The Founding Fathers: When Were They Right, When Were They Left

If you can not resist the lure of the politically slanted document, please note the point of view in the beginning of your cut-and-paste segment.

Let's start by refreshing everyone's memory as to what the playing field looked like at the end of the 18th Century.

Using Wiki, which is regarded as political neutral, let's see who the Federalists were and what they believed:

The Federalist Party was an American political party in the period 1792 to 1816, the era of the First Party System, with remnants lasting into the 1820s. The Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801. The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who, during George Washington's first term, built a network of supporters, largely urban bankers and businessmen, to support his fiscal policies. These supporters grew into the Federalist Party, which wanted a fiscally sound and strong nationalistic government and was opposed by the Democratic-Republicans. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams; although George Washington was broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire presidency.[1]
The Federalist policies called for a national bank and the Jay Treaty to build good relations with Britain. The opponents, who came to be known as "Republicans", denounced most of the Federalist polices, especially the bank, and vehemently attacked the Jay Treaty as a sell-out of republican values to the British monarchy. The Treaty passed, and indeed the Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. They held a strong base in urban New England. The Republicans, with their base in the rural south, won the hard-fought election of 1800; the Federalists never returned to power. The Federalists, too wedded to an upper-class style to win the support of ordinary voters, grew weaker every year. They recovered some strength by intense opposition to the War of 1812; they practically vanished during the Era of Good Feelings that followed the end of the war in 1815.[2]
The Federalists left a lasting imprint as they fashioned a strong new government with a sound financial base, and (in the person of Chief Justice John Marshall), decisively shaped Supreme Court policies for another three decades.[3]
. . .

The Federalists were dominated by businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, the support of manufactures and industrial development, and the use of a tariff to fund the Treasury. In foreign affairs the Federalists opposed the French Revolution, engaged in the "Quasi War" (an undeclared naval war) with France in 1798–99, sought good relations with Britain and sought a strong army and navy. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists stemmed from a difference of principle and style. In terms of style the Federalists distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power. Republicans distrusted Britain, bankers, merchants and did not want a powerful national government. The Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of "the people," the French, and the Republicans.[25] In the end, the nation synthesized the two positions, adopting representative democracy and a strong nation state. Just as importantly, American politics by the 1820s accepted the two-party system whereby rival parties stake their claims before the electorate, and the winner takes control of the government.
As time went on, the Federalists lost appeal with the average voter and were generally not equal to the tasks of party organization; hence, they grew steadily weaker as the political triumphs of the Republican Party grew. For economic and philosophical reasons, the Federalists tended to be pro-British – the United States engaged in more trade with Great Britain than with any other country – and vociferously opposed Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807 and the seemingly deliberate provocation of war with Britain by the Madison Administration. During "Mr. Madison's War", as they called it, the Federalists attempted a comeback but the patriotic euphoria that followed the war undercut their pessimistic appeals.
After 1816 the Federalists had no national influence apart from John Marshall's Supreme Court. They had some local support in New England, New York, eastern Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. After the collapse of the Democratic-Republican Party in the course of the 1824 presidential election, most surviving Federalists (including Daniel Webster) joined former Democratic-Republicans like Henry Clay to form the National Republican Party, which was soon combined with other anti-Jackson groups to form the Whig Party. Some former Federalists like James Buchanan and Roger B. Taney became Jacksonian Democrats. The name "Federalist" came increasingly to be used in political rhetoric as a term of abuse, and was denied by the Whigs, who pointed out that their leader Henry Clay was the Democratic-Republican party leader in Congress during the 1810s.
The "Old Republicans," led by John Randolph of Roanoke, refused to form a coalition with the Federalists and instead set up a separate opposition since Jefferson, Madison, Gallatin, Monroe, John C. Calhoun and Clay had in effect adopted Federalist principles by purchasing the Louisiana Territory, chartering the Second national bank, promoting internal improvements (like roads), raising tariffs to protect factories, and promoting a strong army and navy after the failures of the War of 1812.

Now, using the same source, let's examine the other side:

Anti-Federalism is a political philosophy which opposes the concept of Federalism. In short, Anti-Federalists dictate that the central governing authority of a nation should be equal or inferior to, but not having more power than, its sub-national states (state government). A book titled "The Anti-Federalist Papers" is a detailed explanation of American Anti-Federalist thought.
Anti-Federalism also refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1787. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

. . .

The Federalist movement of the 1780s was motivated by the proposition that the national government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak, and needed to be amended or replaced. Eventually, they managed to get the national government to sanction a convention to revise the Articles. Opposition to its ratification immediately appeared when the convention concluded and published the proposed Constitution.
The opposition was composed of diverse elements, including those opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states, localities, or individuals; those that fancied a new centralized, disguised "monarchic" power that would only replace the cast-off despotism of Great Britain with the proposed government; and those who simply feared that the new government threatened their personal liberties. Some of the opposition believed that the central government under the Articles of Confederation was sufficient. Still others believed that while the national government under the Articles was too weak, the national government under the Constitution would be too strong.
During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," "Centinel," and "Federal Farmer." Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers.
In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[1]
The Anti-Federalists played upon these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease, but the Massachusetts convention was far more bitter and contentious. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (known as the "Massachusetts compromise") was reached. Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution with recommended provisions in the ratifying instrument that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights. (The Federalists contended that a conditional ratification would be void, so the recommendation was the strongest support that the ratifying convention could give to a bill of rights short of rejecting the Constitution.)
Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.
With the passage of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Anti-Federalist movement was exhausted. It was succeeded by the more broadly based Anti-Administration Party, which opposed the fiscal and foreign policies of U.S. President George Washington.
[edit]Noted Anti-Federalists

Patrick Henry
Samuel Adams
George Mason
Richard Henry Lee
Robert Yates (politician)
James Winthrop
James Monroe
Mercy Otis Warren
George Clinton
One can also argue that Thomas Jefferson expressed several anti-federalist thoughts throughout his life, but that his involvement in the discussion was limited, since he was stationed as Ambassador to France while the debate over federalism was going on in America in the Federalist papers and Anti-Federalist Papers.

As nothing was cut and dried, there was an Anti-Administration Party or Faction:

Anti-Administration "Party" is a term used by historians to describe the opponents of the policies of U.S. President George Washington. This was not an actual political party. Rather, it is used as a catch-all term for a variety of political factions. It is a successor to the Anti-Federalists, a faction which had opposed ratification of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Anti-Administration Party was more broadly based than the earlier faction and its leaders were far more prominent.
The party came into existence when James Madison, Henry Tazewell, and others expressed opposition to the First Report on Public Credit issued by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in January 1790. This report, adopted by Congress in July, provided for the assumption of state debt by the federal government. The French Revolutionary Wars, which began in April 1792, hardened the differences between the factions. The Pro-Administration Party supported the British while the Anti-Administration Party supported the French. To contest the elections of 1792, anti-administration forces under the leadership of Madison and Thomas Jefferson coalesced into a party which historians refer to as the Democratic-Republican Party. Along with Hamilton's Federalist Party, this was a part of the First Party System.

When we look at the Federalists, we see that they favored a national bank. The far right dislikes a national bank. The members of the party were "largely urban bankers and businessmen," which sounds like old line Republicans from the early to mid-20th C., when everyone was further to the right.

That the anti-Federalists feared an alliance with Britain sounds like they might have been described as left-wing insofar as they feared the monarchy or right-wing insofar as they were isolationists.

That the Federalists were upper class does sound like left wing scientists, professors and other intellectuals but it also sounds like conservative rich people, proud that there were coats of arms borne by their ancestors. that they alienated working people makes them sound right of center in a limited way as we usually think of unions as left-leaning.

However, their insistence on a strong central government moves them squarely to the center if not slightly to the left. After all, the right wing descendants of right wing slave owners of the South made certain text books carried a false message that the Civil War was fought over states' rights. But, then, they could have simply been the voice on one crying in the desert for Ronald Reagan and his anti-centralism scam.

OK, so the Federalists left a "strong government with a sound financial base" which immediately brings to mind centralist William Jefferson Clinton.

Dominated by businessmen and merchants? Sounds like the GOP! Linked to "modernizing, urbanizing" Hamilton? Hmmm? Sounds like many people from Robert Moses to Saul Alinsky.

opposed the French Revolution? C'est absolutement ridicule! That was their own original twist!

Distrustful of the people? THe current American right, despite lip service rendered the Tea Party.

Alright. Are the Federalists sufficiently like us today and sufficiently unlike us to not match our current political fashion?

Interesting thread, surprised there are not more posts commenting on some of it.

Going by what I admittedly skimmed, it seems that the Federalists would compare to today's leftist in wanting a strong central government and those who opposed in the States would compare to those on the right today who oppose big government.

Relative to Monarchy: thay were radicals.
Relative to the US Constitution, thay coud not "lean" right: thay WERE the right (non-deviant).





David

That's basically correct but the situation was sooooo much more complex.

One thing that people seem to never take into account is the difference is technology makes in political philosophy. Rich farmers like Jefferson and Washington, despite being scientifically sophisticated for their day, would never imagine our world and our world in technological terms does shape our politics.

That is not a sophisticate analysis. Far and away too pat and much too preconceived.

While we can see the ancestral beliefs of states' rights supporters in the Anti-Federalists, they were not the same as the states' rights supporters that seceded from the Union (in and of itself a quaint word). The anti-Federalists do not resemble the current crop of states' rights advocates, many of whom are Tea Party adherents.*

When I was in high school, everyone took a semester of government and everyone had to read the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers.**

The other thing that must be considered is that these people were still in the Age of Enlightenment. So, let's look at one description of the times, from Wiki:

"The 'Enlightenment' was not a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science."

Sorry that I felt I had to make that quote a bit complicated, but let's begin with the bold faced section. What does that sound like? Does it sound like the 1960s? It does to me now and it did then.

Let us also consider these words: The Enlightenment was not a single movement.

Not a single movement.

Our own David likes to use the word deviant to describe people that he -- rightly or wrongly -- thinks violate the Constitution. But consider that the men who put the Constitution together disagreed among themselves. Furthermore, the men who inspired the FFs . . . Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau . . . differed from each other.

Not a single movement.

It is time to come and reason together.

What did Patrick Henry (when I was in high school, Patrick Henry was labeled a conservative by my American history teacher who was probably Sister Marie Edward of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Nazareth) fear? Refer back to the cut and paste job I did. He feared that the post of president might become a monarchy.

The bush family seems to be attempting to remake the presidency into a monarchy!

I remember that we discussed the frustrations the FFs felt with the Articles of Confederation. There was no engine for foreign policy. Each state printed its own currency. There was no judiciary and no military. There was no financial vehicle. The federal government could not tax . . . and without a tax, what could it finance and without being able to finance, what could it do?

Remember, that the Articles of Confederation were an emergency measure that arose out of that first attempt to separate from Great Britain and the Crown.

(here, I am resisting the urge to link to Chumbawmba singing, "Good Bye to the Crown")

Again, although our David thinks opposition or misinterpretation to the Constitution is a sign of deviance, look what Wiki recounts about that Document:


Immediate opposition.

Does this opposition resemble the contemporary American right?

Not really. First of all, it is far and away too literate and too able to quantify and qualify its objections which largely centered on the idea of the presidency. The American right of today does not object to the presidency per se. In fact, the contemporary right seems to want the presidency more than it wants other offices and for the reason that Patrick Henry feared.

But do the Anti-Federalists resemble the contemporary left? The left would have promoted a different Bill of Rights, perhaps, without the right to bear arms and certainly without slavery. Ah, there's the rub and, boy, does it chafe!

The Anti-Federalists were inspired in part by Tom Paine, whom the left of the 60s embraced as one of its guiding lights. While Paine had little direct influence on the actual Bill of Rights and while Adams I later reviled him, Lincoln revered him.

So, can we say without wincing that the Anti-Federalists were on the right?

I think we can say that the basic idea of balancing the rights of states and the rights of the federal government support the current right but that the reasons why this belief in the balancing of states' rights against/with/over federal rights are still extant are very, very different.

* The Tea Party is not coherent about what they stand for beyond what they see as the defense of their own pocketbooks.

** Many right wingers favor a watered down curriculum for those not bound for college. I think this is wrong. Certain knowledge is needed to function in our complex society and the right would deny that knowledge to people. Think Brave New World with its alphas, beta, gammas and deltas.

It is exceedingly simplistic to apply modern labels on eighteenth-century political movements. Did the Federalists' preference for a strong central government make them liberal or conservative? Liberals today may favor a strong central government because of their views on the role of the government in a welfare state, but the welfare state is an invention of the late nineteenth century. Conversely, conservatives today may favor a weak central government (or, at least, claim they favor a weak central government), but that's largely a reaction to New Deal social policies rather than any philosophical opposition to the centralization of power. None of that is relevant to an eighteenth-century context.

By the standards of the day, Washington was probably a conservative and Jefferson was probably a liberal, but that doesn't really tell us very much, and it is certainly deceptive to interpret those labels according to current definitions.

For several months, I have been frustrated by the prominent righties here on a2k who say they, as members of the right, are the descendants of the FFs. They also deny that the FFs were anything but mainstream Christians and give lip service to the notion that should the FFs come to life today and walk the streets, they would immediately identify with the right.

I do not feel that analysis I am offering is simplistic, in fact, were you to read the analytical posts, you would see that I have broken elements of the standard history offered down -- albeit, I will admit not finely enough for an academic argument, but, then I do not have the time nor the resources to do so.

As for your points about the welfare state, while not as finely honed as they should be for an academic argument, they do align somewhat with my statement that all too often, we disregard the impact of technology on politics. What you are calling the welfare state would not have been necessary in the 17th C when those who might benefit from welfare indentured themselves. However, after the Industrial Revolution, which both increased population and changed the nature of man to the sources of his goods and services and brought about new social classes, some system was needed to fill the void left by the demise of indentureships, the end of the familial based organization of society that had existed since Medieval times and the creation of new technology.

I am not doing a one-to-one correspondence.

Plainoldme is quite wrong to refer to them as Founding Fathers in the first place. What they really were was an association of terrorist slaveholders. As terrorists, they recklessly disregarded the rules of civilized warfare as commonly understood in their time, and as the British Army generally respected it. As slaveholders, they hypocritically marketed their devious cause as a fight for freedom. In reality, of course, Americans would have been freer much sooner if the Rebellion had lost their war to the lawful authorities. Certainly, slavery would have ended as soon as it ended in Canada. It's worth pointing out that the British army freed the slaves in all the Southern territories it occupied. The "freedom-loving" "Founding Fathers", by contrast, lynched or re-enslaved them as quickly as they could get hold of them.

More generally, I think there's a strong, realistic case that America today would be better off if Washington had lost, and if Canada reached all the way to the Gulf of Mexico today. There is no rational reason for America's quasi-religious reverence for the Founding Fathers. The only practical reason, it seems, is that history is written by the winners.

Ah, but, that is what they are generally called.

Correction: That's what they are generally called by Americans. The British are perfectly happy to call them "Rebels", as I recently learned from the BBC documentary Rebels and Red Coats: How Britain lost America. (PBS distributes it in America.) I am not an American (yet), so I don't feel bound by your partisan naming conventions.

I'm not sure what you hope to gain by responding to simplistic arguments of right-wingers with simplistic arguments of your own. And don't fool yourself: your analysis is just as simplistic as theirs. Indeed, to suggest, as you have done in this thread, that Bill Clinton would be a Federalist or that Patrick Henry would be a Democrat because of his opposition to the monarchical aspirations of the Bush family, doesn't even reach the level of simplistic -- it merely aspires to be simplistic.

I resent the implication here that you are responding to my post. You're not: you're responding to your own post. If you want to attribute something to me, at least attribute something to me that is well-written.

i say we burn the constitution and start over

a gun in every garage and an abortion in every pot

and damn the rights of those pesky inalienables