Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
George Washington didn't belong to a political party when he was first elected. The Federalist Party wasn't founded until after the first Presidential election.
While Washington's cabinet included men who would create the Federalist Party (Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, etc.) and one who would found the Democratic-Republican Party (Thomas Jefferson), Washington himself never claimed any party affiliation.
Not only was Washington considered himself unaligned with either the Federalists or the Democratic Republicans, but he hoped that no political parties would form. Like other Americans of this time period, he believed that political parties, like those in the British government, caused unneeded factionalism and were a detriment to democracy.
Washington didn't believe in the party system, you're correct. However, most historians are considering him as a Democratic Republican. Thats because his core beliefs more closely followed those of the Democratic Republican party, a strict adhearence to the constitution, with little intervention by the Federal government.
Hence the names of the first two parties. Those who wanted a "Democratic Republic", and those who believed in the power of the "Federal" government.
Hamilton was a smart man, but if he had his way, We'd have had a king.
Washington didn't believe in the party system, you're correct. However, most historians are considering him as a Democratic Republican. Thats because his core beliefs more closely followed those of the Democratic Republican party, a strict adhearence to the constitution, with little intervention by the Federal government.
Nearly all historians consider Washington to be an independent, owing no allegiance to either the Federalists nor the Democratic Republicans and borrowing ideas from both parties when it suited him.
In practice, Washington usually sided with the Federalists.
Alexander Hamilton's consolidation of war debts into a national debt? Washington sided with Hamilton.
The creation of a central National Bank, something vehemently opposed by Thomas Jefferson? Washington again sided with Hamilton.
The federal excise tax on liquor and the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion? Washington sided with the Federalists.
The Jay Treaty, despised by the Democratic-Republicans? Again, Washington sided with the Federalists.
Alexander Hamilton, Washington's Secretary of Treasury and the leading Federalist, was Washington's aide and acting chief of staff during the American Revolution. Hamilton would as Secretary of Treasury in all eight years of Washington's presidency.
Thomas Jefferson, Washington's Secretary of State and the leading Republican, had no real prior interaction with Washington. Jefferson left his position as Secretary of State after only four years of service, mainly due to Hamilton's success in winning President Washington's approval for Federalist policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Hence the names of the first two parties. Those who wanted a "Democratic Republic", and those who believed in the power of the "Federal" government.
Hamilton was a smart man, but if he had his way, We'd have had a king.
Actually, the original name of the Democratic-Republican party was "the Republican Party". Jefferson's political philosophy was one of republicanism, not one of pure democracy. The "Democratic" part was added later.
The name of the Federalist party came out of the political movement for creating a constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation. Remember the Federalist Papers? Same guys who wrote them also went on to found the Federalist party.
And Hamilton didn't want a monarchy. He was more a robber-baron type who thought that monied interests should rule the nation. Fortunately, John Adams shut him down politically and Aaron Burr disposed of him in a duel before Hamilton could wreak any true damage.
Oh, one more thing....
Remember the first Democratic-Republican president, Thomas Jefferson, who, like all good Democratic-Republicans, believed in a strict adherence to the constitution, with little interference by the federal government?
Do you find it curious that Jefferson would negotiate with the French and unconstitutionally purchase Louisiana and then use Hamilton's "unconstitutional" system of national credit to pay for it?
Or that President Jefferson would force a dramatic expansion of the role of the federal government with his Embargo Act in 1807? The one where he attempted to shut all trade with Europe and Canada, seized ships of suspected smugglers without due process, and prohibited even the loading of ships unless there were a federal customs officer and a military presence to supervise the activity?
Sounds like the Democratic-Republican party's ideals didn't last through its first presidency.
Let me see~ we currently have the liberal~ or tax and spend party
then we have the neoconservative party~ or the borrow and spend party
After being a conservative for years I find myself having to *embarassed* be for Obama as being the more conservative and the most able to possibly save our country after the last president tried to destroy our country!
What we need is a TRUE conservative party.
By must you be disappointed with Obama; He is a new deal even by democratic goverance satndards.
Two people now have brought up Dwight D. Eisenhower as one of the best presidents.
Eisenhower led the troops to victory in Europe and was a nice grandfatherly figure as president...but what are his qualifications for being on your list of best presidents?
What puts Ike ahead of men like John Adams and James Polk?
Eisenhower and Truman did not get along with each other, but, interestingly, had similar outlooks as the first two Cold War presidents. Both believed that at some undetermined future time communism would fail from inside. They were right. Both expressed the view that we needed to be calculated and judicious in determining when and how to be firm with the Eastern Bloc, being ready to stand firm when necessary, but avoiding reflexive rash responses to any and every provocation, instead being careful to understand what situations truly needed a firm response, then acting in the most effective manner. Both effectively managed early Cold War crises, Truman the Berlin blockade and the beginnings of the Korean War (and McArthur's desire to expand the war into a direct confrontation with the Chinese), Eisenhower the ending of the Korean War and the expansion of Soviet influence in the Middle East. Both presidents managed to deftly handle these and other smaller situations under circumstances in which everything about how to deal with international relations had suddenly changed because of the recent development of, for the first time in history, a weapon which could potentially destroy civilization. Both men truly dealt with a new world order, with no past history to guide them on how to manage diplomacy, and the ultimate consequence constantly at stake. Both managed this very well. For this alone, both qualify as at least very good presidents, maybe great.
"United States Presidents from the party were: Thomas Jefferson (elected in 1800 and 1804), James Madison (1808 and 1812), and James Monroe (1816 and 1820). The party dominated Congress and most state governments; it was weakest in New England. William H. Crawford was the party's last presidential nominee in 1824 as the party broke up into several factions. One faction, led by Andrew Jackson, would become the modern Democratic Party."
The two parties that have ruled America have ruled in favor of the true leaders of our country, Mark Twain said it best when he reffered to the parties as, the "business party, made up of the Republican's and Democrat's", this has always been the case, in my view.
Right from the earliest formative years of the Planter class' disillusionment with the Crown, we have never had a true representative government, those who were outside of the founders circle were not deemed to be worthy of any freedom, the revolution was really about "their" freedom from the start.
I've noted that quite a few posters are aware of this charade of "choice" in government.
This is a completely meaningless question, for two reasons. First, there is no metric, so any input must of necessity be totally subjective, according to the government expectations of the responder. And second, the OP quite transparently is fishing for some way to evaluate the political parties themselves. As such, the question has no more meaning than "Which Hollywood studio has the most beautiful starlets?". Or, "Which breed of dogs has won the most dog shows?". Or "What make of car has won the most Grand Prix?" Or, "What color uniform has been worn by the most Super Bowl winners?"
This is a completely meaningless question, for two reasons. First, there is no metric, so any input must of necessity be totally subjective, according to the government expectations of the responder. And second, the OP quite transparently is fishing for some way to evaluate the political parties themselves. As such, the question has no more meaning than "Which Hollywood studio has the most beautiful starlets?". Or, "Which breed of dogs has won the most dog shows?". Or "What make of car has won the most Grand Prix?" Or, "What color uniform has been worn by the most Super Bowl winners?"
Agreed. But think about the percentage of meaningless questions raised here on C-D. If they were all eliminated, the site would not only look like an abandoned mining town, it wouldn't be as much fun to visit, either.
I do admire IKe has time goes on because he bascially lead america out of the war years to the great satrt as the most successful nation ever. he was the major factor in the US highway system that had alot to do with it. If you look at past president from truman thru reagn they wre bascially the same on foreign policy excepot for carter. Once Carter g9ot out of the way and we stopped playing the siviets hands they collapsed . That took alot of presdients being consistent except for carter who kind of just wanted to get along. the many eastern block countires that were oppress ceretainly thank them for their leadership.Reagan did a great job of reversing the carter mistakes that wwre taking the US downward IMO.I lok at the G20 conference when reagan took foiice after the Carter 70's recession and I saw the western powers on board with US plociy. looking at obama they rejected his leadership on the step to recovery. that says alot .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
