Our Founding politically party, the Federalists, lose the presidency in 1800 and completely dissolve by 1815. Reflecting on our discussion from Friday, briefly share below if you believe that you would have been a Federalist in the 1790s. Consider their plans, their actions and their choices as you comment below:
(as is our practice, please reply to the comments of two others)
(MUST INCLUDE KEY TERMS IN OUR RESPONSE)
I probably would be a Federalist in the 1790s as I had just seen the collapse of a weaker Articles of Confederation. I would probably want a strong central government and closer ties to Britain as the French seem unstable.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I would probably want closer ties to a party that supports a strong central government.
DeleteI said the same. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation would've made me want to become a Federalist.
DeleteI agree, seeing a government attempt fail would make you want to create a stronger and less flawed government.
DeleteSame, the flaws in the Articles of Confederation would compel me to join the federalists.
DeleteI agree, the french were in the middle of internal conflicts, so the federalists were smarter in their diplomacy ideas.
DeleteWhile I agree that the Articles of Confederation collapsed from weakness, I fear that the government the Federalists wanted to create would be what the Articles of Confederation was trying to prevent. Additionally, while a war with France was definitely a concern, Britain would likely try to influence the United States, especially because both the Federalists and Britain believed in a wealthy ruling class.
DeleteI agree that a strong central government would have appealed to many.
DeleteSeeing as the past governmental attempts had failed, like with the Articles of Confederation and their inability to do what they should have, I believe becoming a Federalist would be in my future as building on the weaknesses of past attempts in order to create a better government just makes logical sense.
ReplyDeleteThe Federalist idea of Building on past attempts does work and would be a reason that I would want to become Federalist.
DeleteI agree, having a stronger central government seems like the smart idea.
DeleteAgreed, that's also why I'd become a Federalist. No nation can succeed without building upon past mistakes.
DeleteDuring some periods of the 1790s I would likely be a Federalist. During the period of the “XYZ Affair”, which took place during the 1790s I would not want to ally myself with the Jeffersonians who, were in shambles due to their support of the French. However, after the Alien and Sedition Acts I might change my party as I would not want to ally with a political group that limits the rights of the people and is so strongly disliked by the general public.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I would also want to switch parties because of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteI hadn't thought about an inclusion of the French Quasi War as a reason to become a Federalist.
DeleteI can understand why you would choose Federalists at some times because Federalists have made mistakes as well.
DeleteI agree, the XYZ affair would be a big reason to support the English and the Federalists.
DeleteYeah I agree, good point.
DeleteI didn't think about this when writing my response, but I agree that I probably wouldn't want to stick with a party that passed such a problematic act with little benefits.
DeleteI agree—I think one of the main reasons why some federalists were disliked was because of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteI agree, I would've probably been a Federalist up until that point.
DeleteFrom observing the effects of the mistakes made with the Article of Confederation such as an underfunded national government from not giving the national government the power to impose taxes, I would have been a Federalist up until the controversy of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly.
DeleteI agree the Articles of Confederation prevented so much and it was time for a change which the Federalists supported.
DeleteI agree. I'd also support the Federalist side until the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteThe Alien and Sedition Acts caused me to possibly not be a Federalist, but I think they still had a good run in the late 18th century.
DeleteI would probably support the Federalists mainly because of the financial systems, such as the creation of a national bank, since I'm all for business, and as of right now, since the French had a lot of rebellions in the past decade, therefore the British are more suitable despite past tensions.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. A strong financial system is crucial, especially given the rebellions in France.
DeleteI would be a Federalist. Personally, I believe any nation needs a strong, stabilized central government in order to function along with an organized financial system and national bank. Further, after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a Constitution that can be loosely interpreted is a safer option. Just as their previous document had failed, this could too, so it would be important for the document to be one of flexibility.
ReplyDeleteI like your point about a loosely interpreted constitution—a constitution that can be interpreted multiple different ways gives more freedom to the people.
DeleteWhile I agree that a strong government is important, I disagree that a loosely interpreted Constitution is a safer option. Many would just use the Constitution for their own agendas, especially the Federalists, who were primarily businessmen, and if those agendas conflicted, a lot of disagreement could break out in Congress and weaken the nation
DeleteI agree that a nation should have a strong central government.
DeleteI probably would be a federalist seeing how the articles of confederation failed and the government started giving taxes to everyone. IO would've wanted a stronger and more stable government.
ReplyDeleteI would probably be a Federalist, mostly because of the belief in one united government and a national bank to help get the country out of debt. Additionally, the Articles of Confederation had failed so I would probably have more faith in the federalist economic system.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the failure of the articles of confederation would have pushed me to the Federalists.
DeleteTotally- I think that the AOC combined with the XYZ affairs would have me siding with the federalists.
DeleteThe Articles of Confederation would have pushed me to become a federalist. While both groups were not perfect, I would have to associate myself with the lesser of the two evils. The national bank provided a stable currency system, and having a stronger national government would result in a more organized country. I believe that the only major incident that might have swayed my position were the Alien and Sedition Acts.
ReplyDeleteI agree the Federalists would have my support all until the Alien and Sedition Acts that just would push me over the edge and want to no longer support them and their ideas.
DeleteI agree with this. The Federalists would definitely have my support because of the Articles of Confederation.
DeleteMuch like others, I agree. The main factors of support for the Federalists are of course the failure of The Articles of Confederation, and then a loss of support due to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
DeleteI would not be a federalist, for many reasons. Firstly, one of the main ideals of the Federalists is a wealthier ruling class. This ruling class would not result in an equal opportunity to govern. This, paired with the fact that the Federalists interpreted the Constitution to suit their own agendas, could lead to an extremely corrupt and wealthy governing class with a much larger and less wealthy lower class that would have almost no say in the laws of their country.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your criticisms of the federalists, but I thought the benefits outweighed the risks.
DeleteI chose to be a Federalist, but I do agree with the fact that there would not be an equal opportunity to govern.
DeleteLike all two party systems, neither is an excellent option, but the rural, agriculture-centered vision the Democratic Republicans had for America is less appealing than the urbanized, manufacturing-centered vision of Federalists.
DeleteI totally agree with the criticisms of the federalist party, but I think that personally, given that I live in the heart of New York, I would be blindsided to the injustice of an "elite ruling class."
DeleteThere are good and bad aspects of both parties, but I believe that in the 1790s I would have been a federalist. Yes, I would be kind of put off by their aristocratic views and how ok they were with England, but the issues that would have mattered to me the most like taxation and stability in the government would have been covered by the federalists plans. I may have had some issues with them, but I would have had more to gain with the federalists than to lose.
ReplyDeleteI agree, its a very analytical take on whether whose side had better profit and standing.
DeleteI agree, there were certainly pros and cons in choosing either party but becoming a federalist was the best choice.
DeleteI would have been a Federalist. This is mostly because I think having a strong central government will help the country become more organized and stable. Overall, even though I may disagree with some aspects, such as being mostly consisted of the upper class, I still think being a Federalist would be the better option.
ReplyDeleteI would have sided with the Federalists because after the Articles of Confederation were not successful I would agree to having a central government and the idea of having a national bank to create a stable and organized country. However, I would side with the Federalists all up to the "XYZ Affair" where the Alien and Seditions Acts were passed.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely be a Federalist in the 1790s because the Democratic Republicans were definitely unpopular at that time with the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist side's national bank.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and I didn't think to add the Articles of Confederation to my response, and it did have a huge part on why being a Federalists was a more popular choice.
DeleteI agree, while neither side was perfect, the Federalists were not in a position of pressure or under public scrutiny due to failed policies and seemed to be the better choice.
DeleteI agree where if you were a democratic republican during the failure of the articles of confederation is a time when you would want to be a federalist.
DeleteIn the 1790s, I would have been a Federalist as I agree with the belief of a strong united central government, the flexibility which the constitution allows, and the fact that a national bank would help with the debts they had amassed, though some Federalists' belief do have its drawbacks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a strong centralized government as well. It seems like state governments have been vulnerable many times throughout American history, such as the Shays rebellion.
DeleteI agree that a national bank would be a good idea, since it would boost the economy.
DeleteIn the 1790's, I would have likely been a Federalist, as I would enjoy the stability of a strong central government, which would seem better compared to the perceived weakness of the Jeffersonians after the XYZ affair, as well as the Incompetence of the Democratic Republicans, who were responsible for the Articles of Confederation, a notoriously unstable constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the XYZ affair would be a good reason to be a federalists.
DeleteYeah, the Articles of Confederation were really destabilizing the national government, and made it seem more like the states were separate countries, so having a powerful central government really helps.
DeleteI would probably be a federalist in the 1790s because of the idea of a national bank in order to stabilize the country's economy. The XYZ affair was also an embarrassment to the democratic republicans.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I would have been a federalist in the 1790s, because I agree with Hamilton's assumption policy, I enjoy the lifestyle of being a "propertyless" worker in a big city, and I think the Federalist Papers would've convinced me on many issues pertaining to the new constitution. I also don't like how the Democratic Republicans handled the XYZ affair, and I support a stronger centralized government over weaker, more incompetent local ones.
ReplyDeleteGiven the political climate, I would probably identify as a federalist in the 1790s. Coming off the failure of the Articles of Confederation, I would probably be convinced that we need a strong central government, and that the lack of unity between states was a weakness. In addition, as someone who lives in New York (assuming that was the case back then), I would most likely sympathize and be influenced more by the "elite" (politicians, bankers and other educated workers) than I would be by the farmers of down south. In addition, the XYZ affair was an embarrassment for the democratic-republicans, and that would be enough, if nothing else, to convince me.
ReplyDeleteI agree that its easier to sympathize for people other than farmers.
DeleteI would want to be a Federalist, because the idea of having a national bank, the assumption of state debts, and increase in industry are all policies Alexander Hamilton wanted, and they looked to be extremely beneficial for the nation, handling finances and stimulating the economy. This would also centralize power in the nation, an issue that the Articles of Confederation had caused.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the assumption of state debts and creating a national bank would have seemed very beneficial.
DeleteSimilarly to my classmates, it seems I would have been a federalist in the 1790's. This would most likely be due to the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the appeal of the assumption of state debts, a national bank and increase and improvement in industry. The Alien and Sedition acts would make me question the party and definitely consider a split from it due to it's opposition of the ideas which the country so greatly valued.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1790's, I would have been a federalist. This was mostly due to the fact that the assumption of state debts and creating a national bank seemed very good and beneficial at the time. To add to this, the Articles of Confederation failing would have further convinced me that the right choice is to be a federalist.
ReplyDeleteI would be a federalist due to the shortcoming of the Articles of Confederation and I would believe in the fact that the government needs a strong stable central government.
ReplyDelete