Why was a Federalist for states rights? The Federal Govt. You would think that a Federalist would be for a strong federal govt but I can obviously read that it is not. Why were they named that way?

Federalists were for the system of shared power between the states and the national government. That is why they were for state's rights.

This doesn't seem right.

The Federalists were for a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists were not.

But, the issue was a little different at that point. The Federalists were for the Constitution whereas the Anti-Federalists were not.

I'm reading up on it because a kid had a question in my study hall about their proficiency test. I've looked up some things on google the past hour and it is amazing how things have changed over the last couple of centuries. Republicans were liberal. I'll find the sheet I'm looking at and link it. It's neat to look at how things have changed.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...MwgpKA0wDQ

That link is interesting isn't it.

(04-06-2016 02:15 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm reading up on it because a kid had a question in my study hall about their proficiency test. I've looked up some things on google the past hour and it is amazing how things have changed over the last couple of centuries. Republicans were liberal. I'll find the sheet I'm looking at and link it. It's neat to look at how things have changed.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...MwgpKA0wDQ

The Republicans became known as the Democratic Party which became conservative. Teddy's Progressives were a split of the Republican Party.

Actually, the Anti-federalists became the Democratic-Republican party. The true beginning of the Democratic party was with Andrew Jackson.

I think the question is about Federalism, as someone pointed out earlier was a critical component of our U.S. constitution that balances the rights of states vs the power of the Federal Gov't Jefferson, who founded the Democratic-Republican Party (which eventually became the Democratic party), was a supporter of Federalism but was at odds with the Federalist Party. The Federalist party was a believer in a stronger central gov't and to oversimplify it were "against" Federalism.

I see it as a minor miracle that we were able to (very generally speaking) steer away from authoritarianism in those days. Unfortunately we continue to head further in that direction now and Trump (or Sanders in a lot of respects) would maybe be the final nail.

(04-06-2016 03:49 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I see it as a minor miracle that we were able to (very generally speaking) steer away from authoritarianism in those days. Unfortunately we continue to head further in that direction now and Trump (or Sanders in a lot of respects) would maybe be the final nail.

Obama/Clinton/Sanders are the bigger danger in that.

(04-06-2016 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:49 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I see it as a minor miracle that we were able to (very generally speaking) steer away from authoritarianism in those days. Unfortunately we continue to head further in that direction now and Trump (or Sanders in a lot of respects) would maybe be the final nail.

Obama/Clinton/Sanders are the bigger danger in that.

They're all bad, yes. Clinton and to a large degree Obama I think are status quo (not a good thing).

Its hard to say whether Trumps actual policies would be authoritarian but its bothersome that hes gaining so much traction with supporters that appear to want the strongman image. So I'm not sure if I agree with you there.

former Republicans (small government, states rights, individual liberty) are now 'libertarians'.

I'd be more of a states' rights guy if Alabama didn't suck at pretty much everything it touched.

(04-06-2016 02:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This doesn't seem right.

The Federalists were for a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists were not.

But, the issue was a little different at that point. The Federalists were for the Constitution whereas the Anti-Federalists were not.

^This, the states had much more power (and the federal government was much weaker) under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution actually increased the federal government's power.

(04-06-2016 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  former Republicans (small government, states rights, individual liberty) are now 'libertarians'.

When were the Republicans for small government, states rights, and individual liberty? Abraham Lincoln? -Or was it Reagan? George W. Bush?

Government grows and grows and grows.

(04-06-2016 05:09 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 04:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:49 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  I see it as a minor miracle that we were able to (very generally speaking) steer away from authoritarianism in those days. Unfortunately we continue to head further in that direction now and Trump (or Sanders in a lot of respects) would maybe be the final nail.

Obama/Clinton/Sanders are the bigger danger in that.

They're all bad, yes. Clinton and to a large degree Obama I think are status quo (not a good thing).

Its hard to say whether Trumps actual policies would be authoritarian but its bothersome that hes gaining so much traction with supporters that appear to want the strongman image. So I'm not sure if I agree with you there.

Most Republicans don't like Trump. He will be gone in 4 years even if elected. The totalitarian policies of Obama/Clinton/Sanders are backed by the Democratic party.

(04-07-2016 11:10 AM)chess Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 05:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  former Republicans (small government, states rights, individual liberty) are now 'libertarians'.

When were the Republicans for small government, states rights, and individual liberty? Abraham Lincoln? -Or was it Reagan? George W. Bush?

Government grows and grows and grows.

Calvin Coolidge. He reduced the top marginal tax rate as well as personal income tax rates across the board. He reduced the federal debt by 25%. State and local governments saw considerable growth, surpassing the federal budget in 1927.