mspence
Warrant Officer
Posts: 281 
Likes: 243
|
Post by mspence on Jan 9, 2023 12:27:10 GMT
WI Hamilton survived or never had his duel with Burr? WI he becomes President in 1804?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 9, 2023 14:58:55 GMT
WI Hamilton survived or never had his duel with Burr? WI he becomes President in 1804? |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 11, 2023 15:28:14 GMT
Y'know, I always wondered why the Federalist Party declined so quickly. It's the party of the one and only Washington, after all.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,228
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2023 18:15:29 GMT
Y'know, I always wondered why the Federalist Party declined so quickly. It's the party of the one and only Washington, after all.
Was it? As far as I'm aware its stronghold was in New England and neighbouring areas? Plus it was a pretty centralist party with a desire for a strong, interventionist government which I'm not sure was the case with Washington?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 11, 2023 21:46:28 GMT
Well, they were his supporters, and the Democratic-Republicans not so much.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,228
|
Post by stevep on Jan 11, 2023 22:30:04 GMT
Well, they were his supporters, and the Democratic-Republicans not so much.
Interesting given the social and geographical differences between them. I know the initial Democrat/Republicans which became the source of the current Democrat party were the primary power that supplanted them and prompted a much less organised government. Not saying I disagree with you but just it sounds rather odd. Mind you as a military leader who saw the need for a strong central government that could have been a factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 13, 2023 23:53:01 GMT
Well, they were his supporters, and the Democratic-Republicans not so much.
Interesting given the social and geographical differences between them. I know the initial Democrat/Republicans which became the source of the current Democrat party were the primary power that supplanted them and prompted a much less organised government. Not saying I disagree with you but just it sounds rather odd. Mind you as a military leader who saw the need for a strong central government that could have been a factor.
it calls itself the Democratic Party, that's the way to say it if you're not taking sides in the United States, calling it the Democrat Party is a Republican form of verbal signaling that you're from the other side I've always assumed you're from Britain or another non-USA English-speaking country, so I assume you don't have a side on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jan 14, 2023 13:59:09 GMT
it calls itself the Democratic Party, that's the way to say it if you're not taking sides in the United States, calling it the Democrat Party is a Republican form of verbal signaling that you're from the other side I've always assumed you're from Britain or another non-USA English-speaking country, so I assume you don't have a side on this. I am from Germany, so yes, I'm looking at this from the outside.
And TBH, I've given up on ideology in general, and consider both sides bad: Trump & co for being obvious assholes who don't care jack about the climate catastrophe, and their opponents for being stealth assholes who either don't care or are too ineffective. - If Nancy Pelosi etc. are so great, why didn't they prevent Trump?
If things are supposed to get better, we need higher standards.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 14, 2023 14:02:52 GMT
WI Hamilton survived or never had his duel with Burr? WI he becomes President in 1804? Trust CNN, the main AH news broadcaster your answer your question. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,228
|
Post by stevep on Jan 14, 2023 15:57:41 GMT
Interesting given the social and geographical differences between them. I know the initial Democrat/Republicans which became the source of the current Democrat party were the primary power that supplanted them and prompted a much less organised government. Not saying I disagree with you but just it sounds rather odd. Mind you as a military leader who saw the need for a strong central government that could have been a factor.
it calls itself the Democratic Party, that's the way to say it if you're not taking sides in the United States, calling it the Democrat Party is a Republican form of verbal signaling that you're from the other side I've always assumed you're from Britain or another non-USA English-speaking country, so I assume you don't have a side on this.
I'm British. As I understand it the party that came to power from ~1820 onward initially called itself the Democratic Republican or something like that and became the ancestor of what's now the Democratic party while the initial Republicans who were formed in the 1850's were more like the Federalists - at least the Republicans of that time. Both parties have changed drastically over the ~150 years since in all sorts of ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 14, 2023 16:34:09 GMT
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jan 14, 2023 21:25:45 GMT
it calls itself the Democratic Party, that's the way to say it if you're not taking sides in the United States, calling it the Democrat Party is a Republican form of verbal signaling that you're from the other side I've always assumed you're from Britain or another non-USA English-speaking country, so I assume you don't have a side on this.
I'm British. As I understand it the party that came to power from ~1820 onward initially called itself the Democratic Republican or something like that and became the ancestor of what's now the Democratic party while the initial Republicans who were formed in the 1850's were more like the Federalists - at least the Republicans of that time. Both parties have changed drastically over the ~150 years since in all sorts of ways.
The history of the democratic republicans is that they were the party of the slavocrats and (southern) agrarian interests. The federalists were the New England bankers, the shipping interests, the proto-industrialists and the shopkeepers of the northeast. The parties began as regional and centered on Hamilton and Jefferson. The democratic republicans remained the democratic party of the slavocrats and Unreconstructed Confederates in the polity to the beginning of the 1940s. After the federalists disintegrated with the death of Hamilton, and the excesses of the Adamses, the temporary replacement was the Whigs. If you hated Andrew Jackson's stinking guts and were not a slavocrat, you were a Whig. The same collection of yahoos who bannered under the Federalsits coalesced into these losers. This loose coalition disintegrated when Henry Clay *(west) and Daniel Webster (northeast) got into a personality dispute and fractured the party into ruin during the Mexican American War. Enter the Know Nothings. These were the germ of the republican party> They were a strange amalgamation of taraffists, border staters, anti-immigration bigots, small free soil farmers, the emergent lawyer / politician class out of the Ohio River Valley (Lincoln), and certain banking interests. They, too, were a reaction to the slavocrat dominated democrats. Once again the factions were so disparate that after less than a decade, they blew apart into class and region factions, mainly the middle class versus the bankers and the west versus the northeast, again. Then you get the republicans.They found the one permanent ideological glue that held the anti-democrat party fractious coalition together. Abolitionism. For a century they rode on that glue. They were "progressives". Hard as that is to believe in the present day, before the Franklin Roosevelt revolution and the northeast and midwest urban political machines broke the Unreconstructed Confederate monopoly on democrat party politics, if you wanted social and political progress in the United States, you had to hold your nose and side with the midwest small farmers and eastern establishment bankers' coalition. They hung true to "Union and free the slaves." Then came Nixon and the mirror flip with the democrats becoming the party of civil rights and the slavocrats flocking to the republicans and taking that party over and here we are now. Not exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Jan 14, 2023 23:53:07 GMT
George Washington tried to avoid political parties, but if he had any political affiliation it was the federalist. The signing of the jay treaty helped doom the Federalists along with the alien section act. Also, tariffs hurt the merchant's livelihoods A good alternative history in my opinion if the Americans agreed to respect the franco American alliance meaning no jay treaty, and in exchange for hamiltons, and his friends supporting the war the hamilton economic programs such as crony capitalist would be used for the war effort in 1795.
|
|
belushitd
Warrant Officer
Posts: 205
Likes: 258
|
Post by belushitd on Feb 2, 2023 17:07:11 GMT
The odds are VERY against Hamilton becoming president in 1804. For starters, he would have been running against Jefferson, who, at that time, had completed a reasonably successful first term as president.
Second, he had publicly admitted he had engaged in adultery, which, at the time, was a HUGE no-no. Had Clinton done what he had done 200 years earlier, the odds are pretty good he would have been the first president to resign.
A public admission of adultery was pretty much the death knell of a public career at the time.
Belushi TD
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondstorm on Mar 30, 2023 18:03:03 GMT
I personally don’t think it would be plausible for it to take place immediately following Adams’ presidency since he was controversial with the American public as it was and this would just add to that. In 1804 or 1808, though, people would be possibly be more receptive to a Hamilton presidency but he still would be very divisive, particularly with rural and Southern voters.
|
|
