Peter says,
“Sometime you should write on why the anti-federalists were called Federalists, the anti-whigs were called Whigs, the anti-republicans were called Republicans, and the anti-democrats are called Democrats. ”
Comment by Peter
MY REPLY:
The Federalists were called Federalists because they werre tied to Washington, whose reputation got the Constitution ratified. They subsituted a Federal system, with a strong central government, for the Confederation, which had practically no central government.
As the Federal Government got stronger the word “federalism” became more and more just a reminder that the states ALSO had rights. So the old Federalists like Alexander Hamilton who wanted nothing BUT a central government became Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans, who destroyed federalism altogether.
The Whigs were called Whigs after the Revolutionary Whigs who opposed the monarchical Tories. The party took that name as opposing the “monarchy” they said Andrew Jackson was trying to impose.
The Democrats have that name simply because Jackson gave it to them. In over seventeen decades, that party has had nothing in common with the original party but the name.
The original Republican Party, the Republican-Democrats, was the name given to the anti-Federalist party by Jefferson. Jackson claimed his party was truly Jeffersonian.
The original Democratic Party opposed a national bank and other centralizing measures Hamilton and Lincon wanted, so it was actually anti-Federalist, in the later meaning of that word.
A more genereal answer to your question goes back to a point I keep making, and that I hope will not die with me:
When someone declares he is anti-Hate, you know that he considered Hate to be prime motivator. He is a Hater.
When somone freely accuses everybody of lying, he considers lying to be a natural action, and he is a liar.
The Hamiltonians and Lincolnites wanted ONLY a central government, but in order to get started they needed a central government to start with. So they got the Constitution by guaranteeing states’ rights. They got the name “Federalist” from that. But they were not Federalists, they were centralists.
A party gets its name from the FIRST step.
The Whigs were Hamiltonians opposing Jackson’s Jeffersonians. Thewir first step was to drive the Southerners under Jackson out of power. Then they could continue the Hamiltonian program of destroying the states altogether. To achieve this first step, they called themselves Whigs, dedicated to overthrowing Jackson’s “monarchy.”
But it was so they could set up a centralized monarchy of their own.
Lincoln did that.
Sometime you should write on why the anti-federalists were called Federalists, the anti-whigs were called Whigs, the anti-republicans were called Republicans, and the anti-democrats are called Democrats.
Comment by Peter
#1 by Peter on 04/03/2006 - 11:05 pm
Well,
Federalist comes from Latin foedus, meaning “treaty, contract” (at least according to the OED). A federation is the opposite of a strong central government. “Federation” means exactly the same as “confederation.” The former means a treaty of independent states, the latter means a treaty together of independent states.
Thus the Federalists who wanted a strong central government were really anti-federalists. Being the merchants they were, they were used to double speak, to saying anything to sell their product. In this case their product was a strong central government under the exclusive control of themselves. But the people wanted a treaty of already existing state governments under their control. That was called “federalism.” So the merchants sold their product of total control over the people as “federalism.”
The same was with the Whigs: doublespeak again. No one seriously believed the silly line that Jackson wanted to be king or a pseudo-king. Of course, the “Whigs” themselves earlier had tried to make Washington king, but he had declined. But the merchants still wanted absolute control of the government over all the people. The Whigs in England had won a great reputation supporting the Revolution in America against the merchants in London who wanted total control over America to make easy money. So the merchants in Jackson’s time who wanted total control over America to make easy money simply called themselves “Whigs.”
It didn’t work. The American people at the time saw through the silly double speak and the “Whigs” went bankrupt. You were right that this had much to do with Adams’ earlier vanity.
As I said in an earlier comment you didn’t read, the ugly tall man succeeded again with the doublespeak. He called his party the Republicans and then ended the American Republic once and for all. Communists later copied him and called their dictatorships “democracies,” “republics,” and “democratic republics.”
But you never noticed that, Bob.
We deal with the same thing today. So may of waste breath against “egalitarianism,” “socialism,” “political correctness,” as if these “ideologies” should be taken seriously. They aren’t even ideologies, they are just bad salespitches. The only ones who take “wordism” seriously are the little people. The ones preaching it don’t. They just want power.
So Bob, you’re wrong about Federalists and Whigs and the thieves who pretended to be “Washingtonians” to get votes from idiots and little people like you and me.
But I don’t want a vacuum cleaner that doesn’t work very well right now, thank you.
#2 by Dave on 04/03/2006 - 11:36 pm
The history of American political parties politics is fascinating, especially the one’s with no name like the “White People’s Party” functioning as a peculiar and misinformed faction under the Republican Party label today.
One ought not to forget, however, that tyranny was very different in the 19th century and earlier given the opportunities that advantaged locals had in laying extortions to folks in rural circumstances.
But that did nothing to detract from the sheer cleverness of the deceits employed in national governance and by the military establishment (both in the North and in the South) with dreams of commissions, money, and recognition. After all, more of the Civil War than we were ever told was simply a stirred up affair, aiding ambitious officers who needed a fight and a dog in the fight.
But the cleverness today in human governance is quite impressive too, being aided and abetted my mass media and entertainment upon which our population is dependent. In the 19th century you may have been an ignorant illiterate, but at least did not have that damn television to prevent you from thinking.
I can’t understand how the whites who dominate the Republican party today at the local level think the municipal police commands with their public employee union Communist ideology and first in line to suck off the government tit bullying are somehow supportive of white interests. These white Republican numbskulls are enamored by anybody with a uniform on, proof of their cowardice. They don’t want to deal directly with black people and Mexican people without their relations being intermediated by the police.
#3 by kanefromsf on 04/04/2006 - 10:36 pm
I completely agree about modern day Democrats. I identify with the old party, not the new one. I don’t identify with Republicans. Democrats are always changing. Republicans are consistant, and its only because of the self-destruction of the Democrats that I would support certain Republicans. Democrats have changed way too much.
#4 by Peter on 04/12/2006 - 9:59 pm
On Federalism again.
Federalism always meant a decentralized association (ie “foedus”) of independent governments. The opposite of federalism is centralization. The Founding Fathers called “centralization” consolidation.
The Hamiltonians (not Washingtonians, for God’s sake!) called themselves “Federalists” to fool people.
They lied. They hated federalism. They wanted one consolidated government on the continent so they could hold all the power in one place. They wanted to line their pockets with everyone’s tax dollars and to pass laws to create exclusive monopolies over everyone’s business.
I cannot believe that Bob could honestly call himself a true Southerner and not know this.
What I was thinking earlier was: “What an idiot.”