Talk:Federalist Party

Was Marshall a member or not? Make up your mind.

The overview reads:

.... one of the party's most influential members was John Marshall, who strengthened the powers of the judiciary while Chief Justice of the United States. Although Marshall never joined the party...

He was either one of the parties most influential members or he never joined the party but he can't be both. I suspect I know what you are trying to say but you have to find a better way to say it. In fact I think I understand what you are trying to say with enough certainty to make the edit myself. Undo me if I have made a mistake.

Also just BTW, who the hell is John Jay? Please don't tell me his favorite maxim until you have told me who he is. Ryan Albrey (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"Joining the party" is an anachronism in 1801. I don't think the Federalists had any formal structure at all; the DRs had an occasional non-binding caucus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Classical Conservatism?

One of the party ideologies is listed as classical conservatism. I don't think that's accurate; the Democratic-Republican party represented a more libertarian, states' rights platform, whereas the Federalist party was about a strong central government and economic protectionism, a bit more in line with American liberalism. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Two weeks and no response. One more day and I'm going to remove "classical conservatism" from the box. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Depends on your definition of conservatism; at the time, Conservatism was the reaction of Joseph de Maistre, not the novel radicalism of Adam Smith Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Industrialization seems equally doubtful; is Robert Livingston, Jefferson's ambassador to France, a Federalist? Yet he did as much for American industrialization as any man of his time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Not everyone in a political party has to agree with its ideology. Hamilton and Adams however worked strenuously to industrialize the nation, as opposed to Jefferson who wanted an agrarian republic. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• It's inaccurate to say that the Federalist party was about a strong central government; as the article says, the 'federalist' name is misleading -- you're projecting modern political disputes onto them. The primary divide between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (and between liberals and conservatives, in that era) was over democracy and republicanism and especially the French Revolution; the Democratic-Republicans (as both their names suggest) had a more radical support for these things, while the Federalists were generally more suspicious of democracy, opposed the French Revolution, and believed in a "natural aristocracy" and traditional social order, positions that mark them as traditionalist conservatives (in ~1800, mind.) See the section in the article on Traditionalist Conservatism devoted to the Federalists for more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have re-entered Classical Conservatism as one of the primary ideological components of the Federalist conception. It is a misconception to believe that a libertarian, states' rights agenda corresponds in the slightest to a traditionally conservative agenda, specifically in the 18th century. A strong centralized state with an aristocratic (or in this case, elitist) backbone was one of the primary centerpieces of contemporary conservatism; the Democratic-Republicans, although agrarians and (occasionally) anti-federalists, were deeply rooted in the liberal tradition regarding suffrage and individual liberties. The American System is also a thoroughly nationalistic and conservative economic system, rather alike to the British Toryism of the 19th century. 99KingHigh (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Genealogy

Both the preceding and succeeding parties are doubtful. The preceding party was listed as that figment, the Pro-Administration Party. The succeeding party was the National Republicans; while the two parties shared some philosophy and personnel, it seems perverse to call a branch of the Democratic Republicans the successor to the Federalists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the concern in saying that the Pro-Administration Party preceded the Federalists? Adams and Hamilton supported Washington, and they went on to found the Federalist Party. Whereas Madison, Jefferson and Franklin mostly opposed Washington's policies, and they then became the D-R Party. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Governed

"the Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of the governed,the Republicans, the governed." The intent of the sentence is unclear; could someone who knows what is trying to be said clarify this? Skyemoor (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

I edited the page to say that Hamilton had been an Aide-de-Camp to Washington, rather than chief of staff. Washington did not have a chief of staff. Hamilton did fill that role, but given that "chief of staff" is nowadays an actual position, it is incorrect to give Hamilton that title.

The WP article on Hamilton says

"Hamilton served for 6 years, in effect, as Washington's Chief of Staff..."

and is correct.

Regardless of what the other WP article says, Hamilton was not his Chief of Staff. He had no such position. He was his Aide-de-Camp, but functioned as a Chief of Staff would in modern times. Giving him the latter title, as opposed to the former, is still historically inaccurate. Moreover, there is a huge difference between being someones "Chief of Staff" and "in effect Chief of Staff".

Frank Scipio (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

jbarntt 03:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

Washington

The article states:

"George Washington is believed to have been broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire term."

While literally correct, it implies that there is some doubt or ambiguity re: Washington's support of the Federalist program. In fact there is no such doubt or ambiguity.

His support of Hamilton's views on assumption and credit, the Bank of the United States, as well as the Jay Treaty and his suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion are sufficient to remove any doubt re: his sympathy for the Federalist program.

I have therefore replaced "is believed to have been" with "was". jbarntt 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

Interpretations

The article contains this in the named section:

"The Federalists were dominated by conservative businessmen and merchants..."

This is correct, in that historians do consider the Federalists to have been conservatives, and the Democratic-Republicans to have been liberals. I think this is misleading to a contemporary reader however. To a modern reader, each of these parties have some aspects of both modern liberalism and conservatism, enough to make the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" regarding them misleading.

I have therefore edited out the word "conservative" in the above sentence.

jbarntt 18:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

The Rise of the Federalist Party

The article contains the following statement:

"James Madison, Hamilton's ally in the fight to ratify the United States Constitution, dropped his nationalism in response to demands in his Virginia district and joined with Jefferson in opposing Hamilton's program."

Madison's apparent change of view is a long standing matter of historical debate. If he did so, and because of constituent pressure, a good citation to the matter is required. It is also dubious that Madison joined Jefferson in opposing Hamilton. As I recollect, the issue of credit and assumption was already before congress when Jefferson returned from France, (diplomatic post), to assume the role of Sec. of State, and that Congressman Madison was already opposed to the plan.

I haven't edited this part of the article, because I am relying on memory. Nonetheless, it is problematical.

jbarntt 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

I removed " dropped his nationalism in response to demands in his Virginia district and" from the sentence in question. Dropping his nationalism, although I know what was intended, sounds too harsh without clarification. As far as Madison acting because of "constituent pressure", this suggests a lack of principle on Madison's part that really should not be in the article without a source (as well as further clarification. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Effects of foreign affairs

I asked this in the prior (now archived) discussion, and as far as I can see it still applies (has not been changed). Additionally curious (off topic) this page seems to have a ton more vandalism than any other page I have browsed the history of, anyone else notice? Can message me a reply. Thanks folks. --gobears87 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: Regarding the section entitled "Effects of foreign affairs" - Is it just me or is the language (specifically use of term "The Republicans") confusing, or perhaps just plain wrong? I am a historian using Wikipedia only for quick reference and reminders, but I am aware that the term used would lead most average readers to believe it means the modern "Republican" party, whereas that group didn't come into existence until the mid-1800s. At first I thought it might refer to the French "Republicans", but apparently not (some were Francophiles, it claims). If it is meant to refer to the "Democratic-Republicans" it should say so, and not lazily abbreviate and thereby mislead. Hopefully someone out there is interested enough to answer, and hopefully correct this. --gobears87 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) but originally December 2008.

If people mix up Alexander Hamilton with Ronald Reagan, then they need to read more closely. The time frame is clear enough. The Jeffersonians called themselves "Republicans," as do most historians. Political scientists in 20th century use "Dem-Rep" terminology because they like to use tables that compare parties over the centuries. Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Conservative positions?

"Historian Patrick Allitt concludes that Federalists promoted many conservative positions, including the rule of law under the Constitution, republican government, peaceful change through elections..."

Sure a written constitutions, a state not governed by a monarchy, and regular elections were fairly radical ideas in the late 18th century? What exactly is meant by "conservative" in this context? --Jfruh (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Allitt mean the Feds set the standards adopted by most American conservatives ever since. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that should be made explicit then, which I'll try to rewrite. As it is it comes across that the Federalists were conservative within their own historical period. It's always confusing to try to import modern-day political views into the past. (For the record, I think the broad strokes of this sentence would probably be agreed to by mainstream American political parties of any stripe.) --Jfruh (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Changed this now though I do find some of the assertions in the sentence puzzling (aren't modern-day conservatives more likely to complain of "judicial activism" than they are to support "judicial supremacy"?) --Jfruh (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, their conservatism was what we now call Traditionalist conservatism; although the actual revolution didn't occur until the Federalist party was in decline, the core philosophical divide can be seen in the differing reactions that each side had to the French Revolution, and especially in the view of a "natural aristocracy". Things like opinions on the power of the judiciary or the powers of the Federal government are more transient (and I suspect this is true even today); the Federalists supported a strong federal government when they controlled the federal government, and a strong judiciary when the judiciary became their last bastion of power. But their real driving goal was opposition to what they saw as populism and a suspicion of what we would now call democratic principles. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

David Hackett Fischer in Revolution of American Conservatism: Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (1965) makes the interesting point that the younger Federalists after 1800 realized that their elders were too elitist to win over a popular electorate. The younger Federalists therefore adopted the Republican tactics--and began to appeal and democratic fashion-- in order to build up a large popular base-- although it was never as large as the Republican base. They took off the wigs, so to speak. In terms of policies, I think their main goal was to build a strong national government, in close cooperation with the financial and business community. They succeeded in doing that. The Republicans never liked banks, and managed to close down the First Bank of the United States just as the war of 1812 was starting. That was a disaster for the government because the Treasury had great difficulty financing the war. Madison reversed himself in 1816 and sponsored a replacement, the Second Bank of the United States. Calhoun (A leading Republican at this point) followed Hamiltonian policies in 1820 when he rebuilt the War Department. Rjensen (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not a federalists, but were anti-federalists , that much can be seen in the introductory paragraph.24.99.80.183 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Madison was very much a federalist: he, Hamilton, and Jay are considered the primary authors of the Federalist papers. Jefferson was on the line about the Constitution, but was not an anti-federalist per se. Both men became alienated from Hamilton after the ratification fight. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Colors?

Hey, you guys say that their colors are black and yellow, but then the little boxes next to the words are black and white... Can you do something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3227:4FB0:35B3:A063:B11C:5C34 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Claim that only two sitting Presidents have directly led American military forces.

I suggest this be researched, because I think many Presidents have led American military forces, unless it is meant directly into battle. The only President to directly lead American military forces into battle was President Washington. President Madison, as Commander in Chief, led American Forces during the War of 1812, but I do not believe he actually led any American forces into battle during that war.

I tried to comprehend whether I needed to sign and date my request, but at 72, I guess my mental abilities have suffered, and I could not determine from the many directions I read whether to or not, so I will sign my legal name, 76.29.143.131 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) John Smith (really) and provide the date as 76.29.143.131 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 02/06/2016.