Exactly as it says on the tin. How could the Federalists have become the dominate party in America during the First Party System? Is it even possible? Could we have had successive Federalist Presidents with the Democratic-Republicans being steadily reduced to a minority party before either vanishing or morphing into another party? What are the implications for America down the road?
How could the Federalists have dominated the First Party System in America?
- Thread starter Shadowlord
- Start date
Perhaps if Aaron Burr died and Alexander Hamilton had a shot at the presidency.
Also keeping James Madison with the Federalist would probably help too.
Also keeping James Madison with the Federalist would probably help too.
I thought Alexander Hamilton couldn't become president because he was born in the West Indies. Though I agree, having Hamilton not die by Aaron Burr's bullet would be a good start.
Ah, okay. So he could have been president. I will never forgive my history teacher. 
it is amazing, no matter what, how many people seem to believe that.
During the Washington administration, Hamilton was the defacto leader of the Federalists. The reason he didn't run for President in 1796 was because he made too many political enemies to be electable. Assuming he avoids that duel with Burr, I can see him winning the 1808 election. A living Hamilton will also put some heat on Jefferson to keep a decent army and navy in place. The way I see it, when Hamilton was killed, any future electoral hopes the Federalists had pretty much died with him.
Okay, everybody, I'm seeing the 'Burr cut short a great career' myth here, so I'm going to do what I can to put it to sleep. Hamilton was, by the time he caught that bullet, one of the great political burnouts. The Federalists themselves hated him for sabotaging his own party's Presidential candidate in the last election--he'd made enemies all over Washington, both from his double-dealings, and his abusive manner--and he was still damaged from a scandal he'd survived, by copping to an affair. Simply put, if Hamilton had even wanted to run in 1808, there was no way in Hell the Federalists would nominate him. The change you want in Hamilton to save the Federalists isn't "don't have him get shot", it's "don't let him be an egotistical jerk who feels that his intelligence gives him a right to insult people around him, and is willing to pit his party against itself."
And at that point, is he really still Hamilton?
And at that point, is he really still Hamilton?
An alternate idea presents itself. Is it possible for Hamilton to be the other man on the Federalist ballot in 1796, instead of Thomas Pinckney? I don't know whether or not butterflies from that could lead to Hamilton's chances of the Presidency improving, but it might be an interesting start. (Also, being on the inside like that might slow down his "eat my own party" instincts.)
ManintheField
Banned
The difficulty with challenges like this is that it's easy to forget that the First Party System was not just like modern party systems, where the differences between the parties and their support bases are relatively small. The Federalists really were a party of, for, and by an elite gentry that envisioned the US as an aristocratic republic with them in charge. The Democrat-Republicans, while still broadly gentry run on the top level at the time (though decreasingly so every year), was much more populist in its outlook and policy program.
In order to get a continuing Federalist party, you need to either change the very nature of the Federalist worldview or make a continued gentile republicanism appealing to the wider voting republic. With the leveling effect of the open western frontier and the open economic system not dominated by a few chartered monopolies run by the gentry, that's going to be enormously difficult. Being upwardly mobile builds the self-confidence of the lower, non-gentile class like almost nothing else can.
In order to get a continuing Federalist party, you need to either change the very nature of the Federalist worldview or make a continued gentile republicanism appealing to the wider voting republic. With the leveling effect of the open western frontier and the open economic system not dominated by a few chartered monopolies run by the gentry, that's going to be enormously difficult. Being upwardly mobile builds the self-confidence of the lower, non-gentile class like almost nothing else can.
The National Republicans and Whigs remained fairly elite parties, and were electorally viable through the 1850's. So it's not ASB for the Federalists to have a longer period of dominance.
Perhaps have George Washington live longer and be able to be used as a living unifying symbol of the Federalists?
ManintheField
Banned
The Whigs especially had a much stronger support base in the middle class, especially the newly wealthy upper middle class. By the time the Whigs came around, also, the old conflict was more or less dead. While you can't say Jackson was actually the agent of the gentry's downfall, he was a sign of it.
Perhaps have Jefferson, or whoever the Democratic-Republican nominee is, have some sudden burst of super-strict constitutionalism and refuse the Louisiana Purchase, and the Federalists, historically known for being a little looser with the Constitution, use the issue to win over the west?
katchen
Banned
Thank you Marinthe Field. This is something that gets glossed over in most history courses. For good reason. (See "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen to understand the politicization of American History teaching). Once we see just how narrow the Federalist elite is, we might start taking a critical look at just how the US Constitution was constructed in 1788 and whether it was consructed the way it was in order to enable a narrow elite to maintain itself in nationwide power. These are just the sorts of questions that the people who fund school board elections --or state or private universities for that matter---do not want schoolchildren or university students to start asking.
If Justice Anthony Scalia is, as he says he is, a strict constructionist and he is faithful to the text of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, what do decisions such as Citizens United tell us about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution?
We can be reasonably certain that the kind of legislative gridlock that we see now in Congress is the result of the Constitution acting as it was engineered to act--to hobble a Chief Executive thought to be getting too powerful. But is this legislative gridlock also the result of Congress acting according to Constitutional specifications in another way: to restrain democracy from below? Remember. The framers of the Constitution were a Classically trained and educated elite. For them, the traditional definition of a tyrant was the Greek definition: a leader who used the will of the mob (the people) to overthrow the legitimate oligarchy of propertied notables.
So by all means, let us deconstruct the US Constitution and understand the US Constitution in it's context. If we have to torture the Constitution out of all meaning by claiming that it is a "living" document and does not mean what it says and say what it means, do we not leave ourselves vulnerable to someone like Justice Scalia who would advocate for oligarchy by returning to the original meaning--the American Constitutional version of a Salafist? Might it be better--since the Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be Holy Writ--to exercise the Constitution's Sunset Clause and for the States to call a Constitutional Convention and for the People to take their destiny back into their own hands?
If Justice Anthony Scalia is, as he says he is, a strict constructionist and he is faithful to the text of the Constitution and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, what do decisions such as Citizens United tell us about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution?
We can be reasonably certain that the kind of legislative gridlock that we see now in Congress is the result of the Constitution acting as it was engineered to act--to hobble a Chief Executive thought to be getting too powerful. But is this legislative gridlock also the result of Congress acting according to Constitutional specifications in another way: to restrain democracy from below? Remember. The framers of the Constitution were a Classically trained and educated elite. For them, the traditional definition of a tyrant was the Greek definition: a leader who used the will of the mob (the people) to overthrow the legitimate oligarchy of propertied notables.
So by all means, let us deconstruct the US Constitution and understand the US Constitution in it's context. If we have to torture the Constitution out of all meaning by claiming that it is a "living" document and does not mean what it says and say what it means, do we not leave ourselves vulnerable to someone like Justice Scalia who would advocate for oligarchy by returning to the original meaning--the American Constitutional version of a Salafist? Might it be better--since the Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be Holy Writ--to exercise the Constitution's Sunset Clause and for the States to call a Constitutional Convention and for the People to take their destiny back into their own hands?
I'm sorry but this theory fails from the same myth as the Tea Party's view of the Founders. The reality is that they were not all of one mind. Some of them were much more concerned about mob rule as you say. Others, particularly Jefferson and his followers, very clearly and explicitly aspired for an egalitarian republic of yeoman farmers - to the point of not wanting cities growing as they caused inequality.
ManintheField
Banned
Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention.
Neither was he at the Virginia Ratifying Convention.
The people who were the driving force behind that adoption of a new constitution (versus modifications to the existing articles) did have something approaching a coherent vision in mind. Even Madison wasn't entirely against the program of the people who would become the High Federalists.
This is a very enlightening book.
You know sometimes you here sentences that just convince you our founders where a bunch of idiots. Also is this Lies My Teacher Told Me guy part of that same clique of people as Zihn and (formerly) Chomsky? Because Zihn said basically the exact same thing in A Peoples History.