Democratic-Republican or Federalist?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The Federalists were better on everything besides foreign policy (Vive la France!). Even if their financial policies were more "conservative", they were necessary and good for the country. The national bank, debt assumption, protective tariffs, internal improvements, all good. Those policies needn't be considered conservative anyway; look at the great liberal nationalist economist Friedrich List who took his ideas directly from Hamilton.

I also find the Jeffersonian Republicans to be a bit silly in how they went about and presented themselves. So here we have a bunch of wealthy Southern aristocrats like Tom Jefferson LARPing as yeomen and sans-culottes. It's quite ironical that the Americans who best fit the Jeffersonian ideal of "virtuous small farmers" were equality-practicing New Englanders, and guess who they mostly voted for? By contrast the Federalists strike me as a group of enlightened, bewigged gentlemen of the 18th century who you might expect to find in a London coffeehouse circa 1720. I digress here, but my point is that I find the Federalists both politically superior and more aesthetically pleasing.

[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.

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 Jefferson's administration repealed most of Hamilton's regressive taxes, shrank the size of the military, and threw out the Alien and Sedition Acts.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.

By the end of Madison's second term he had re-establishment of the national bank, increased spending on the army and the navy, and a tariff designed to protect American goods from foreign competition. He was even criticized from people in his own party of having polices that "out-Hamiltons Alexander Hamilton." They also realized that America as an " Jeffersonian Agrarian Utopia" was outdated and unpractical, like Hamilton knew 15 years prior. Yes it it true that the Federalist took on some of the states' rights issues, but that was in a direct response to a embargo that was wildly unpopular and destructive to over half of the country and the warmongering Democratic-Republicans took as vastly unprepared country into war against a Megapower.

[Gass3268]

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.

Nah, my views are based off reading that book that it was based on, Alexander Hamilton (Chernow), The Federalist Era: 1789-1801 (Miller), The Democratic Republic: 1801-1815 (Smelser), and What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (Howe).

[Sumner 1868]

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.

While the Republican's were overall more pro-slavery, by no means was the Federalist Party free of the the Peculiar Institution. South Carolina's Lowcountry, by far the area of the early U.S. most dependent on slavery, was a major Federalist stronghold. There was also quite a few northern abolitionist Republicans.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

By the end of Madison's second term he had re-establishment of the national bank,

Right. This is not very surprising, because as I say in my last post, "Republican opposition to the bank had always been more lukewarm than the other features of Hamilton's economic program." Jefferson, of course, doubted the bank's constitutionality when it was first proposed, but Madison was never dead-set against it, and Albert Gallatin—the Republican House minority leader for most of the Adams Administration and later the leading architect of Republican economic policy as secretary of the treasury—was strongly in favor. Even William H. Crawford, a favorite of the Tertium Quids, supported retaining the bank. When the First B.U.S. came up for recharter in 1811, it failed by a single vote in the Senate (Vice President Clinton broke the tie against) despite a significant majority. Republicans didn't "co-opt the Federalist program" because their own ideas were "out-dated." They voted to recharter the bank because they already agreed with it and believed it compatible with their political philosophy.

increased spending on the army and the navy,

Yes, during a war. Jefferson and Madison weren't pacifists; they opposed retention of a large standing army during peacetime. Obviously the man who was governor of Virginia during the Revolutionary War was not opposed to military spending when necessary for the national defense.

and a tariff designed to protect American goods from foreign competition.

The Jeffersonian position was that tariffs were permissible when necessary to raise revenue, and after the War of 1812 they were necessary. I won't deny that the victory over Britain at New Orleans, however, led to an outpouring of American nationalism in the late 1810s, and this led some Republicans to modify their position on the tariff. Madison was always more moderate than Jefferson, and it shouldn't be surprising that the 1816 Tariff was passed on his watch.

I will note as well that the later (National) Republican enthusiasm for tariffs came out of a need specifically to fund internal improvements in the West, which grew out of what you called the "impractical" Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian republic.

He was even criticized from people in his own party of having polices that "out-Hamiltons Alexander Hamilton."

I guess Joe Biden is a Republican, then, because Twitter leftists told me so. No party is ideologically homogenous, and Madison existed on the moderate flank of the Republicans relative to Jefferson.

They also realized that America as an " Jeffersonian Agrarian Utopia" was outdated and unpractical, like Hamilton knew 15 years prior.

Jefferson was a dreamer and a philosopher at heart, but a very practical politician when it came down to it. With the benefit of hindsight, we can say that industrialization was probably inevitable, though such statements are always fraught. I will insist, however, that all this talk of how Jefferson's idealized vision of an agrarian republic was "[im]practical" or "silly" misses the point of agrarianism, namely wealth redistribution. It was basically an early form of Georgeism, and while that might seem outdated now, it really wasn't in the early nineteenth century. During Jefferson's presidency land was still the primary form of wealth (Hamilton's beloved market was built on land speculation), and the eastern states were choked with settlement, effectively pricing out the poor and new immigrants arriving from Europe. The resulting concentration of land (wealth) in the hands of an increasingly small minority was something Jefferson found highly distasteful, and his proposed solution was to acquire* land in the West for settlement by the lower classes. You can decry that as idealistic all you want, but it strikes me as not really a fair analysis of Jefferson to blame him for failing to foresee the rise of the industrial proletariat while the equally outdated views of the other Founding Fathers are left unmentioned.

Yes it it true that the Federalist took on some of the states' rights issues, but that was in a direct response to a embargo

Either circumstances matter or they don't. Jeffersonians and Hamiltonians alike were committed primarily to ends, and not to means, like all politicians then and now. Hamiltonian commitment to a powerful federal executive was dependent on their being in power, and once they weren't, they abandoned all of their talk of a strong central government. I don't see that as being particularly hypocritical, but you're the one who brought it up.

the warmongering Democratic-Republicans took as vastly unprepared country into war against a Megapower.

Much like the Federalists wanted to do in 1798! There's plenty of warmongering to go around in the early republic.

Nah, my views are based off reading that book that it was based on, Alexander Hamilton (Chernow),

Well, there's your problem. Chernow isn't a historian: he's a journalist, a hack and a hagiographer to boot. He's part of a trend in recent popular history that over-emphasizes individualism and biography as a means of rescuing the Founding Fathers from criticisms of American in the late eighteenth century, especially as they pertain to slavery. His interpretation is very out-of-date and isn't really taken seriously by academic historians.

I also find the Jeffersonian Republicans to be a bit silly in how they went about and presented themselves. So here we have a bunch of wealthy Southern aristocrats like Tom Jefferson LARPing as yeomen and sans-culottes. It's quite ironical that the Americans who best fit the Jeffersonian ideal of "virtuous small farmers" were equality-practicing New Englanders, and guess who they mostly voted for? By contrast the Federalists strike me as a group of enlightened, bewigged gentlemen of the 18th century who you might expect to find in a London coffeehouse circa 1720. I digress here, but my point is that I find the Federalists both politically superior and more aesthetically pleasing.

The sans-culottes themselves were LARPers, lol. You have an endless fixation with representing the upper middle class as the champions of the people and humble, rugged individualists which constantly frustrates your ability to empathize with the historical left. Gentlemen farmers who sent their sons to Boston College occupied the upper strata of New England society who saw themselves as the "legitimate" democracy, as opposed to the poor farmers, immigrants, and wage laborers who voted —you guessed it —for the Republicans. Southern society was weird (read: reactionary) and I'm not going to pretend Jefferson was some virtuous "man of the people," but as we've discussed many times, Virginian planters were somewhat exceptional among slaveholders in preferring the Republicans to the Federalists as a group (and even then it was not a uniform preference: see Washington, Henry, and Marshall, for instance). If you're going to constantly bring up New England, you need to recognize that the small farmers you idealize were not the lowest rung on the ladder, and indeed envisioned themselves as a kind of elite with interests opposed to the mass of landless whites who were the foundation of the Jeffersonian party and its successors throughout the nineteenth century.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[snip]

Gonna have to disagree, Tom, though it's an interesting Devil's advocate. The musical never shuts up about how Hamilton was an immigrant (lol no) and an abolitionist (lol x2), literally equates support for the French Revolution with elitism ("Election of 1800"), bizarrely implies that the debate around the B.U.S. was about slavery, and perhaps most hilariously tries to pass Hamilton off as a non-interventionist ("Cabinet Battle #2"), conveniently adjusting the timeline so that his break with John Adams is a result of being fired from his job at the treasury (a complete fabrication) instead of frustration that Adams wouldn't go to war with France. It's clearly setting up Hamilton to be on the progressive side of the culture war, which is endlessly irritating, even if I kind-of like the musical too.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Democratic-Republican (D)

[RINO Tom]

[snip]

Gonna have to disagree, Tom, though it's an interesting Devil's advocate. The musical never shuts up about how Hamilton was an immigrant (lol no) and an abolitionist (lol x2), literally equates support for the French Revolution with elitism ("Election of 1800"), bizarrely implies that the debate around the B.U.S. was about slavery, and perhaps most hilariously tries to pass Hamilton off as a non-interventionist ("Cabinet Battle #2"), conveniently adjusting the timeline so that his break with John Adams is a result of being fired from his job at the treasury (a complete fabrication) instead of frustration that Adams wouldn't go to war with France. It's clearly setting up Hamilton to be on the progressive side of the culture war, which is endlessly irritating, even if I kind-of like the musical too.

Eh, maybe you're right and I'm looking at it through biased glasses.  I mean, a lot of progressives are not going to feel right at home idolizing the Democratic-Republicans due to the current movement's obsession concern with racial issues, and many conservatives are going to have issues with the Federalists due to their current lie insistence that small government is an ideology in and of itself, rather than a tool.  However, it seems obvious to me that no party before the New Deal can really be classified as "liberal" or "conservative" STRICTLY using our modern terms (i.e., drawing direct ancestral ties of ideology), as that is largely from where we let those terms evolve ... and I thought, at least, that the musical tried to show that neither political party is going to match up perfectly with our current sides.

Personally, while they did go a bit too far on some things, I think the Federalists are a great example of conservatism to be emulated ... preferably with better outreach and policies that help more people, but the basic tenants of their ideology were clearly coming from a "right-leaning" place, especially given the context of the times, IMO.  Similarly, the Democratic-Republicans look to be antithetical to modern "'social' liberals" in many ways, specifically slavery, but it seems obvious that many of them were coming from a more "left-leaning" place, given the context of the times.  And on that, I guess I agree that Hamilton didn't really stick to the true history, at least as I understand it.

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.

I know that's not a great analogy or anything, but it really is difficult to talk about ideology on past issues that are not DIRECTLY correlated with modern issues, like immigration, wealth redistribution, business regulation, etc.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

[snip]

Gonna have to disagree, Tom, though it's an interesting Devil's advocate. The musical never shuts up about how Hamilton was an immigrant (lol no) and an abolitionist (lol x2), literally equates support for the French Revolution with elitism ("Election of 1800"), bizarrely implies that the debate around the B.U.S. was about slavery, and perhaps most hilariously tries to pass Hamilton off as a non-interventionist ("Cabinet Battle #2"), conveniently adjusting the timeline so that his break with John Adams is a result of being fired from his job at the treasury (a complete fabrication) instead of frustration that Adams wouldn't go to war with France. It's clearly setting up Hamilton to be on the progressive side of the culture war, which is endlessly irritating, even if I kind-of like the musical too.

Eh, maybe you're right and I'm looking at it through biased glasses.  I mean, a lot of progressives are not going to feel right at home idolizing the Democratic-Republicans due to the current movement's obsession concern with racial issues, and many conservatives are going to have issues with the Federalists due to their current lie insistence that small government is an ideology in and of itself, rather than a tool.  However, it seems obvious to me that no party before the New Deal can really be classified as "liberal" or "conservative" STRICTLY using our modern terms (i.e., drawing direct ancestral ties of ideology), as that is largely from where we let those terms evolve ... and I thought, at least, that the musical tried to show that neither political party is going to match up perfectly with our current sides.

Personally, while they did go a bit too far on some things, I think the Federalists are a great example of conservatism to be emulated ... preferably with better outreach and policies that help more people, but the basic tenants of their ideology were clearly coming from a "right-leaning" place, especially given the context of the times, IMO.  Similarly, the Democratic-Republicans look to be antithetical to modern "'social' liberals" in many ways, specifically slavery, but it seems obvious that many of them were coming from a more "left-leaning" place, given the context of the times.  And on that, I guess I agree that Hamilton didn't really stick to the true history, at least as I understand it.

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.

I know that's not a great analogy or anything, but it really is difficult to talk about ideology on past issues that are not DIRECTLY correlated with modern issues, like immigration, wealth redistribution, business regulation, etc.

That's a legitimate point of view to take, IMO. I absolutely agree when it comes to slavery: while I would argue slavery was always ideological, in the sense that —as Yankee would say —its continued existence served the interests of certain classes or sections, and these people invented rationalizations to justify slavery and to strengthen its position in society, support or opposition to slavery never broke down cleanly along ideological lines. As the century progressed and it became impossible to ignore the political questions posed by slavery, all parties were forced to reckon with this great impassable object. Those who felt their interests were tied to the survival of slavery, or who felt their work required them to curry favor with the South, explored new routes to circumvent the issue or to explain its compatibility with existing dogma: this is where we get Biblical or constitutional defenses of slavery, as well as the wealth of pseudoscientific writings attesting to the biological inferiority of Blacks. But others, free from this obligation, concluded the continuation of slavery was incompatible with what they already assumed about the world —of course Quakers fall into this group, but also political opponents of slavery like Lincoln or, yes, Jefferson and Hamilton. The extent to which slavery was seen as an obstacle to achieving some other desired goal determined the lengths to which parties were willing to go to oppose it: for both Jefferson and Hamilton, slavery was philosophically abhorrent but personally convenient, and attacking it directly would only distract from their domestic agendae. This had been Jefferson's experience during the Revolutionary period, when his several attempts to restrict or abolish slavery met with mixed success. By the time Lincoln comes onto the scene, the stakes of the argument had changed, and more people were willing to entertain a direct attack on slavery for the same reason more people are willing to countenance an attack on the filibuster today: the status quo on that issue has gone from an annoyance to an obstacle obstructing progress toward various parties' desired goals.

I will say in addendum, that while Jefferson and Hamilton (and I suppose Madison, too) are fascinating figures and rightly seen as essential to the history of the early republic, I think they get too much attention in these threads, as evidence by Henry's post —which focuses entirely on Jefferson in his characterization of the Republicans and mostly ignores the constituencies that supported that party. "Great man" history is in this case an obstacle to our better understanding the shape and character of history, and I think we all would benefit from moving past the narrow lens imposed by individualism to consider the broader tapestry of late eighteenth century society.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

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.

[TDAS04]

Probably Jeffersonians, but there's plenty to dislike about both parties, especially from a modern standpoint.

[Antonio the Sixth]

D-R. Democracy for whites only is still better than oligarchy for everyone. Especially since the myth of Federalists as proto-abolitionists is revisionist nonsense.

[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.