StarDestroyer.Net BBS

As in, the American Founding Fathers. Who had the more useful political philosophy? Please steer away from personal scandals unless it's relevant; I don't care who Jefferson fucked or how much land Washington grabbed. Otherwise, frame the argument however you want.

Political threads go to News and Politics (N&P). *moves*

Ah, sorry. Wasn't too sure about where to put it.

Sofia wrote:As in, the American Founding Fathers. Who had the more useful political philosophy? Please steer away from personal scandals unless it's relevant; I don't care who Jefferson fucked or how much land Washington grabbed. Otherwise, frame the argument however you want.

The Republicans basically shit on so many intents of the Fathers at this point it's not even a contest. The Fathers wanted religion out of government; GOPers want to put JEZUS!!!! into politics. The Fathers wanted financial sanity, the GOPers have been running up a debt continously. The Fathers wanted seperation of powers, the GOP has been unifying the three branches under their pet monkey.

I think she's talking about the Republican party that existed in the early days of the United States, descended from the anti-Federalists, who competed with the Federalists. Perhaps it would be more clearer to identify them as the Democratic-Republicans, the label they later adopted, so as to not confuse them with the modern Republicans.

Yeah, the early Republicans, Jefferson and his cronies. Called themselves Republicans to differentiate themselves from the Federalists (Hamilton, Washington, Adams to some extent, et al) who they believed planned to turn the new American Republic back to a monarchy. Were big on states' rights, hated the National Bank.

Sorry, should have been more clear on the definitions. Obviously, "Republican" nowadays is a dirty word.

Republican philosophy always smacked too much of the Articles of Confederacy for my liking. Certainly, the Federalists may have been excessively centrist in several regards, especially during the war of 1812 (which was their undoing, after all), but I still approved more of their policies. I place more faith in a strong, functioning government than in the abilities of the "gentleman farmer".

After some consultation, we've decided to send this back to OT, as the politics involved are the politics of the 1790s, and that's beyond N&P's statute of limitations. Also, I'll change the title so it's clear we're talking about Thomas Jefferson's Republicans, not Lincoln's (or Dubya's).

As for my opinion, I'm a Hamilton fan. The Republicans bought into Jefferson's vision of the United States as a republic of plantation owners, which was simply flat dead wrong for the North, and in the South required slavery to prop it up and was, ultimately economically and politically disasterous.

Can the people who voted for the Democratic-Republicans post their reasons? I'd love to hear an intelligent argument for them, just because the best I've ever got out of anyone in person was "Jefferson was more liberal, and, uh, I just like him better."

In retrospect, the stronger and more powerful federal government proposed by the Federalists was the correct choice (it won, and it turned out pretty well for the USA). That said, Jefferson and his followers didn't have the benefit of our 200 year history and were acting on their own experience--which had been by and large quite negative on the issue of centralized government. So I don't think it's fair to judge them.

So, right now, I'm voting for Federalists. History proved that theirs was the more "useful" political philosophy. But if I'd been alive and voting in 1800, I'd probably have been a Democratic-Republican.

Well, the Federalists obviously turned out to be the better choice in hindsight, certainly. Even at the time, I think I would agree with Hamilton and gang, bastards though they may have been at times. Funding cities and building urban infrastructure was how we entered the modern world; Jefferson's idea of a lose confederation of land owners would have dicked us over six ways to Sunday. Of course, all of this was resolved in the middle of the 19th century.

Emotionally I like a lot of the Republican philosophy but the truth is if left as a quasi-confederacy we'd be a hobbled backwater power today. With no regulation or standardization of banks we'd have had states printing their own banknotes maybe even to this day. The slavery issue would have become a "states choice" and there would have been no Federal troops to enforce de-segregation in Selma.

Republicanism was a quaint notion, but Federalism is actually useful and efficient.

The problem with the Federalists is that they also gave this country the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1797. The Patriot Act in its original form.

And as for the Democratic-Republicans, they definitely turned more towards the Federal Union model for America after they became the Democratic Party and Andrew Jackson introduced his ideas into the mix.

The bottom line is that the Federalists, whatever their flaws, prevented the Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson in particular) from turning this country into a giant tobacco farm that would be perpetually dependent on slave labor, therefore theirs was the more useful set of ideas in hindsight. My AP US history teacher used to argue that American history since the framing of the Constitution could be boiled down to one statement - "It all goes back to Hamilton" - and it's hard to disagree with that. If I were back in 1800 I doubt I would agree with the highly protectionist aspects of Hamilton's economic system - but even so, there's no doubt that they allowed America to achieve an economic independence it may otherwise not have had. Still, no one understood what this country was going to need more than Hamilton.

That said, I'm very glad the Democratic-Republicans were around to reign in the excesses of the Federalists, such as the aforementioned Alien and Sedition Acts and Hamilton's downright scary monarchism.

The Federalists, for reasons already mentioned. However, the Sedition and Alien Acts demonstrate how even then, it's good for power to change hands in Washington every so often.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:That said, Jefferson and his followers didn't have the benefit of our 200 year history and were acting on their own experience--which had been by and large quite negative on the issue of centralized government. So I don't think it's fair to judge them.

Yet, Jefferson and Washington had very similar experiences with British authority and centralized government and came to very different conclusions. Both were locked in financial limbo, using an outdated and inefficient modus operandi (slavery) and were forever in debt to British merchants. Resentment of British debtors, arguably, was the root of revolutionary fervor in the South, and Jefferson and Washington were no exception. Washington understood that this financial limbo was not only the fault of British taxation but also the fault of a spoiled planter class who refused to give up the excesses they couldn't afford anymore (Jefferson was the poster child for this). It would be easier for me to excuse Jefferson as a backward-thinking man if he wasn't constantly in contact with forward-thinking men like Jefferson and Adams, but, quite frankly, he should have known better. He was well-read, articulate and brilliant on all subjects but completely blind when it came to his own failings.

I voted for the Democratic-Republicans primarily because I believe the Federalists were to centralised. Yes Jeffersonsideas about a nation of farmers would not have worked but the Dem-Reps eventually figured that out. The Federalists liked power a bit to much for my tastes.

Sofia wrote:Washington understood that this financial limbo was not only the fault of British taxation but also the fault of a spoiled planter class who refused to give up the excesses they couldn't afford anymore (Jefferson was the poster child for this).

Really? What makes you think that Washington's political views came from this attitude, rather than an abiding belief in the authority of government and property?

It would be easier for me to excuse Jefferson as a backward-thinking man if he wasn't constantly in contact with forward-thinking men like Washington and Adams, but, quite frankly, he should have known better. He was well-read, articulate and brilliant on all subjects but completely blind when it came to his own failings.

Let's be clear about something, Jefferson was not "backward" thinking. His ideas were, in the context of 18th century monarchies, very radical. Placing the personal liberty and self-sufficiency of citizens before the authority of the state was actually far more radical than the Federalist position (which, it could be and was argued, was nothing more than an attempt to replace the old regal authority with a federal government).

What you're doing is falling into one of the common traps of the historical process, that of judging past events only in light of your modern attitudes. Today we know that Federalism was necessary for the USA to move forward, but at the time it was most definitely a step backward.

I would support the federalists, but I think it has been extremely beneficial to the country that the commoners were not so keen on an extensive federal government. It has somewhat tempered the otherwise profusive growth.

SirNitram wrote:

Sofia wrote:As in, the American Founding Fathers. Who had the more useful political philosophy? Please steer away from personal scandals unless it's relevant; I don't care who Jefferson fucked or how much land Washington grabbed. Otherwise, frame the argument however you want.

The Republicans basically shit on so many intents of the Fathers at this point it's not even a contest. The Fathers wanted religion out of government; GOPers want to put JEZUS!!!! into politics. The Fathers wanted financial sanity, the GOPers have been running up a debt continously. The Fathers wanted seperation of powers, the GOP has been unifying the three branches under their pet monkey.

considering the fact that the GOP didn't exist until the Torries, Know-Nothings and Abolitionists united to form the Grand Olde Party in the 1860's your rant is completely irrelevant to the question posed by the original post.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

Sofia wrote:Washington understood that this financial limbo was not only the fault of British taxation but also the fault of a spoiled planter class who refused to give up the excesses they couldn't afford anymore (Jefferson was the poster child for this).

Really? What makes you think that Washington's political views came from this attitude, rather than an abiding belief in the authority of government and property?

I'm not sure I understand your point. An abiding belief in whose government and whose property?

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Let's be clear about something, Jefferson was not "backward" thinking. His ideas were, in the context of 18th century monarchies, very radical.

Conceded.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Placing the personal liberty and self-sufficiency of citizens before the authority of the state was actually far more radical than the Federalist position (which, it could be and was argued, was nothing more than an attempt to replace the old regal authority with a federal government).

There's where you're wrong. Not all the Federalists were mad quasi-monarchs, you know. Jefferson's ideas were revolutionary, yes. (It must be remembered, however, that they were not his alone: the Declaration of Independence was a summing-up of the prevailing sentiments of the Philadelphia Congress, not a singular flash of inspiration). What was even more revolutionary was the ability to reconcile personal liberty with the need for a strong government. Washington understood that one cannot exist without the other.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist6

Washington wrote:In a word, the confederation appears to me to be little more than a shadow without the substance ... To me , it is a solecism in politics: indeed it is one of the most extraordinary things in nature, that we should confederate as a Nation, and yet be afraid to give the rulers of that nation, who are the creatures of our making ... sufficient powers to order and direct the affairs of the same. By such policy as this the wheels of Government are clogged, and our brightest prospects, and that high expectation which was entertained of us by the wondering world, are turned into astonishment; and from the high ground on which we stood, we are descending into the vale of confusion and darkness. 1785

Pablo Sanchez wrote:What you're doing is falling into one of the common traps of the historical process, that of judging past events only in light of your modern attitudes.

Oh, really? Please explain to me how these "modern attitudes" ever got into the heads of the Federalists who were judging the Democratic-Republicans at the time, then.

Sofia wrote:I'm not sure I understand your point. An abiding belief in whose government and whose property?

Washington believed in a government that was elected by the landholding citizens and acted to safeguard their property and liberty--take Shay's Rebellion as an example. The idea that Washington was hostile to some "lazy planter class" is a bit strange, considering that he was one of the wealthiest examples of the said planter class in America.

There's where you're wrong. Not all the Federalists were mad quasi-monarchs, you know. Jefferson's ideas were revolutionary, yes. (It must be remembered, however, that they were not his alone: the Declaration of Independence was a summing-up of the prevailing sentiments of the Philadelphia Congress, not a singular flash of inspiration).

What's your point? Virtually the entire DoI was an adaptation of previously articulated Enlightenment philosophy (some parts being near to the point of plagiarism). Jefferson's contribution came in placing it at the center of the American project and, as a political leader, endeavoring to make it the active plan for the nation.

What was even more revolutionary was the ability to reconcile personal liberty with the need for a strong government. Washington understood that one cannot exist without the other.

See, you're misunderstanding the Jeffersonian position. The Federalist model argued, very practically, that people needed to be placed under the authority of a strong government to safeguard their liberties. The Democratic-Republic model was more idealistic: Jefferson's hope was that the people of the American republic would be changed into a nation of yeoman farmers who would be able to make safe their liberties without the intrusion of a central authority. This seems goofy to us now, but I think it's a fair enough proposition, considering that it had never been tried before and Jefferson couldn't possibly have known about the upcoming changes (viz. the Industrial Revolution) that would have rendered such a nation impotent.

Oh, really? Please explain to me how these "modern attitudes" ever got into the heads of the Federalists who were judging the Democratic-Republicans at the time, then.

*sigh*
Again, with this. We modern people know now that revolutions in industry and transportation technology were right around the corner, and that strong federal government was necessary to ensure the future survival (and supremacy) of the United States of America. But in 1800 neither the Federalists nor the Democratic-Republicans had any such ideas; the Federalists arrived at their policies not for the reasons that now seem self-evident (to unite the disparate states and modernize the nation) but because politicians and learned men at that time feared that the people of the fledgling American republic would be unable to defend their own liberties and interests--the mob is stupid, weak, and provincial.

The Federalist answer was to create a federal government that would dominate the states and guide the citizens with strong laws and projects for the public good. The Jeffersonian answer was to maintain great personal freedom and to create citizens capable of acting for the greater good without coercion (taking as their example ancient Greece and Republican Rome). Events vindicated the Federalists.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Washington believed in a government that was elected by the landholding citizens and acted to safeguard their property and liberty--take Shay's Rebellion as an example. The idea that Washington was hostile to some "lazy planter class" is a bit strange, considering that he was one of the wealthiest examples of the said planter class in America.

He was indeed, because he was able to free himself from the shackles of British debtors by simply cutting back on his purchases and diversifying the sources of his own profit. He wasn't hostile, per se, but he did realize that the lifestyle Jefferson and others insisted on upholding would eventually spell disaster for the American economy. Anyway, back to the point: Washington did come to believe in a republican government, but he was practical first and idealistic later. He only sought out the theoretical justifications for his conclusions after he had experienced British imperialism in the form of debtors. Similarly, he came to believe in a strong federal government because his soldiers in the Continental Army were shoeless and starving, and an impotent government could do nothing to feed and clothe them.

Pablo Sanchez wrote: What's your point? Virtually the entire DoI was an adaptation of previously articulated Enlightenment philosophy (some parts being near to the point of plagiarism). Jefferson's contribution came in placing it at the center of the American project and, as a political leader, endeavoring to make it the active plan for the nation.

Actually, the principles in the DoI were agreed upon by committee. Jefferson was not solely responsible for placing those principles in the center of the American project.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:See, you're misunderstanding the Jeffersonian position. The Federalist model argued, very practically, that people needed to be placed under the authority of a strong government to safeguard their liberties. The Democratic-Republic model was more idealistic: Jefferson's hope was that the people of the American republic would be changed into a nation of yeoman farmers who would be able to make safe their liberties without the intrusion of a central authority. This seems goofy to us now, but I think it's a fair enough proposition, considering that it had never been tried before and Jefferson couldn't possibly have known about the upcoming changes (viz. the Industrial Revolution) that would have rendered such a nation impotent.

How am I misunderstanding it? Of course no one could know what was in store, but the Federalists didn't have to. America was badly in need of a strong federal government at the moment of its inception. The economy was terrible, there was no military to speak of, et cetera et cetera. Jefferson's model had never been tried before, but anyone who was paying attention to the state of the union at the time instead of dwelling on utopian visions realized that it would never work.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Again, with this. We modern people know now that revolutions in industry and transportation technology were right around the corner, and that strong federal government was necessary to ensure the future survival (and supremacy) of the United States of America. But in 1800 neither the Federalists nor the Democratic-Republicans had any such ideas; the Federalists arrived at their policies not for the reasons that now seem self-evident (to unite the disparate states and modernize the nation) ...

You're selling the Federalists short. The following is an example of a Federalist plea "to unite the disparate states" :

Washington, Farewell Address wrote:The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth ... For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

As for modernizing the nation, weren't Hamilton's financial endeavors designed to do just that?

Pablo Sanchez wrote: ... but because politicians and learned men at that time feared that the people of the fledgling American republic would be unable to defend their own liberties and interests--the mob is stupid, weak, and provincial.

I do not dispute your point here, but it's not fair to ignore every other reason for the Federalists' philosophy.

The Federalists.

I figure out who is going to win, then I vote for the opponent. I maintain my bitching rights this way. (Hey, I voted for the other guy.) I'm too much of a socialist to vote elephant and too socially conservative to vote donkey. (at least seriously) Third party is the way to go, but which third party to choose?