Federalists, as Thom Hartman has described them.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

I won a copy of Thom Hartman's book from Mike Malloy, and I am presently reading it. In the beginning of the book, Hartman describes the tension that existed between those who called themselves "Federalists" and those of the Jeffersonian persuasion. There was considerable tension, like The Federalists opposing a Bill of Rights, and wanting the US to have a strong Federal Government, controlled by a social and economic elite.

Fast forward:

Presently, we have a group called "The Federalist Society", made up of primarily judges and lawyers, who purports to be striving to take the United States back to its "Original Intent". But whose intent is that? Oh, they make a lot of noises about Jefferson, and how they will restore lost freedoms and rein in all sorts of depredations caused by the misguided applications of the law by judges, but is that truly their intent, based upon the provenance of their name?

I suspect not. Just like their nominal ancestors before them, I suspect that, they too, would like to see a United States rejiggered to the original intent of The Federalists. They would like to see a crippling of Jeffersonian Intent, with all the personal rights inherent in that intent. Stack the courts with FS members, who will do everything they can to reverse a couple of hundred years of legal precedent and opinions. Truly put the government in the hands of a self-styled social and economic elite. Reduce personal rights, as defined in The Bill of Rights and numerous examples of precedent that has been handed down from some of the greatest of legal minds in history. Create a New Serfdom, based upon the creation of a two-tiered economic system, with the serf class to do the acquiesent bidding of their "betters".

Quite frankly, looking out at the state of the nation today, it is clear that this is their goal.

[StClone]

1. Fundie Federalists

A sick idea.

Fundie-ism and "me first and better than you" attitude is the base of many of todays problems. There may be intellectual elitists, however they pale in the self love light of the Money elitists. The rich may say to themselves "I am rich therefore I am smart, good and right."

[WillyBrandt]

2. Don't smear the Federalists

At least the ones from back in the day. Wholly different creatures: say what you will, but they were patriotic, looked after America's national interest, and had goals that we would regard as alternatly progressive and regressive.

The Federalist society fuckers are just co-opting--and debasing--a wholly inapplicable term to their nuttery.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Amen.

Back in the early days the Hamiltonians won out, since the Jefferson ideals just didn't cut it in the real world.

Remember-- Jefferson was a pretty bright guy, but he did die broke. Pissed away all of his inheritance 'cause he couldn't do the equivalent of balancing a checkbook. Not the guy to set the rules for a working operation, like a government.

The "Federalist Society" is a bunch of "strict constructionist" lawyers ignoring 250 years of history, and trying to turn the law into a religion.

[Zorra]

4. I strongly disagree.

History shows that the Federalist Party was strongly conservative, aristocratic, pro-corporation, anti-democratic, and could, ideologically, be considered the predecessor of the republican party of today. Jefferson, the founder of today's Democratic Party, had to fight the federalists tooth and nail to insure a Democratic government of, by, and for the people, and not the rich.

This is an excerpt from one of Jefferson's correspondences:

You remember the machinery which the federalists played off, about that time, to beat down the friends to the real principles of our Constitution, to silence by terror every expression in their favor, to bring us into war with France and alliance with England, and finally to homologize our Constitution with that of England.

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/jefferson_a_01.html

Here's a simple synopsis of Jefferson's problems with Federalists:

Jefferson, however, distrusted both the proposals and the motives of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. He thought Hamilton's financial programs both unwise and unconstitutional, flowing "from principles adverse to liberty." On the issue of federal assumption of state debts, Jefferson struck a bargain with Hamilton permitting assumption to pass--a concession that he later regretted. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade Washington to veto the bill incorporating a Bank of the United States--recommended by Hamilton.

Jefferson suspected Hamilton and others in the emerging Federalist Party of a secret design to implant monarchist ideals and institutions in the government. The disagreements spilled over into foreign affairs. Hamilton was pro-British, and Jefferson was by inclination pro-French, although he directed the office of secretary of state with notable objectivity. The more Washington sided with Hamilton, the more Jefferson became dissatisfied with his minority position within the cabinet. Finally, after being twice dissuaded from resigning, Jefferson did so on Dec. 31, 1793.

"From the moment of my retiring from the administration," he later wrote, "the Federalists got unchecked hold on General Washington." Jefferson thought Washington's expedition to suppress the Whiskey rebellion (1794) an unnecessary use of military force. He deplored Washington's denunciation of the Democratic societies and considered Jay's Treaty (1794) with Britain a "monument of folly and venality."

Thus Jefferson welcomed Washington's decision not to run for a third term in 1796. Jefferson became the reluctant presidential candidate of the Democratic-Republican party, and he seemed genuinely relieved when the Federalist candidate, John Adams, gained a narrow electoral college victory (71 to 68). As the runner-up, however, Jefferson became vice-president under the system then in effect.
Jefferson hoped that he could work with Adams, as of old, especially since both men shared an anti-Hamilton bias. But those hopes were soon dashed. Relations with France deteriorated. In 1798, in the wake of the XYZ AFFAIR, the so-called Quasi-War began. New taxes were imposed and the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) threatened the freedom of Americans. Jefferson, laboring to check the authoritarian drift of the national government, secretly authored the Kentucky Resolution. More important, he provided his party with principles and strategy, aiming to win the election of 1800.

Federalist leaders remained adamantly opposed to Jefferson, but the people approved his policies. Internal taxes were reduced; the military budget was cut; the Alien and Sedition Acts were permitted to lapse; and plans were made to extinguish the public debt. Simplicity and frugality became the hallmarks of Jefferson's administration.

http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html

[A_Tra]

5. You all

forget that while Jefferson was in office, he was a better federalist than Hamilton.

[Zorra]

6. Got a link? n/t

[A_Tra]

7. no

link right now, as its very late, but awhile ago I read a great article about how Jefferson was basically a hypocrite. The example that stands out in my mind, is that in the Louisana Purchase, Jefferson, a strict constructionist, justified the purchase with the elastic clause. He reneged his key beliefs and worked in the opposite direction. It went on to explain how Jefferson actually did a better job of employing federalist principles than the federalists did.

[Sephirstein]

8. Four legs good, two legs better

;-)

[newyawker99]

9. Hi A_Tra!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BeFree]

10. Federalists

By the very nature of the name - Federal - one can see that these types wish to consolidate power amongst an elite few. A Sheep like populace being a standard for their rule, fearmongering is their greatest tool.

Supporters of an over-arching supreme government - Federalists - are enemies of the People.

Democracy is like salt in their wounds. Democracy is like a wall before them. We need more and better walls; pass the salt, please.<g>