Did the federalists win in the long term?

[buritobr]

During the 1790s, the rival parties in the US were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. After 1800, the federalists lost importance, and during some years, the US became almost a one-party country. The democratic republicans ruled alone.
Is it possible to say, however, that many years after, the US became more like the federalists wished than like the democratic republicans wished?
There is a stronger central government than it was at the beggining of the 19th century. High import tariffs were introduced after the Civil War, in order to support the domestic manufacturing sector. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If you understand History, you understand that there are cycles in history. The Federalist were the Elephant which projected strength and winning the Revolutionary and Civil Wars by Grant and were the Whigs or Bull Moose party of the 19th Century. They became the GOP or Patriot anti amnesty party of the 20th Century and very states rights

Dems represented the Conservative Christian party and put a Donkey up, Jesus used the donkey to ride into Jerusalem tp get killed so he can get resurrected. The Dixiecrats enslaved AA and werent kind to Native Americans,  but were against big business, too, central Bank.

Secular Dems represented Federal Rights and big govt as the new Labor Party, after the 20th Century Industrial revolution when we became a Manufacturing economy instead of an agricultural economy

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you understand History, you understand that there are cycles in history.

This is obvious.

The Federalist were the Elephant which projected strength and winning the Revolutionary and Civil Wars by Grant and were the Whigs or Bull Moose party of the 19th Century.

This is rather poorly written. For one thing it is doubtful that Westerners like Grant and Lincoln would have got on well in the Federalist Party. Grant wasn't political prior to the war, though he voted for Buchanan I think and Lincoln was a Clay Whig. While Clay's American System drew from Hamilton in part, it should be noted that Clay while a nationalist was a Republican (Jefferson's Party) and he was so for a reason being from the West and he was also a hawk while the remnant Federalists opposed the War of 1812.

They became the GOP or Patriot anti amnesty party of the 20th Century and very states rights

Yes but it is more complex than that. In simple terms it is accurate to say the business elites adopted ever more Jeffersonian cloaking to make their pitch more appealing.

Dems represented the Conservative Christian party and put a Donkey up, Jesus used the donkey to ride into Jerusalem tp get killed so he can get resurrected.

The Donkey was not selected by Dems, it was used by the Whigs to tar the Democrats and Jackson liked it so much that he kept it.

The Democrats of the 19th century were not a Conservative, nor a Christian Party. The Democrats of the 19th century were 19th century liberals and they share all the classical markers of this including general support for free trade, immigration and religious tolerance, opposition to business elites and monopolies, and in their founding period: support for expanded voting to all white males (instead of those that owned land or had wealth. It sounds restrictive to us, but to Federalists and many Whigs this was radical, left-wing extremism). This is not conservative even by many modern interpretations much less those of the 19th century. 

The Dixiecrats enslaved AA and werent kind to Native Americans,  but were against big business, too, central Bank.

Many dixiecrats were ex-Whigs like Zebulon Vance so the elitism is sourced from the right along with the oppression that comes with it, though obviously not all of them were ex-Whigs. Political alignments make strange bedfellows. Nobody was kind to Native Americans for the most part, though there were some exceptions. As for business and the central bank, yes this is because the South was a peripheral concern economically to the North and thus the sense politically was that they were being subjugated almost in a colonial like state for the benefit of Wall Street bankers.

Secular Dems represented Federal Rights and big govt as the new Labor Party, after the 20th Century Industrial revolution when we became a Manufacturing economy instead of an agricultural economy

We became a manufacturing economy in the 19th century, it is just that Republicans were successful in cracking labor vote via protectionism and nativism, fear mongering and good old corruption, not to mention the machinations of Republican machines in some cities. Meanwhile Democrats were tied to their agrarian base and thus their policies could be protrayed as damaging to industrial America similar to how Democrats are portrayed as harmful to coal mining today. This is how the protectionism issue played out.

The New Deal's transformation effect was against a backdrop of protectionism being discredited, they were able to formulate a coherent political alliance and thus thwart the GOP's ability to crack these voters. That is way things got progressively perilous for the GOP in the cities as the years went by.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Red Tories v Conservatives, Red Tories who were Chris Shays Rs, represented the Queen Vixtoria party and called themselves red due to allegiance to the Queen Victoria crown and British who fought against the colonists in Revolutionary War
 Ds, even the Dixiecrats supported France

[darklordoftech]

Yes, I do think the Federalist vision won out in the long term.

[RINO Tom]

Yes, the central government grew stronger than Jeffersonians ever wanted (in their times, of course), but I think it's obvious that they had a very large impact on HOW that larger government formed.  Jefferson and Jackson (two effective DRs in this case) both played HUGE roles in expanding the power and scope of the federal government, and I doubt any living Federalists (or their descendants) were cheerleading.

[Samof94]

Red Tories v Conservatives, Red Tories who were Chris Shays Rs, represented the Queen Vixtoria party and called themselves red due to allegiance to the Queen Victoria crown and British who fought against the colonists in Revolutionary War
 Ds, even the Dixiecrats supported France

This seems like alternate history.

[Orser67]

Yes and no; I'm of the belief that we got really lucky in that we received a sort of synthesis of the best of Federalist and Democratic-Republican ideals. We received the Democratic-Republican ideals of egalitarianism and personal liberty (and a healthy skepticism towards elites), but the Federalist conception of a (relatively) strong central government with a stable financial system and an independent and powerful judicial branch. Democratic-Republican foreign policy, which stressed western expansionism, also certainly won out as they were much more supportive of western expansionism than the Federalists were.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes and no; I'm of the belief that we got really lucky in that we received a sort of synthesis of the best of Federalist and Democratic-Republican ideals. We received the Democratic-Republican ideals of egalitarianism and personal liberty (and a healthy skepticism towards elites), but the Federalist conception of a (relatively) strong central government with a stable financial system and an independent and powerful judicial branch. Democratic-Republican foreign policy, which stressed western expansionism, also certainly won out as they were much more supportive of western expansionism than the Federalists were.

We tend to think of anti-immigrant politics in the 19th century as being an urban thing, but it was if anything the opposite playing out in the late 18th and early 19th century as an urban elite nervous about the peasant horde coming for them with pitchforks. With the city dwelling middle class anxious about the hordes of immigrants settling into the back country. The Federalists feared the Louisiana Purchase because it would be populated by Jeffersonian Immigrants and leave them more and more swamped politically.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If the Federalists won in the long term, it's because the Jeffersonian fantasy of a yeoman farmer-republic was idealistic nonsense completely out of step with the modern Atlantic economy.

[darklordoftech]

The Federal Reserve is a thing, so...

[RINO Tom]

The Federal Reserve is a thing, so...

When talking about politics THIS far back, we can't get too hung up on policy stances, IMO.  I mean, just look at how someone like a Bill Clinton (assuming for a second that his stated views are authentically his stances, lol) changes politically from the 1970s to the 2020s.  My point here is that it was more important for him to advance what he currently saw/sees as liberal ideals rather than dying on a silly hill.

I think it's perfectly possible that Jefferson's liberalism would have been much more important to him if he had lived some ridiculously long life; it's only natural to update your views a bit with the time, even among the most stubborn people.  I mean, it's not hard to see a lot in common between Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson, and I'd wager that Jefferson would have been a big supporter of his ... obviously Wilson was fine with the Federal Reserve.  When society changes drastically during someone's life and it upends the political climate, the person might have to choose between something they supported in the past or what the "heir" to their ideology is supporting now ... I'd argue politicians opt for the latter 99% of the time (with 95% of party switches being either a pathetic fight for survival or a bargaining stunt).