Democratic-Republican or Federalist?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Do you really have to ask?

Mister, we could use a man
like Alex Hamilton.

Didn't need no Slave state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old Party ran great.
Those were the days

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Easily the Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans were so backward thinking on almost everything until they (Jefferson/Madison) actually had to govern and they ended up co-opting almost the entirety of the Federalist program.

I mean, not really, lol. Jefferson's administration repealed most of Hamilton's regressive taxes, shrank the size of the military, and threw out the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Not quite. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act both expired before Jefferson took office. The Alien Enemies Act remains on the books today, albeit it has been amended over the years, tho it was used as the legal basis for Trump's Muslim ban. The Naturalization Act of 1798 was only one of the Alien and Sedition Acts that the D-Rs repealed.

As for Hamilton's taxes, the whiskey tax wasn't so much regressive as it was disproportionate for frontier farmers as distilling grain into spirits was the easiest way to transport it for sale elsewhere. Moreover, he advocated it in part because he thought increasing tariffs further would likely reduce revenue, and at the time the Federal government had exactly three sources of revenue available to it, tariffs, excises, and land sales.  I guess Hamilton could have urged Washington to take more land from the natives so as to sell it to deserving whites.  That would have been a very Jeffersonian method of funding the government and its Revolutionary War debt.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The idea of the federalist party as being antislavery is pretty nonsensical when you consider Hamilton literally tried to rig a presidential election for Charles Pickney

Slavery wasn't as big of an issue then and Adams and Hamilton despised each other.  It isn't so much that the Federalists were anti-slavery as they weren't pro-plantation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, hot take and all ... but until a sizable portion of those who participated in the parties - White American men - started to see Black people as literally biologically equal, let alone equal in ability or potential or moral worth or whatever, classifying slavery as an overly ideological issue is somewhat troubling to me.  In 100 years, if Americans all of a sudden make a big deal that our actions are leading to an increase in starving Sub-Saharan African children or something, it's going to be somewhat misguided to start looking back at politicians of our age and deciding who was "liberal" or "conservative" based on that issue, EVEN IF it's agreed that there is a clear liberal and conservative position to take on it, and deciding too much about their ideologies based on that stance or lack thereof.  It might be Mitch McConnell's pet issue because he literally knows one Sub-Saharan African lady, while Chuck Schumer doesn't like to bring that issue up for political reasons ... doesn't change their ideologies on other stuff.

These people certainly understood slavery in ideological terms:

Mr. President, if we recognize no law as obligatory, and no government as legitimate, which authorizes involuntary servitude, we shall be forced to consign the world to anarchy; for no government has yet existed, which did not recognize and enforce involuntary servitude for other causes than crime. To destroy that, we must destroy all inequality in property; for as long as these differences exist, there will be an involuntary servitude of man to man.

Your socialist is the true abolitionist, and he only fully understands his mission.

In fact, the European Socialists, who, in wild radicalism ... are the correspondents of the American abolitionists, maintain the same doctrine as to all property, that the abolitionists, do as to slave property. He who has property, they argue, is the robber of him who has not.

“La propriete, c’est le vol,” is the famous theme of the Socialist, Proudhon. And the same precise theories of attack at the North on the slave property of the South would, if carried out to their legitimate and necessary logical consequences, and will, if successful in this, their first state of action, superinduce attacks on all property, North and South.

We warn the North, that every one of the leading Abolitionists is agitating the negro slavery question merely as a means to attain ulterior ends, and those ends nearer home ... They know that men once fairly committed to negro slavery agitation - once committed to the sweeping principle, “that man being a moral agent, accountable to God for his actions, should not have those actions controlled and directed by the will of another,” are, in effect, committed to Socialism and Communism, to the most ultra doctrines of Garrison, Goodell, Smith and Andrews - to no private property, no church, no law, no government - to free love, free lands, free women, and free churches.

I shall in effect say, in the course of my argument, that every theoretical Abolitionist at the North is a Socialist or Communist, and proposes or approves of radical changes in the organization of society.

The same logic and sympathy - the same conviction and ardor - which made us an Abolitionist twenty years ago, make us a Communist now.

Interesting, but what does what they wrote have to do with political parties that ceased to exist before they were born.