Our Founding politically party, the Federalists, lose the presidency in 1800 and completely dissolve by 1815. Reflecting on our discussion from Friday, briefly share below if you believe that you would have been a Federalist in the 1790s. Consider their plans, their actions and their choices as you comment below:
(as is our practice, please reply to the comments of two others)
(MUST INCLUDE KEY TERMS IN OUR RESPONSE)
In theory (and according to the chart above,) I think I would have been a Federalist, though I don't think I would have agreed with a lot of their policies and courses of action. For example, I am not really in agreement with John Adams's Alien and Sedition Acts. I feel they were extreme and unnecessary, but I do understand where he was coming from. One of the only courses of action that I do agree with was Hamilton's plan for the national bank. I think it was a well thought out and useful idea that really benefited the nation. Without it, who knows where we would be now. In short, I do believe that I would have been a Federalist, but maybe just not a conventional one. There would be some Democratic Republican ideas and plans that I would agree with, and some Federalist ones that I don't. I would probably try to talk to people and see if they understand where I am coming from as a Federalist, and also try to help my party get back on track with what they originated from (origin beliefs.)
ReplyDeleteI agree, I would not have agreed with everything, but overall I would find myself believing in federalist views.
DeleteI find my self leaning towards the Democratic Republicans, but I do agree with some of the federalist values.
DeleteI definitely agree that as time went on, the Federalist party changed into something that I most likely wouldn't have believed in.
DeleteI understand where you're coming from. Federalists do have some good points.
DeleteSakari
DeleteI understand where you're coming from, they had at least something going for them to be popular.
I agree, the Federalists were more agreeable despite key flaws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteI agree. Many of the Federalist policies seem good and many are flawed.
DeleteI agree, since the Federalists' belief that a strong government was important led to the US's stability.
DeleteI agree, though I would not have agreed with everything like the Alien and Sedation Acts, but I would still learn towards federalism.
DeleteI agree, I believe in many of the Federalist policies, and the ones I agree with outweigh the acts I don't such as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteI agree. The basic federalist ideas of having that basic structure to hold the states together is an excellent idea.
DeleteEthan Lader
I would have been a Democratic Republican. This is because the Democratic Republicans a firmly against a very powerful government, while Federalists promote it. I feel that a government that has a lot of power, controls the banks, and limited the power of the states could easily be abused and become communist, where government controls everything. In addition, following the constitution with strict interpretations, would prevent people from taking advantage of loopholes. However, I do believe that we should have close connection with Britain, but only as an ally, not as an influence. Also, I do think a strong central government is necessary, but it should not take away power from states.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from and think state power in very important.
DeleteI agree, Democratic-Republicanism is the way to go!
DeleteSakari Jackson
DeleteThis is an interesting response I didn't expect. I think most of the class at least semi falls under this category, no one really leans too strongly one way or another.
I disagree with this because I feel that a government with a lot of power would also come with Checks and Balances to avoid what the DR fear, a tyrannical government. Also, loopholes in the Constitu and the government will not always be bad, they could be good. For example, Thomas Jefferson exploited a loophole in the Constitution to make a deal with France, The Louisiana Purchase which was beneficial to the government.
DeleteI really like how you want a somewhat strong government that still allows for the power of the states, because it means there can be the checks and balances of a large government while still allowing local areas to follow the views/needs of that area.
DeleteI believe I would have been a Federalist. I support their policies of centralizing the government and their financial plans. The assumption plan was a good way to take over the debts and attempt to solve some of the problems, as well as the national bank. This was a good way to organize funds and get America's financial state under control. Additionally, I think that the Constitution can not say every single right and that it can not be read exactly as it is written. However, as the Federalist party progressed, I disagree with many of their more oppressive policies such as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
ReplyDeleteYeah, when you have a very powerful central government, it is easy for it to become oppressive, like the Alien and sedition acts.
DeleteI agree, they were definitely trying to unify the note so unified states.
DeleteI agree about the Constitution. I think that if it was taken 100% literally, the problems like the financial crisis couldn't have been handled.
DeleteI agree, the national bank and assumption policy were good solutions to solve the issues at that time.
DeleteI agree, it was extremely important that the Constitution not be a rigid set of rules.
DeleteI agree that the Constitution was not written to be taken word for word.
Delete(Following the chart) If I lived in those times, I probably would have been a Federalist. I most likely would not have agreed with some of their policies and courses of action. Such as the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were very harsh and did not make much sense. They seemed unneeded. But I do agree with the idea of a national bank proposed by Hamilton. It was really well thought out. We don't know if the national bank would have stood today, but considering they were building a nation from the ground up, it seemed like a really good idea to unify the states.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, especially with the national bank aspect.
DeleteI also agree with this, I would have probably been a Federalists but I definitely do not agree with all of their policies.
DeleteI agree that the Alien and Sedition Acts were extreme, but I also agree that other aspects of the Federalist platform were much more appealing.
DeleteI think I would have been a Democratic Republican (not a Federalist) if I was an American during the 1790s-1800s. Like the Federalists, I believe in a limited government that protects the right of individual states and the people. That doesn't mean I don't believe in any sort of central authority, but I do want it to be limited. Furthermore, like the Democratic-Republicans, I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. In my view, if a power is not specifically delegated to Congress, it must either be given to them through a Constitutional Amendment or the matter should be delegated to the States. I assume many Democratic-Republicans thought similarly. Like the Democratic-Republicans, I don't like Britain. I would not advocate for a close relationship with them, especially right after we just separated from them. However, unlike the Democratic-Republicans, I do believe that there should be some place where the tax revenue that the Federal Government collects is deposited. I don't want this "Federal Bank" to have much more power than that, but I do acknowledge that it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, especially in regards to the past relationship with Britain.
DeleteI do agree with your concerns about loosely interpreting the Constitution. While certain changes, like a national bank, may be necessary, granting Congress powers that aren't explicit can be dangerous.
DeleteI like your analysis of how loser relationship with Britain would seem to go against American values.
DeleteIt is interesting to see form the eyes of the opposition and I definitely see where you are coming specially when talking about how the general public would have seen the relationship with Britain specially after the war.
DeleteI believe I would have leaned towards Federalists views. While I do not agree with every policy, I agree with the overall motions to improve the economy, strengthen foreign relationships including with Britain, and keep a strong central government. These were issues that the country was facing at the time, and I think plans, such as Hamilton's national bank plan and the assumption policy, address those issues. I can understand why the Federalist party fell apart, because attempts to stabilize the country became too extreme. However, I think I would have been a Federalist in the 1790s because while staying true to the Constitution is important, I would've wanted to see change in the nation's obvious problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but keeping close ties with Britain may be a red flag for the future development of the country.
DeleteI think that I would've been a Federalists, but I don't agree with a lot of their policies. I agree with Hamilton's proposals and plans, such as the national bank and the assumption policy. I think that these proposals majorly helped solve the country's problems at the time. I think a centralized government and unified states were also very important at that time. I definitely do not agree with all of the Federalists policies, like the Alien and Sedition Acts.
ReplyDeleteI would have been a Federalist because I support a *national bank* to regulate an increasingly industrial American economy. This industrial economy was praised by Alexander Hamilton in his *"Report on Manufactures."* I also support the idea of an *enlightened* and trustworthy elite in a position of power.
ReplyDeleteYeah, but if the "enlightened" Federalist ruling class is just made up of wealthy businessmen, who's to say they won't prioritize making money over the safety of the people, like many current leaders do now?
DeleteSakari
ReplyDeleteIt seems that most of the class would have been Federalists, which isn't what I expected honestly. I wouldn't have been either- they both have about one strong point that I agree with. I guess I'm too socialist for government B-) *dons cool kid glasses*.
But if I had to choose, I would go with the republicans, because I too support the French Revolution (even though France isn't real), and find strong values in anti-urbanism and education (rich coming from someone who moved to New York and went to a public school, I know, but neither of those things were my choice so)
I would be a Federalist because I would support their idea of a strong central government, and a national bank. The Federalists had a loose interpretation of the Constitution, and I agree with this idea as it would allow for America to improve much more easily over time. However, the Federalists had many ideas and beliefs that I would disagree with, such as having close ties with the British monarchy, as well as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which denied American citizens the right to speak freely of their ideas and opinions.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Federalists loose interpretation of the constitution would make it easier for America to adapt. I also agree that the Alien and Sedition acts were bad.
DeleteThe loose interpretation of the constitution was definitely a strong point, as it allowed for change to happen more easily.
DeleteI agree. The national bank seems to help lessen the problems that would occur from the individual states having control of debts and taxes.
DeleteI think I might have been a Federalist because I would support a more centralized government. I would not support a lot of Adam's decisions like the alien and sedition acts. I also think that, if done correctly, the national bank and assumption policy would be good. I also think that trying to keep as good a relationship with other countries, like Britain, as possible, would help legitimize America as an independent country. I also believe that the constitution should be interpreted and not taken completely literally because its meaning needs to be adapted to the changing world.
ReplyDeleteI think that keeping a relationship with Britain is good but not very necessary. They could have allied with other European countries such as Spain or France for legitimization without going near their former ruler.
DeleteIf I had to choose, I would have been a Federalist. At its core, Federalism supports a strong central government, and that is exactly what a new country needs, especially one of the US's size. Even though it was smaller than what it is today, it still was a very sizeable country, and a government has to be strong in order to hold it together. I would not have supported some of Adam's policies, like the Alien and Sedition acts, but overall Federalism is what the country needed.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The US needed to be seen as a united country in order to survive, which means centralized government.
DeleteI agree because it's very easy for a young nation to collapse within if there's no real central power.
DeleteI think I would have been a Federalist during the 1790s. The Federalist supports centralizing the government and creating strong national banks, as they are essential to the unity of the new nation. In addition, I also think that states rights are important, but there are also dangers of having states that are too individualistic, which also doesn't create a unified nation. Though I don't agree with everything they stood for and they way some things were executed, like the Alien and Sedition Acts, I agree with most of the core principles.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the states should not be too individualistic. If this happens then the united states wouldn't really be united.
DeleteI think I would have been a federalist during the 1790's-1800's. I don't really agree with the alien and sedition acts and their idea about having an elite ruling class. I think that one of the main parts of American culture was how they broke away from British society, so I don't agree that we should mold back into that. However, I do agree with them that having a unified centralized government is important. It makes the nation seem stronger and look more professional in the eyes of the rest of the world. I also agree that Hamilton's national bank is a good idea. It helps unify the states and will allow America to get more money. Overall, I don't fully agree with some of the social views within the party, but their governmental views seem to have the best interest for the country at heart.
ReplyDeleteI feel more inclined to join the Federalist Party under the principles set by the chart, as a new country the United States needed to find central stability and to be more concerned with state affairs over the country when it was in dire need for a face and to assert themselves as a country and nation, is simply foolish. Although, this does not excuse the corruption that was exerted after the XYZ affair when the Federalist Party took control of the government nor when Adams had passed the alien and sedition acts that violated the American constitution. But I do believe that the country had to sacrifice some freedom to reach stability and when the country had already built its feet then they could transform the country into the place they wanted it to be.
ReplyDeleteDespite disagreeing with most of their policies, I probably would've been a Federalist. I firmly believe that a ruling class being entirely made up of wealthy businessmen is a bad idea, and I disagree with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but Federalism provided stability. The country needed to present a united front in order to survive, and a centralized government achieved that. It makes sense that they lost power after the Election of 1800, though, because at that point, the US had already established itself.
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean. Without the steps the Federalists took to procure a strong national government there might never have been an America today because the centralized government America needed would never have been built. That being said I think it was necessary to protect the individual states' authority and rights at the same time.
DeleteI would have been a Democratic Republican. This is on the grounds that the Democratic Republicans an immovably against an extremely incredible government, while Federalists advance it. I feel that an administration that has a great deal of force, controls the banks, and restricted the force of the states could without much of a stretch be mishandled and get socialist, where government controls everything. Also, following the constitution with exacting translations, would keep individuals from exploiting provisos. Notwithstanding, I do accept that we ought to have close association with Britain, yet just as a partner, not as an impact. Likewise, I do think a solid focal government is fundamental, however it ought not remove power from states.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The country definitely needs a strong national government, I (as a currently identifying Republican) just feel it is crucial to find ways to protect the power of the states in the process. As a country that was created through tyranny, I think we should be extremely careful to protect our independence and our voice.
DeleteI believe I would have been a Federalist because I think that a strong national government is beneficial. I also agree with Hamilton's plans to create a national bank and help to relieve National debt. I disagree with some policies like the Alien and Sedition acts but I can understand where they are coming from.
ReplyDeleteAll around, I would've been a federalist because I favor a strong central government that can sufficiently oversee the states. I also agree with a national bank because it was well planned and allowed the government to continue to manage the country well. However, certain things like the Alien and Sedition Acts, I would strictly speak out against. A centralized, capable government would offer the most stability to a young nation, and thus I would be a federalist.
ReplyDeleteTo my surprise I think I would identify as a Democratic Republican. Perhaps I have a unique perspective as someone who lives in a country with an increasingly centralized government, but I believe in leadership on a more local level through smaller state governments. I also believe in an educated electorate of diligent workers and social mobility rather than an elite working class. That being said I also believe in a strong, capable centralized government when necessary, along with mostly all the other general beliefs of the Federalists (a good relationship with Britain, Hamilton's financial plan, and an interpretive flexible quality to the Constitution). It is just those two fundamental beliefs of local government and a ruling working class that make me feel more like a Democratic Republican than a Federalist.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely interesting to me, and I think that there is no one or the other, and everyone can have flexible ideals on what they think is right to them, and sometimes the two can overlap as well, which makes it difficult to be exactly "yes, I am a Federalist" or "yes, I am a Democratic Republican."
DeleteAccording to the above chart, I think that I would have been a Federalist, since the prospect of a consolidated national bank to assume state debts and have America get its ideals together is a great idea to me. In addition, I support loosely interpreting the constitution as needed (such as Alexander Hamilton did to justify the creation of the National Bank) because sometimes there will be times where loosely interpreting things is necessary, in order for new ideas/concepts to flourish, instead of being put down and stamped on by strictly following it. The constitution cannot possibly cover every single scenario to possibly exist, so a loose interpretation would be necessary for any new ideas to occur. Although there are a few areas that I disagree with, I would say that I could largely be a Federalist.
ReplyDeleteI think that a loose interpretation of The Constitution could be helpful, but the Alien and Sedition Acts are not just a little exception, they are the result of loosely following ideas on individual freedom directly because of Federalist ideology.
DeleteI like the Democratic Republican party much more, both due to their more unwavering support of The Constitution and individual rights. They also seem more democratic, valuing the voice of the people more than the voice of an elite. Though I live in an urban area, I think that strong state government could provide benefits to these areas and allow them to better control their own more merchant-banker oriented policies rather than a larger government which only appeases some people some of the time.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with the main idea of your statement, as there are concepts of both ideologies that when combined are both very helpful and can make a powerhouse of good ideas and policy making. Sticking with one or the other would make things prone to flaws that could be adjusted with combining the ideas of the two. State governments vs. Federal governments, etc, those all have a grey area that sometimes is very situational.
DeleteI believe that I would have been a Federalist because I wouldn't be contempt with strict rules and regulations, which is what the Democratic Republicans advocate for. I also agree with the financial system and the national bank. I disagree with the close ties with Britain though. I would not want an oligarchy to exist in the nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The financial system and national bank were very important political events/institutions that shaped how the parties ideologies were.
DeleteEthan Lader
I would have been a federalist since I personally believe that more division would lead to the downfall of America. If not for some unification between states through the federal government, the democracy wouldn’t be functioning for long.
ReplyDeleteEthan Lader