After seeing a couple comments that appear to say our Founding Fathers understood the brilliance of ideological parties , (political parties), implying, (at least to me), they thought political parties were a good idea, it seemed a little fact-checking was in order.
I did not find perspectives for all of those considered to be Founding Fathers, but I did find a very opposite position from three of the most well known ones.
Ben Franklin spoke against the formation of political parties on the floor of Constitution Hall.
James Madison spoke against them in Federalist paper #10.
George Washington rued the formation of The Federalist, and The Democrat-Republican parties as early as the 1796 election. He lamented that the fractiousness of the parties would divide the new nation instead of uniting it.
I think they were right.
Yeah, I remember that.
But there were already strains in the new republic between those that saw a mercantile future and those on the agrarian track. While the Founding Fathers would have prefered no political parties, I doubt that it could have been avoided.
The Founding Fathers who helped to write the Constitution, mainly James Madison, considered political parties to be evil and they felt our republic would shun them. That is why we had the explosive election of 1800 that could have ended in civil war. Each state's electors had 2 votes and everyone of Jefferson's electors split their votes between he and Aaron Burr. Burr was expected to be his Vice President but it ended up in a tie between the 2 and thus the election ended up in the House of Representatives. The Federalists could have wreaked havoc with this but did not. It could have ended up in war because the Virginia and Pennsylvania militias were called up in case of any chicanery. This was all because the Founders thought all would vote as statesmen not party members. The Founders never saw this element and the Constitution was changed a few years later to be more in line with the system we have now. Of course, we still ended up with a few other contested elections including Bush v Gore in 2000.
Hi, HS, nice to see you again, trust all is well?
Speaking about dichotomy of political activity and loyalties in the early days, it is easy to follow the agrarians into the 19th century as the pro-slavery Democratic party and the mercantile interests into the Whigs and later GOP.
I think you guys are quoting something out of the context of my postings ,.........., Lets clarify , Our founding fathers understood and included opposing ideologies INTO the nuts and bolts designing of our government , and in recognizing this , designed the brilliance of inclusion by ultimately CONTROLLING those factions , There have always been ideologies outside of their originating beliefs , they knew and understood that and so mostly ,nullified those factional powers. The party divisions were there from the beginning and delicately dealt with .
In truth , a delicate balance of ideologies included what we now know as the right and left . The difference ? They , as opposing forces then , did not control politics ! They certainly didn't define politics the way they do now . NOW , the extremist's of the right and left are essentially useless ! What they have evolved into today are anchors of ideology that hold all REAL progress from becoming change. Essentially halting productivity in politics !
The present day laziness of party affiliation is the difference and the safety in laziness of aligning on the extremes is the problem today , it allows you from having to think . But , If any of you think that Americans then were somehow more unified , you are wrong . The divide was there all along , the parties just didn't have todays names.
You'll notice I never said the brilliance of Republicans or Democrats !
by cooldad5 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim...
by ErictheGator7 years ago
What should the role of government be in helping the 8.5 million Americans out of work?
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
There's an implicit understanding among teabaggers held by most Americans that this country was founded by regular folks. The associated superstition for teabaggers is that government has been taken over by 'elitists'....
by SparklingJewel7 years ago
listen carefully to what is said...its not a religious takeover of the country/government...BUT an understanding that spiritual values (not a particular religion) of how God "works" in life's aspects. It is...
by Sooner284 years ago
What is hagiography you ask? I just recently learned the term, and thought it applied perfectly to the way many on the American right attempt to argue for many of their positions. Hagiography is defined as...
by AnnCee7 years ago
OBAMA: We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by MEN OF PROPERTY AND WEALTH but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America, civil rights and voting...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.