were the federalists

[minnesotaDFLer]

conservative or liberal? you know, washington and adams etc...

[The Whiskey Priest]

1. Adams said something like

Everyone should know their place and keep to it. This country has always been class conscious and the Federalist were and are one step away from being aristocrats.

[OrlandoGator]

2. Clinton was the most conservative president of the last 50 years.

Conservatives are interested in conserving things. All the GOP wants to conserve is power and wealth (and the occassional fetus or braindead woman when the cameras are on).

[Igel]

3. "Liberal". But beware of

semantic shifts and landslides.

Now they'd be called "conservative". But beware of exploding anachronisms.

Very risky question. Any answer's gonna bite you on the butt.

[Katidid]

5. Very well put ...

what we might consider 'liberal', 'conservative', 'labour' - doesn't quite mean that same across the pond, either.... the meanings have shifted and changed.

[salvorhardin]

10. Exploding anachronisms?

Somehow I'm picturing a week old Taco Bell burrito.

[Warpy]

4. The one thing to remember about this country under

the Federalists is that it was a total nightmare, completely unworkable. Having states with the rights to enact tariffs, coin money, raise armies and float navies led to the inevitable, mini wars between them.

The Federalists today are people who've taken a cafeteria approach to that era without knowing any of the history and none of the problems having so weak a central government presented. Yes, there will always be tension between states and the central government. Yes, that's a good thing.

[mzteris]

6. here's a link

http://federalists.biography.ms/

[I Have A Dream]

16. Thanks for the information. It will make interesting reading. n/t

[wuushew]

7. The federalists were awesome

Washington wanted a strong central government that protected the welfare of the people. His views were born out correctly by history while Jefferson's quaint notion of yeoman farming was left in the ash-heap of history. Jefferson was also incorrect about his Anglo-phobia, he confessed as much to Adams in a letter saying that he had misjudged the French revolution's nature.

Other important contributions of the Federalists were a strong and equal power footing for the courts as well as government oversight of the financial system through Hamilton's brilliant work.

Also note that Washington at least freed his slaves and Adams did not own any. Federalists being from Northern states usually where less likely to support the pro-slavery arguments coming out of Virginia and South Carolina.

[BillZBubb]

13. You are making a classic historical mistake.

You are conflating the "Federalists"--those who wanted to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with a stronger central government--with the members of the Federalist Party.

The latter were not awesome. They were reactionaries. Anyone who thinks the Alien and Sedition Acts are awesome is NO Democrat. Adams was one of the worst of the lot, slaves or not. The absolutely shameful way he and his ilk treated REAL friends of liberty like Benjamin Franklin is appalling.

As for Hamilton's work, what a laugh. He was a willing tool of the moneyed class, and his efforts went a long way to institutionalize the class system in this country.

Are you REALLY a Democrat???????

[wuushew]

18. Adams did not strongly support the Alien and Sedition Acts

he would later blame that on the Hamiltonian Wing of the party and may or may not have been negatively influenced by Abigail on the matter.

Hamilton was a bastard son of a Scotsman who earned his position in life, the Virginian landed gentry of which Jefferson was a member opposed the investor class because they reminded them of British lenders to which they owed great sums of money.

Central banking and debt consolidation are good things. The early anti-federalist were wrong for the same reasons opposing such institutions as the later Jacksonians were. Resulting in unfortunate and destructive economic chaos.

[BillZBubb]

22. It is amazing because your read on economic history is

totally from the right wing! Jackson bad??? And you are in a Democratic group???? What side are you on????

Killing the Bank of the United States was a GREAT accomplishment of Jacksonian policy. It was a tool of Nicholas Biddle and Eastern moneyed interest. It was not a servant of the people. Just the opposite. As for unfortunate economic chaos, that happened WITH the bank too.

Are you REALLY a progressive? I mean seriously?????

[wuushew]

24. I cannot support Jackson

Pro-slavery, pro-expansion, anti-Indian, pro-political spoils and anti-bank. Was his opponent John Q. Adams really that bad? He was after all a man of intelligence and an accomplished diplomat.

My sources included what I consider my fairly unbiased college history text book.

"Jackson was now more determined than ever to destroy the "monster". He could not legally abolish the institution before the expiration of its charter. But he weakened it by removing the government's deposits from the bank. His secretary of the treasury believed that such an action would destabilize the financial system and refused to give the order. Jackson removed him and appointed a replacement. When the new secretary similarly procrastinated, Jackson named a third: Roger B. Taney, the attorney general, a close friend and loyal ally of the president.

Taney soon began taking th government's deposits out of the Bank of the United states an putting them in a number of state banks(which Jackson's enemies called "pet banks"). In response, Biddle called in the loans and raised interest rats, explaining that without the government deposits the Bank's resources were stretched too thin. His actions precipitated a short recession, which Biddle thought would pressure Congress to recharter the Bank.

As financial conditions worsened in the winter of 1833-1834, supports of the Bank organized meetings around the country and sent petitions to Washington urging a rechartering of the Bank. But the Jaksonians blamed the recession on Biddle and refused. The banker finally carried his contraction of credit too far and had to reverse himself to appease the business community. His hopes of winning a recharter of the Bank died in the process. Jackson had won a considerable political victory. But when the Bank of the united States died in 1836, the country lost an important financial institution and was left with a fragmented and chronically unstable system that would plague the economy for many years

The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People Second Edition, author Alan Brinkley page 249


My opinions on the federalist and anti-federalist have been largely shaped by the excellent "Founding Brothers" non fiction book by Joseph Ellis which came out in 2000. The opinions formed are based on my own readings of their various correspondence. Why do you hold Adams in such contempt? The man at worst would be described as a firery abrasive pragmatist. His accomplishments are arguably greater than those of Jefferson's in the Revolutionary period.

[BillZBubb]

25. Thanks for the laugh. When you read some REAL history

get back to me. Your "Concise History" is baloney.

I was like you years ago when my history background was limited to general texts and a few "popular" history books.

Why don't you at least read "The Age of Jackson" by a GREAT Democrat and scholar, Arthur Schlesinger. Then, we'll talk.

As for Adams, you are so far off the mark that it is unbelievable. You actually believe the revisionist crap that Adams was somehow pushed into Alien and Sedition. That's a total fabrication. Adams was a LEADER of the coup against the goals of the American Revolution. He was the political heir of Edmund Burke and hinted that monarchy wasn't such a bad thing after all.

Jefferson and Jackson are the "founders" of the Democratic Party. Adams and Hamilton the Republicans. Contrary to what others have posted here, common liberal themes still come down to the Democrats from J & J, while common conservative themes fall from Adams and Hamilton.

[tx_dem41]

23. Wow...I don't think I've ever seen Hamilton praised on a progressive...

forum before. Oh well, there's always a first time, I guess.

[BillZBubb]

8. Conservative to a large degree.

The Federalist Party was the pre-cursor of the modern Republican Party. They were the party of business and financial interests of that era. Hamilton is probably the best example. Adams, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, is the embodiment of right wing reaction.

The Federalist Party was the lead element in the American Counter-Revolution, which essentially negate many of the major goals of most revolutionaries in the struggle against England. They supported independence, but after that they wanted the same local power brokers to remain in control.

Be aware that "Federalist" is an often misused and misunderstood term. Madison was the LEADING Federalist pushing the ratification of the Constitution, but he was in no sense a believer in the Federalist Party and it's practices. Madison was no Federalist in the sense the the term is twisted by today's right wingers. He supported a very strong central government, with the states basically being administrative units.

[wuushew]

9. Madison was a weak willed turncoat

swayed by the awesome charisma of Jefferson. None the less he was brilliant as a federalist and then later an anti-federalist.

[minnesotaDFLer]

11. well, have we reached a decision?

are they conservative or liberal?

[wuushew]

12. I would say they resemble the 20th century Democratic Party in many ways

Strong emphasis on regulation of commerce and taxation, well funded and large central government. They are certainly not the classic paleo-cons who desire business be free of regulation and that states rights trump federal power.

We have great difficulty comparing the olden parties to the modern Republican party because it has turned into a fascist authoritarian theocratic party with no historical parallel.

[BillZBubb]

15. The Federalist Party was conservative/reactionary

Federalists, who pushed for a stronger central government, were not necessarily conservative nor liberal. A distinction needs to be made whether you are talking about the movement to a constitution (the federalists) or the post-constitution political party (the Federalist Party). Those are two different issues.

Adams, Hamilton, & Jay were conservatives. Pro big money conservatives.

Madison & Washington were mostly liberal, but Washington did defer to conservatives on many items.

Franklin was probably early America's greatest liberal voice.

Jefferson was hard to pin down, but aside from slavery was essentially liberal. Certainly a champion of the little guy, as long as the little guy was white.

They were all federalists--but only Adams, Hamilton & Jay were in the Federalist Party.

[BillZBubb]

14. Baloney.

Madison was an anti-federalist only once. He did agree with Jefferson one time on Nullification. That was it. He later corrected that error.

He was never a member of the reactionary Federalist Party. But that is a claim of honor, not shame. Again you are confusing two issues.

[wuushew]

17. Friend and associate of Hamilton to lapdog of Jefferson

Having authored the Constitution and its rather impressive layout for federal power Madison later adopted many of Jefferson's views on limiting its power.

[BillZBubb]

21. Not so.

Provide references if you can. If you want to know about Madison read "A Necessary Evil" by Garry Wills. As I said, Madison supported Jefferson on Nullification one time and later admitted it was a huge mistake. You are simply wrong in your interpretation of Madison.

[merbex]

19. This thread is more interesting than current Dem/Rep politics

you guys are poles apart here

[K-W]

20. Both, conservative and liberal are not opposites.

They just happen to be the two names used by the two major political factions produced by our system that are in opposition.

They were conservative liberals. They believed in the liberal ideal of rights protection and representative democracy, but they were also extremely sensitive to preserving the social structure of society, which they preserved through the retention of british common law, particularly the traditional european arrangement of property. It is also why they severely limited representation.