I like the strict following of the constitution. Following that tightly will secure us from ever turning into... something bad. Ever notice how that is going out the window slowly but surely? There are so many cases of judges not caring about what the constitution says.

I can't say I like the French part though. I would rather support the Brits. :lol:

McBee, old hoss, you are closer than you think. First of all, the so-called "parties" weren't parties at all in the modern sense. George Washington is almost always called a "Federalist", but he belonged to no party. The first factions in Washington's cabinet were Alexander Hamilton and anyone who opposed him, primarily James Madison, who felt that the Constitution did not provide for the Federal Government to charter organizations. John Adams was supported in his presidential bid by Hamilton, but Adams was so much his own man that Hamilton did everything he could to destroy him in 1800. Thomas Jefferson called himself a "Republican", because he believed in the republic. Hamilton accused Madison and Jefferson of creating the first American political party just to oppose him, and there may be some truth in this; Madison did organize a grass-roots movement to elect Jefferson that same year (1800).

But let's look at the differences as listed:
Federalists

1. Favored strong central government.

True. Hamilton saw that the whole thing was falling apart under the Articles Of Confederation, under which the Congress had no power to enforce anything. But then, so did Madison, who was co-author of the "Federalist" papers, but is still called a Republican, due to his opposition to Hamilton's National Bank movement.

2. "Loose" interpretation of the Constitution.

Not necessarily. In fact the prime movers, Madison and Hamilton, argued many times over what they actually meant. They didn't agree about what "strict" and "loose" interpretations were.

3. Encouragement of commerce and manufacturing.

True, but even Jefferson finally came to see that those were the wave of the future.

4. Strongest in Northeast.

Again true, primarily because that was where they were from.

5. Favored close ties with Britain.

Mostly because they distrusted Revolutionary France. While Hamilton was a prime mover behind Jay's Treaty, which prompted Jefferson to write the letter which ended up with Washington refusing to speak to him ever again, Hamilton also spoke fluent French and was declared an honorary member of the French parliament, an honor never accorded to Jefferson.

6. Emphasized order and stability.

Except when they tried to have several New England states seceed during the War Of 1812.

Republicans

1. Emphasized states' rights.

Except when Jefferson and Madison were president, and they both tightened the reigns as much as they possibly could.

2. "Strict" interpretation of the Constitution.

Except when Jefferson ignored due process in his attempts to get Aaron Burr hanged for treason.

3. Preference for agriculture and rural life.

True, but because that was what they grew up with. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all rich southern landowners. Oops, so was Washington, the leading "Federalist".

4. Strength in South and West.

Again true, but that's because they were mostly from the South, and everyone there knew them. Well, except for Aaron Burr, who was, like Hamilton and John Jay, from New York.

5. Foreign policy sympathized with France.

As with their opponents, they didn't sympathize with France so much as they distrusted Britain. While Secretary Of State Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Hamilton were wrangling over whom to trust less, President Washington was doing everything he could to keep America neutral in the most recent Anglo-French war.

6. Stressed civil liberties and trust in the people

Madison? The guy who created the Electoral College, which in his original version is appointed by the state legislatures? Yes, they stressed civil liberties, so much so that any carefule reading of the Declaration and the Bill Of Rights will show that they believed that government only existed to guarantee absolute freedom for everyone to do anything they wanted, so long as they also recognized that same right for everyone else.

Of course Jefferson the "Civil Libertarian" was giving lip service to Abolition while going against the law he had helped create ending interstate commerce in slave trading. While presisdent he asked the governor of South Carolina to allow his son-in-law special dispensation to move a group of slaves through his state and into Georgia for sale.

On the other hand, the leading "Federalist", Hamilton, spent many years alongside "Republican" Burr as a New York lawyer, campaigning for Abolition and trying (and winning) 'false enslavement' lawsuits. When asked to join the French Les Amis Des Noir ("Friends Of The Blacks"), Hamilton said he was honored to accept. Jefferson, when asked to join, declined for political reasons.


As with today's parties, no one is always what they seem. The founders were far from perfect, and they had their battles and wars just as much as any other generation's politicians.

Federalist or Republican? Just like today, I stand somewhere in between.

Is it unfair to comment this as a non-american?
Dear am's,
take it as a foreign impression of your constitions, and it's ideas supposed benefit to the world:

Number 6. is MY point! Vote goes to rep's.

Then you're crazy!:D There'd be no America without France supporting America against Britain. I've seen The Patriot, that one French guy saved America!

I don't. Reason being is that it was written 226 years ago. Things are a little different since then and you have to adapt to change. I believe in the spirit of, not the letter of.

Steve, you are a true scholar.:know: I miss our Civil War conversation in Burger King, that was quite fun:|\\ .

Regarding my independent party comments, I don't like the politicans that say they are for big government and high taxes, but are pro- [insert issue here] and call themselves an independent. I think we need to take our parties back from the extremes.

[quote=DeepIron]I love the chaos, that means they leave us alone and just fight among themselves.:up: I think both sides are more interested in doing what's best for the "party" and not the country.

If you don't like the politicians, vote the bastards outta office! We did it in 1994- Democrats totally depth- charged outta office! The Republicans didn't deliever, look what happened in our last election cycle.

I'm all for term limits!

So, what is a strict following? The main body? The government does have to follow that strictly; it's the law.

The Bill Of Rights? Several of the founders didn't want it at all; they felt that the government had no rights of its own, and couldn't interfere with any rights of the individuals. They also felt that if some rights were listed, any that weren't would ultimately be ignored, and they didn't want anybody telling them what to do. And we still argue about those today. Pick any one, and there are more than a few different opinions. Pick any one of those opinions, take a side, and I can show you where they would have said you are wrong. Why? Because, as I said, they themselves disagreed over what they themselves meant when they wrote the thing.

And that was the big argument while Washington was president. Jefferson and friends didn't trust the British - after all, they were the ones we had to rebel against, weren't they. Hamilton and friends didn't trust the French. Everyone had high hopes that the French Revolution would be a bloodless change of power; but then they went and murdered their own king, rather than just kick him out. Besides, wasn't the aid they gave us just so they could stick it to the British?

I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to bring up issues which might give the gov't a means to attack people.

I think the Bill of Rights is a prohibition against gov't usurption on the rights of man. If you look at gov'ts, world wide, that don't have written constitutions or have a so called living constitutions, their rights are erroded daily not only by their legislatures, but by every branch of their gov'ts.

Yep. You cannot realistically expect that every individual will find proper their views sufficiently representated in a biparty system. It's a stretch to call it democracy. I like our system in Canada; the parties represent their views but because the parliament is much more partitioned, politicians are striking deals with other parties rather than demonizing them and mud-slinging since the opposition can bring forth a vote of confidence and call an election at any time.

One of the myths of the left. The US isn't a democracy, its a republic.

Democracies cannot exist in a pluralistic society.

You are ironic wg. You proclaim the evils or the oddities or the inaccuracies of the left in a blanket statement, and in so doing you mimic the dogma of the right. There is little credibility in arguments predicated on broad generalizations. And I might interject that perhaps the left isn't the only body of thoughtful individuals who might be incorrect now and then.

I'm bending a little towards you're stretching a little bit.

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical egalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra....22Republic.22

Representative democracy is a form of government founded on the principles of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives—i.e., not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where representatives are absent or are limited in power as proxy representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Sorry, this is silly. Being a republic does not exclude a state from being a liberal democracy. The United States is both. If you are appealing to the Madisonian contrast of a republic being a representation of the people and a democracy being direct rule by the people, fair enough. But this description is a little dated or else there would be no democratic states in the entire world and George W. Bush's democratic proliferation policies would sound really daft. Of course it is representative democracy, but none the less a democracy. Otherwise, whether republic, principality, or constitutional monarchy, etc. they're just meaningless titles. I certainly grant that there are speed bumps in the current U.S. style of electoral system that do not make it a perfect democracy (that's exactly what I was getting at in my last post, anyway), and we could start making a list of them, but it does not change the fact that every four years the state asks the public who they want to represent them.

You will have to explain this one, although I suspect that as above, our definitions of democracy are not in agreement.

I think it's one of the tricks of the right to denigrate the left. A Republic is also referred to as a Representative Democracy.

Jefferson called himself and his friends Republicans. Hamilton liked to refer to them as Democrats, which to his mind meant mob rule. Some history books call them "Democratic-Republicans", a term neither side ever used. The actual Democratic party originated with Andrew Jackson.

I only wish more people knew this history. Todays history books are complete garbage that do not teach the correct history of our country because they were a "bunch of slave owning old white dudes" to the PC left of this country. Interesting though how the Dem party started off with a crude president that signed the Indian Removal act into law and committed other crimes against the native americans. I have done a fair bit of reading in my time and I have reached the personal conclusion that Jackson is a president not worthy to be revered or remembered as well as he is and he should not be on the $20 bill.

Political zealots do step back in time. It's kinda humorous. Keep up the reading.