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)
The Federalists had some values that I most likely would have agreed with at the time -- things such as a more centralized government as opposed to individual states' rights and the general idea that having a national debt was not inherently a bad thing, and could actual be a positive. However, there are also a lot of values that I would not agree with, like the idea of having an "elite ruling class" as opposed to smooth social mobility, or the idea of more loosely interpreting the Constitution in order to further your own ideas and proposals. This shows the issue with having a two-party system in the first place -- oftentimes there are ideas on both sides that people agree with, and there's no room for nuance or compromise on the part of the people.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree that a two-party system is problematic and adjustments to to be made in order to properly represent most people.
DeleteI would agree that the partisan system is problematic because people would spend more time fighting than getting things done and progress made.
DeleteI agree. The two party system pits voters against each other and often forces people to ally with a party they don't wholly agree with.
DeleteI agree. There are some advantages however the elite ruling class outweighs this for me
DeleteI agree. Having the national debt wouldn't be too bad of a thing to have because while some states are debt free overall the US would be more stable.
DeleteI agree, the two party system didn’t allow for representation of all opinions and beliefs
DeleteI think that this is still relevant today, where people with certain views just cannot run for office, for fear that they will split the vote and cause the other party to win. This strictly binary two-party system is, in my opinion, hurtful to the country.
Deletei agree too because if a person doesn't agree with any of the two parities then they wont have that much representation.
DeleteReflecting on our discussion from Friday, I believe that I would have been a Democratic-Republican in the 1790s. This is because y beliefs more appropriately align with the beliefs of Federalists. I support the increasing of state power and the diminishing of Federal power. Democratic-Republicans do the same. Furthermore, I support the representation of the lower and working-class, just as Democratic-Republicans do. Finally, I believe that the government should stick to the Constitution as best as possible which also aligns with the beliefs of Democratic-Republicans.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed opinions about states power vs. a more central government, but I think the most important thing is definitely giving power to and representing the working-class.
DeleteThe lower and working class should definitely have a say in the government, and the states should have more individual power, rather than the whole nation have a strong central government.
DeleteI think that a strong federal government can be a good idea, as coordination between all of the states can help further everyone's rights, but I also think that there are drawbacks to a strong federal government. In this case, both sides have valid points to consider. However, I think that people of all social classes should have a say in government, and I don't really see how a valid argument could be made against that view. In my opinion, it is unfair to have all of these views linked in an all-or-nothing scenario, where there is only the two extremes, and one needs to have all one side or all the other.
DeleteIn the 1790s, I would not have been a federalist, mostly because it doesn't align with my personal views as a democrat. As well as this, I'm very much middle class and wouldn't fit in with businessmen and the wealthy upper class that made up the federalists. Furthermore, I don't believe that a monarchy is the best form of government for ruling a country and that thought would lessen my views of Britain. In this period of time, I would have disliked Britain (from past taxations and policies they enforced as a middle-class woman) and differed from the federalists viewing of their government. However, I do see the benefits in having the federalist's view of allowing parts of the constitution to be open for interpretation and not strictly laid out.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that old-timey federalist views do not align with the contemporary views of the democratic party.
DeleteI would agree that while the federalists were elitist and monarchist, they knew the value of keeping the constitution more vague.
DeleteI agree, the Federalists were elitist and more tyrannical then the Democratic Republicans. They didn't look out for the majority of people in America, only the rich.
DeleteI agree. A monarchy is clearly a weak and dangerous form of ruling the country.
DeleteI agree that monarchy isn't the best form of government because there should be other point of views to make a better decision.
DeleteI agree that power should be spread out more so a monarchy probably wouldn't be the best form of government.
Deletei also agree because the vies of the federalist party makes them very similar the the current more modern conservative party.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1790s, I would not have been a federalist because I would have disagreed with some of their ideas. For example, I disagree with the idea of having an "elite ruling class", as I disagree with the notion that the ones who should wield power would be the richest or the most influential. In addition,I also would not trust a government that favored close ties to Britain, because it was a monarchy. However, there were some things that I did agree with, such as having a national bank and having a strong central government.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of having an elite ruling class with no social mobility is definitely a very small-minded one as well as the general concept of only giving power to the wealthy.
DeleteHaving an elite ruling class probably would have also made it even more impossible than it already was to move up in social classes.
DeleteIn the 1790s, I would not have been a federalist, because I disagree with many of their ideas. For example, having an "elite ruling class," who supported only federalist ideas. They were also more tyrannical and monarchist then the Democratic Republicans. I think some of their ideas were good, like the national bank and assumption policy, but their open interpretation of the constitution and their elitism is not very appealing. They were only beneficial to the upper class, who where not the backbone of the country at that time, farmers held that responsibility. The federalists did not look out for the majority of Americans, only the wealthy people who allied with them.
ReplyDeleteThe national bank and the assumption policy were pretty good ideas from the Federalists, but overall, I wouldn't have wanted to be a Federalist despite so.
DeleteIn the 1790s I would not have been a federalist because of their tyrannical and elitist way of ruling. An elite ruling class was dangerous to the rest of the nation who could have very little decision-making power. It's too difficult for normal civilians to really get power in the country due to the social ladder. However, I do see different advantages of being a federalist at the time. Having a more unified government and a national bank would both be good for the country.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the federalists tended to have a elitist attitude.
DeleteI agree, the elitist view they took was a lot like British royalty
DeleteI believe I wouldn't be federalist. This is because I agree with most of the things that the Democratic Republicans believed in while some things the federalists did such as loose interpretation of the constitution can lead to corruption. The Strict interpretation of the constitution while it may be seen as doing too much or not needed is a very good idea because it stops any type of exploitation in the government. Also putting power in the states gives them more control and stability to be able to govern rather than a central government who wouldn't be able to attend to many problems efficiently.
ReplyDeleteI agree the federalist idea of a central government would not be able to solve problems as efficiently as the states themselves would.
DeleteIn the 1790s, I would not have been a federalist because they believed in an elitist way of ruling. Their way of ruling would have made it much easier for the government to become corrupt. Furthermore, having an elite ruling class only benefited the upper class. This would only help people in the country that did not really need any assistance at the time, so the federalist beliefs do not appeal to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the federalist were not the best at thinking about the other people and supporting them
DeleteIn the 1790s I don’t think I would be a federalist. I believe that their way of ruling would allow for corruption and tyranny to easily. The federalist government only ever felt like they were concerned with the upper class. I believe that the government should try a new stick with the constitution closely, at least in these beginning years, which is not what the federalist were doing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the federalists way of ruling could cause corruption.
DeleteI agree, having the elite be the only ones in charge could lead to a lot less decisions that benefit the working class
DeleteThe way the Federalist party only wanted elites in government does showcase how corruptible their system is.
DeleteI don't think I would have been a federalist in the 1790's because I don't agree with lots of their ideas. For example they wanted an elite ruling class which could cause the government to become corrupt. It wouldn't spread out power enough, only to people of higher classes.
ReplyDeleteI agree, their ideas of that is too eager and demanding as they only believe specific people are important enough to succeed.
DeleteI think I would have not been a Federalist because the elite ruling class wouldn't be a good idea. It is very similar to the British royalty and the factions within that elite class would just end up fighting each other for control instead of helping the people
ReplyDeleteThe Federalists's view and perspectives don't really match mine. There are many loopholes in the system, which makes it not only untrustworthy, but also dangerous. Having a strong central government does help, yes, but it also allows for a increased chance of tyranny.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that a government where the power is only national would be prone to an uprise of people.
DeleteI agree. A strong central government could get out of hand. The Federalists succeeded in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the Constitution. It took the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, written by Republicans at the state level, to undo those acts.
DeleteI do not think I would have been a federalist because I do not believe that the elite ruling class should always be in charger. I also would not necessarily agree with the policy of being aligned with Brittan however I would agree that we need their economic health. I also do agree with the policy of leaving the constitution open to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the federalist ideals weren't great, the policy of leaving the constitution open to other ideas is indeed a really good idea, because it let the constitution be used for almost 250 years after it was written.
DeleteIn the 1790s, I would not have been a federalist because I don't agree with a few of their ideas. I disagree with the idea of having an "elite ruling class", because the idea that the ones who should wield power would be the richest or the most influential and I wouldn't like the relationship they had with Great Britain as they were still pretty close to each other.
ReplyDeleteYeah, the relationship with Britain was suspicious, especially because some federalists originally wanted a a Britain-esq society.
DeleteI think that both the Federalists and the republicans have valid policies. I think it is a good idea to have a looser interpretation of the constitution, so the rules of the nation can evolve over time, but I also strongly disagree with the Federalist's want for an elite ruling class. I think that I would have been a Democratic Republican, but I also think that it is a bad idea to have these two views be the only choices, as both have pros and cons, and it doesn't make sense to force people to choose between these two opposite extremes, because a mix would probably be the best choice.
ReplyDeletethe views of the federalist don't really match mine mostly because of the way they wanted to build to their government by. also the the fact that they were and wanted the government to be of the high classes which wasn't much of the people back then and that can lead to a similar system such as that of Britain. besides the strict interpretation of the constitution is something that would prevent further progress.
ReplyDeleteI agree it is stupid to compile a government filled entirely of upper class people
DeleteThe Federalist party's values, although some are logically sound, do not match mine, at least in the 1790's. Their ideals are very class based, and related too much to the aristocratic class of Britain to be the political stance I would take. The contrast between the ruling class and the working class would definitely have sparked a revolution sometime down the road, or at least major prejudice between the two.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Class divisions were more likely to remain or even grow under the Federalists.
DeleteWhile the Federalists during the 1790's were concerned with the centralization of the United States, which I agree was an issue, I feel like the prioritization on the elite class causes me to not be a Federalist. Only believing that the upper class should be in power will only end with voices not being heard.
ReplyDeleteI would not have been a Federalist in the 1790s. Although a lot of the party's ideas make sense (stable, central government; national bank; assumption policy), I don't agree with some of the severe actions they took. For instance, the adoption of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which was more about keeping the Federalists in power than it was about keeping the country safe. Also, the Federalists seem to have thought that they knew better, the assumption policy and the standing army were for their benefit, not necessarily for the good of the general population. Unlike the Federalists, I believe that anyone can reach the highest levels of public service; not just some elite-class members.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1790's, i would not have been a federalist. I do not agree with their actions that they took. it seems as if all of their choices were to keep them with the power. My personal values do not match or agree with theirs.
ReplyDelete