such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the expenses of the federal government...
1848 Free Soil Party Platform
Compare those two parties to the Democrats who are clearly opposed to any federal involvement in the economy:
"5. Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence or carry on a general system of internal improvement...
6. That Congress has no power to charter a national bank...
8. Resolved, ...that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government...
9. Resolved, That ... we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds [from the sale of public land] among the States...
11. Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to ... a corrupting system of general internal improvements."
1848 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project
Again in 1856
The Republican Party Platform contained:
"Resolved: ... to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.
Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean by the most central and practicable route is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction
Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors .. are authorized by the Constitution...
Republican Party Platform of 1856 | Teaching American History
The Democratic Platforms of '52 and '56 didn't change very much from that of '48, above. In '56 the platform mentions transportation to the Pacific but they stop short of saying "railroad" although they probably mean "railroad." They mention the Gulf of Mexico and the Isthmus of Panama. They sound like typical conservatives who consider lower taxes and small government to be more important than a transcontinental railroad although they seem to be acknowledging that an eventual transcontinental railroad is probably inevitable.
1852 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project
1856 Democratic Party Platform | The American Presidency Project
One of the themes I find running through American history is the conflict between the unfettered individual vs some degree of collectivism. Jefferson, Jackson, Calhoun, and Reagan all believe that the unregulated individual could achieve great things. Hamilton, Henry Clay, FDR, and LBJ all believed that people working together, pooling their resources, can achieve great things. I'll give you this much Grey Fox, during the 1850s the conflict shifted from economics to slavery.
I find it interesting that the Free Soil Party could devote 80% of their party platform to the evils of slavery but still tack on some economic planks that also brought them into conflict with the Democratic Party. It's not causation, but I see a correlation between slavery and laissez faire economics and I don't think I'd be alone in the 1850s. The opposite was also true - if you wanted greater federal participation in the economy soonor or later you'd come out against slavery. It was the same people on both sides of both issues - the planter aristocrats wanted laissez faire economic policies while most of the North opposed slavery and also favored increased federal participation in the economy.