Democratic-Republican or Federalist?

[buritobr]

The parties of 1789-1820

Between ( ), your party now

[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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Federalist, GOP party was the compassionate conservatives and the Dems were WC party it's not the same party that it is today

The D's instituted Jim Crow laws

Poor Jews and Poor AA were subject to the chain gang during the Great Depression mostly in the South due to no Miranda or Public Defender until 63,64, instituted it by the Warren and William O Douglas Crt.

Southern Dixiecrat Judges denied Attornies to poor people

[RINO Tom]

Federalist [(like any good) R]

[LAKISYLVANIA]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

The Republicans (pro-immigrant, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, anti-organized money). Always concerning to see a plurality of Democrats voting for the party of the 1%!

[LAKISYLVANIA]

The Republicans (pro-immigrant, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, anti-organized money). Always concerning to see a plurality of Democrats voting for the party of the 1%!

Most people nowadays would vote D-R, back than it was the party that dominated congress. Both parties were obviously not perfect. I assume most Democrats associate D-R with slavery, because they enjoyed large support in the Deep South. Slavery wasn't as polarized as it would later become, and the polarization was split over regional divides, not partisan ones. Most high profile elected D-R's were ambivalent over it, just like Federalists but the polarization was higher in the D-R party. D-R's were more progressive and modern over issues than the Feds. It's not like the Feds tried to abolish it. In fact, the founding fathers wrote the constitution, and slavery was protected in it, but it also said it's use should be limited and not spread outside the 13 original states. That being said, D-R's were clearly more pro-civil rights and more pro-democracy. We speak about a time 200 years ago. Time was different. What was normal than, isn't today. They had no hindsight of what would happen. It's comparable with the issue of environmental decline and climate change which only now is leading to a peak of polarization, but nevertheless it's effects was known for a very long time and no-one took action against it until we entered the 21st century. Future generations will certainly blame us for it, and it will probably be extremely controversial to have said you'd supported the Republicans at the time.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Reagan is seen as a top 10 president (tho being a polarizing figure) but I believe in a few centuries, he'll be seen as a bottom tier president, still ahead of W. , Trump, Pierce, Buchanan and Johnson but that's it, partly because of the consequences of his presidency: the rise of Reagan conservatism, increasing polarization, increased racial tension, lack of environmental measures, leading to the economic crisis of 2008 (which might be forgotten in 200 years because the magnitude wasn't as bad, as well as laying the foundation for Trump to rise in (although W deserves much more blame for it).

Some of his accomplishments will be forgotten. I think the reputation of USSR won't be very bad in 200 years time as the world will be more progressive, in a different sense though. Secondly, no-one will remember the cold war again, it will be like the Mexican-American war where only junkies will debate over, so "ending the cold war" will have less of a positive net change in how he's going to be seen in the future.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

[Big Abraham]

The Republicans (pro-immigrant, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, anti-organized money). Always concerning to see a plurality of Democrats voting for the party of the 1%!

Agreed, although it's mostly in line with their actual voting habits.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

If you think all democratic-republicans between 1789 and 1820 supported slavery while federalists didn't, i would suggest opening a history book, wikipedia and to inform yourself.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

If you think all democratic-republicans between 1789 and 1820 supported slavery while federalists didn't, i would suggest opening a history book, wikipedia and to inform yourself.

I am in Law School, I know my History very well even Northern D's like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were called Copper Head D's which means states rights and away from abolitionists. James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were from PA and NH and didn't do a thing to stop the spread of slavery.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

If you think all democratic-republicans between 1789 and 1820 supported slavery while federalists didn't, i would suggest opening a history book, wikipedia and to inform yourself.

I am in Law School, I know my History very well even Northern D's like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were called Copper Head D's which means states rights and away from abolitionists. James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were from PA and NH and didn't do a thing to stop the spread of slavery.

The Democratic-Republican party was being split in 1824. Pierce was born in 1804, not even 20 years old, back than. Buchanan was a federalist until 1824. Being in law school doesn't make you immune for stating wrong takes.

[HisGrace]

Democratic-Republicans are probably the best political party we've ever had on the aggregate.

I also don't get why so many Republicans are voting Federalist. They were basically the equivalent of the elitist, technocratic Dems they hate so much today and the Dem-Republicans were the limited government party.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

If you think all democratic-republicans between 1789 and 1820 supported slavery while federalists didn't, i would suggest opening a history book, wikipedia and to inform yourself.

I am in Law School, I know my History very well even Northern D's like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were called Copper Head D's which means states rights and away from abolitionists. James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were from PA and NH and didn't do a thing to stop the spread of slavery.

The Democratic-Republican party was being split in 1824. Pierce was born in 1804, not even 20 years old, back than. Buchanan was a federalist until 1824. Being in law school doesn't make you immune for stating wrong takes.

It's not wrong takes when you have Acted your History exams, that's your interpretation, you don't have a PHD in Teaching.

Democrats weren't the same back then

[LAKISYLVANIA]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

So you would support the pro slavery party, Labor isn't states rights

If you think all democratic-republicans between 1789 and 1820 supported slavery while federalists didn't, i would suggest opening a history book, wikipedia and to inform yourself.

I am in Law School, I know my History very well even Northern D's like Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan were called Copper Head D's which means states rights and away from abolitionists. James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce were from PA and NH and didn't do a thing to stop the spread of slavery.

The Democratic-Republican party was being split in 1824. Pierce was born in 1804, not even 20 years old, back than. Buchanan was a federalist until 1824. Being in law school doesn't make you immune for stating wrong takes.

It's not wrong takes when you have Acted your History exams, that's your interpretation, you don't have a PHD in Teaching.

Democrats weren't the same back then

They were not democrats, they were democratic-republicans. You talk about the second party system, we talk about the first party system.

[Gass3268]

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.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

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. The B.U.S. remained, of course, but Republican opposition to the bank had always been more lukewarm than the other features of Hamilton's economic program. You could say Jefferson adopted Federalist thinking with regard to the power of the presidency, but you could also just as easily (and more convincingly, IMO) argue that Jefferson's opposition to centralized power was rooted in his belief that such power was exercised to the benefit of the monied interests, and this objection was no longer relevant after the Federalists were swept out of power. (For that matter, you could say the Federalists adopted almost the entirety of the Republican program after 1801, as they became the party of states' rights and limited government out of necessity in order to oppose the Jeffersonians.) Jefferson always prized ends over means, and the transformation of his attitude toward presidential authority was perfectly in keeping with his view of political power.

[Del Tachi]

easily Democratic-Republican Party

[Alben Barkley]

The Republicans (pro-immigrant, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, anti-organized money). Always concerning to see a plurality of Democrats voting for the party of the 1%!

Lin-Manuel Miranda has ruined a generation's understanding of the politics of the early United States by making Hamilton out to be some liberal progressive champion of immigrants, minorities, and democracy when nothing could be farther from the truth. Hell, he basically founded Wall Street! Yet some of his biggest fans nowadays also love Bernie Sanders and claim to hate capitalism! Makes no sense.

Hamilton is easily the worst portrait/bust in Biden's office. I get why he put it there, this new mythological Hamilton is all the rage now, but it bears little resemblance to the real historical Hamilton.

[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.

[SWE]

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

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I find it quite ironic that a majority of Democrats and Republicans opt for the Federalists while all the other-affiliated exactly vote for Democrat-Republicans by a considerable margin.

[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.

[RINO Tom]

The Republicans (pro-immigrant, pro-free speech, pro-democracy, anti-organized money). Always concerning to see a plurality of Democrats voting for the party of the 1%!

Lin-Manuel Miranda has ruined a generation's understanding of the politics of the early United States by making Hamilton out to be some liberal progressive champion of immigrants, minorities, and democracy when nothing could be farther from the truth...

I quite like Hamilton and find the rest of your post to be full of quite objectionable opinions, but I would like to comment on this part.  Perhaps that has been the effect on your run-of-the-mill, undereducated liberal, but to those with an astute understanding of that period, I think the play actually paints Hamilton to be as much of a Mitt Romney as a Barack Obama and Jefferson as a flawed (and perhaps hypocritical and selfish) antithesis to Hamilton's Wall Street coziness...

Jefferson on Hamilton ("Washington On Your Side"):

I get no satisfaction witnessing his fits of passion, the way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion.  Our poorest citizens, our farmers, live ration to ration, as Wall Street robs 'em blind in search of chips to cash in.

Burr to Hamilton ("Schuyler Defeated"):

They don't need to know me, they don't like you .... Oh, Wall Street thinks you're great, you'll always be adored by the things you create...

Washington Jefferson ("Cabinet Battle #2"):

(Regarding supporting the French Revolution, pretty clearly insinuating that Jefferson was an overly ideological radical on this issue)
Frankly, it's a little disquieting that you would let your ideals blind you to reality.

I think the "immigrant" thing is just highlighted to show what an astonishing rags-to-riches story Alexander Hamilton was ... and he WAS an immigrant and did face prejudice because of it at times.  Sure, there are a lot of people who can't get past "Southerner with slaves who likes 'small government' = right-winger," and "New Yorker who opposes slavery and is an immigrant and likes 'centralized government' = left-winger."  However, I don't the musical does too much to reinforce that line of thinking.  Obviously, overall the Democratic-Republican Party was much more tolerant of immigration than the Federalists were, not to mention other issues where they clearly are to their "left" such as being "pro-working class," championing the separation of church and state, being much more protective of free speech, etc.