Talk:Federalist Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Party Color and Shading

Where can one make or suggest a change to what the current "party shading/Federalist" is, from the current beige or dull brown to black, which I would suggest should be the universal wiki signifier for the Federalist Party (with white characters for contrast)? The "Black Cockade" became a symbol of Federalism during the war scare of 1798. It was a genuinely popular symbol at the time; it hearkened back to the Revolutionary days, and meant that the US would defend its independence from France ("millions for defense but not one cent for tribute") as it had once won it from Britain. Later, when Federalism fell into disfavor and was eclipsed, "black cockade" became a term of scorn. Nevertheless, the color black seems the logical one to assign to the Federalists across wikipedia.

Request clarfication on a few passages

This article contains some passages that I find confusing.

First, who is doing the complaining in this passage and why:

Ironically, Jefferson's and Madison's Democratic-Republicans famously complained of having "out-Federalisted the Federalists" by purchasing ...

I suspect this passage means to say:

Ironically, party members of Jefferson's and Madison's Democratic-Republicans famously complained that their leaders had "out-Federalisted the Federalists" by purchasing ...

Second, why is "but" use is this passage:

have been characterised as supporting a strong central government, but were also in favour of strong national defences and supported commerce and industry

The "but" implied that "a strong central government" is at odds with "strong national defences and supported commerce and industry". If so, an explanation is needed; if not, "but" should not be used.

Not having studied American history, I'd rather not put in the clarifications; I'll leave any editing to the many Wikipedians who have taken US history.

WpZurp 21:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist

This line is incorrect:

The two groups are not synonymous, and several Federalists of the first variety were not Federalists of the second (the most notable examples being Thomas Jefferson and James Madison).

I'm deleting Jefferson.

6/29/05 major additions by RJensen

6/29/05 major additions by RJensen; I own the copyright on the new additions and grant it to Wikopedia's use.

more clarifying language inserted by Jensen 67.176.74.236 21:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien and Sedition Acts

Date should be 1798, not 1898. I'll fix --SeanMcG 05:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

Please consider adding Aaron Burr and Tammany to this article. If Jefferson and Hamilton are here than Burr needs to be here, at least a mention or link

hjf

• Burr and Tammany were Republicans. Why mention them? Rjensen 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-contradictory lead paragraph

The party "was a political party in the period 1792 to 1816" but "dissolved in 1812." - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

good point--I tried to fix it. Rjensen 07:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rufus King

Shouldn't Rufus King, the last Federalist presidential candidate (1816) be mentioned by name in the body of the article as well as in the ending table? Also, who was the purported 1820 vice presidential candidate who is mentioned but never named? Assuming that this person existed, we need to know who he was. Rlquall 22:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

chat on partyism

Disclaimer (written so because editing this text would be too time consuming):

The following account is a significant misrepresentation of early United States government political activity. Historians and political scientists have ignored the considerable writings of the Founding Fathers that made clear they would have nothing to do with the kinds of formal parties that exist today. The Founders, in fact, warned succeeding generations to assiduously resist factionalizing the government they created (read Federalist #10).

Modern writers have amalgamated the Federalist movement with the structure of the modern parties they are familiar with, thus misrepresenting the former's true nature. George Washington made clear his thoughts in his farewell address to the nation when he wrote about "the baneful effects of the spirit of party ..." and Thomas Jefferson probably said it best: "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men … where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

The Federalists did not belong to a party as we know it. To suggest otherwise is an ironic disrespect of their contribution to history. (this was from an anon - I accidentally attributed this to Rjensen - Jmabel | Talk)

No I did not write the line I only noted it was anonymous Rjensen 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the Disclaimer, but: yes, yes, the Founders did not want political parties. During most, if not all, of the Federalist Party's lifespan, the leaders of both major "parties" did not think of themselves as belonging to a party; they thought of themselves as belonging to the portion of Americans which understood how American government should be run, and honestly believed that once the scourge of aristocracy/democracy had been fought off, this factionalism would go away. All the same, they were parties, very similar to the formal parties that exist today. 24.174.0.229 21:58, 28 October 2007 (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. Thanks. Gobears87 6:59? 6 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears87 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Elective Monarchy

During the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton proposed a "president-for-life" position, as well as senators elected for life terms. This has been defined as Elective monarchy. Since Hamilton was the leader of the Federalists, we can at least show that the Federalists supported such a stand for a period of time. He backpedalled in Federalist Paper #69 and beyond.Skyemoor 00:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Federalist party of the 1790s never endorsed anything like AH's 1787 proposals (nor did AH mention them in 1790s). Much more dramatic was AH's proposals to weaken the states--that's what got him in trouble, Rjensen 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your reference to timeframes has made it clearer to me, thanks. Skyemoor 12:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristocracy

ar‧is‧toc‧ra‧cy  /ˌærəˈstɒkrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ar-uh-stok-ruh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun, plural -cies. 1. a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, esp. the hereditary nobility. 2. a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class. 3. government by those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 4. a governing body composed of those considered to be the best or most able people in the state. 5. any class or group considered to be superior, as through education, ability, wealth, or social prestige.

The Federalists were leaning heavily towards 2, 3, 4, and 5, which do not presuppose heredity. Therefore, 'hereditary aristocracy' has a more precise meaning. Skyemoor 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

and towards 1; the Society of the Cincinnati were Federalists; as were the van Rensselaers. Thus Skyemoor's adjective manages to be both redundant with the natural sense of the word and incorrect simultaneously. Septentrionalis 17:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So if your meaning is clear, then it would be incorrect to say that they opposed aristocracy, in any form it took. Skyemoor 18:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it what they did and what they stood for, rather than what they claimed they were not? This is not a name, it's an adjective; They hit all 5 meanings of the word aristocracy; how does it not fit? Skyemoor 21:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

we use "aristocracy" in a lot of metaphorical ways today. In 1776-1796 the word "aristocracy" meant the real thing--the system in Britain and (until 1793) in France. No Federalist of the 1790s wanted that sort of government--Duke of Virginia, Earl of Georgia, Viscount of Boston???? Likewise the word "king" was anathema. Rjensen 00:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What is your source for the definition of aristocracy in 1776-1796? I hope you don't quote Webster, as his Federalist bias would disqualify his entry. Skyemoor 11:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Skyemoor, I don't understan what you are saying: that we should use a word metaphorically, where it doesn't apply literally? Were they elitist? Certainly. But non-literal use of the word aristocratic is misleading in writing about an era where actual aristocracy still dominated Europe. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, what is the source for the narrow definition of aristocracy in 1776-1796? Skyemoor 02:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me turn that question on its head: what is your source for it having any other meaning in that period? - Jmabel | Talk 07:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

See material provided above. Please provide material to support your point, or it will be unsupported. Skyemoor 12:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the material posted above. None of it is from the relevant period. There is no doubt that when one speaks of "aristocracy" in a political sense in 2006 anywhere but the UK, one is being metaphorical. But the 18th century is an entirely other matter. This is as if you were projecting back a current meaning of "liberal" or "conservative". - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is extensive analysis of what "aristocracy" meant and how Americans replaced it with a broad definition of "gentleman" in Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the Am Revolution (1991). He stresses that in Britain the gap between gentlemen and common people was vast, and the goal of republicanism was to eliminate the gap. Rjensen 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though the Federalists were working to perpetuate it, at least from a ruling perspective, which is my point. Skyemoor 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They were certainly working to perpetuate class privilege, but (if I may use Marxist terms for a moment) the class privilege they were working to perpetuate was bourgeois class privilege, not aristocratic class privilege. - Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle class artisans and guildmen? That was not the focus of Hamilton or the Federalists. Unless you have some references? Skyemoor 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anyone other than you having alluded to "Middle class artisans and guildmen". But if we take the term "middle class" in an 18th century meaning, not a 20th or 21st century meaning, you are closer than the truth than you may mean to be. At that time, "middle class" would have meant non-noble, but having enough independent wealth that one needn't work for one's living.

As for guildsmen, certainly not the apprentices, and perhaps not the journeymen, but the masters, yes. Paul Revere was an ardent Federalist. As were merchants like John Adams, and pretty much all of the baking and financial community. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First Party System

This edit removes the link to First Party System. I don't necessarily care too much about the term, but if we are going to have such an article, then it should certainly be linked from here. If not, let's go directly to proposing deletion, instead of a death of a thousand cuts. - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days, no one has remarked, I'll go with my instinct and re-add. - Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

good idea. Rjensen 03:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; Rjensen has a conflict of interest in the matter. We should have an article on the so-called First Party System, since it is discussed, but we don't need to advertise it everywhere. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Yes, Rjensen does have a conflict of interest in the matter, but not linking from the Federalists to a page whose whole purpose is basically to describe the interactions of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans is absurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.0.229 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be looked at

I am no expert on the Federalist Party, but I believe that this article has some errors that need to be looked at. The first two sentences currently state: "The Federalist Party was a big party thrown by Brandon Darrah. It was wikid CRAZY."

In the second section (The Elections of 1792) the final sentence reads: "The candidates were John Jay, a Hamiltonian, and incumbent. POOP"

Having read the article, though being a mere layman of this particular topic, theses are the only two errors that I have found. I do not know what, if in fact any, information was deleted from the article. I merely wanted to draw attention to this apparent vandalism.

As to the content of this section (The Elections of 1792), the article indicates that the elections were a partisan contest, however it is later stated that Washington ran for president unopposed in the same year. Should the section begin with something like: "The congressional elections of 1792 were the first ones to be contested on anything resembling a partisan basis"? This may help avoid confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MoonRoot (talk • contribs) 20:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC).