Posted on 07/13/2019 10:17:51 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
That’s when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the supreme court and not everyone was happy.
And the French Revolution was only the beginning of the sort of revolutions that culminated in communism. So it’s historically significant for that reason also.
There’s only one revolution in history that worked to the better: The American Revolution.
America didn’t have a Republican Party during the Napoleonic wars.
Right. Jefferson’s ‘Republicans’ became the Democrat Party.
Is the article intentionally misleading?
Is the article intentionally misleading?
Of course it is intentional.
It comes down to Locke or Rousseau. Locke held a view of the importance of individual rights and Rousseau believe in the general will which subsumed individuals. On top of that Rousseau had a view of society as corrupt that made the noble savage into the bourgeois and Locke basically believed in the benefits of society — society is better than the state of nature as proposed by Hobbes. Locke inspired the American Revolution and all the freedom and rights derived from it and Rousseau inspired the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror that derived from it.
Rousseau will always be seen a a corrective to bourgeois society which later inspired communism. The ideal is to live in harmony with nature but bourgeois man can’t live in harmony because he is torn between his natural self (nature) and the morals of society that constrain him. This is why artists also hate the bourgeois and they would rather live by their natural impulses and urges. “Epater la bourgeois” was one of their favorite expressions. That’s like saying “kill the middle class” and today’s leftist elites and academic intellectuals are STILL all for it. They are part of a long tradition...
During Washington's presidency, we had factions in the Cabinet and Congress but no organized political parties. This was because Washington opposed the establishment of British-style political parties with every fiber of his being. His body had been cold for at least a few weeks before the Federalist and Republican (formerly Anti-Federalist) factions organized themselves into parties.
The Federalists had Adams and Hamilton as leaders, two men who could agree on some issues but who had serious personality differences. The Jeffersonian Republicans had their own divisions based on regionalism. It was a chaotic time.
The French revolutionary government made it even more chaotic when it founded Democratic-Republican societies in the cities to tilt American foreign policy in the direction of France and against our largest trading partner, Britain. These were no different than the communist front societies founded in this country by the Soviet Union after 1917. Thanks to these societies there was open street warfare in some American cities. The Alien and Sedition Acts were popular because they put a quick stop to the street warfare and established a cold peace.
The Jeffersonians called their group the "Republican Party." The Federalists called them the "Democratic-Republican Party" to link them to the Democratic-Republican French front societies and the ongoing violence in France. Unfortunately, that name has stuck in some of the older history books.
The Federalists were destroyed during the War of 1812 when they openly discussed secession at the Hartford Convention. By the election of 1816 that party had disappeared.
Jefferson's Republicans splintered in 1824 into Democrats and Whigs. This was the two-party system until the slavery question splintered both parties, and the new Republican Party of Lincoln replaced the Whigs.
So yes, there was a Republican Party is our early history.
Post #9.
Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party was officially named the Republican Party. It split in around 1825 into the Democratic Party, National Republican Party, and Anti-Masonic Party. The National Republican Party was absorbed by the Whig Party, which formed the basis for the Republican Party (GOP).
We only had to defeat the Brits and make them leave, then we could be free in our own land. We did not have to eradicate the British monarchy and it’s widespread aristocracy in order to achieve liberty. The French fight was going to be bitter, bloody, vengeful, brutal and merciless, and very personal from day one.
It would be like us trying to overthrow the establishment in America today. A revolution is very a different critter than a separatist revolt.
Don’t get me going on the overrated French Revolution. Disgusting how often it is treated as some great moment in history instead of the horrid travesty it was.
And Frenchmen Jefferson. He had his good points, but he too is overrated.
To George Washington from Thomas Jefferson, 23 May 1792
I this letter just after George Washington announced his retirement he referred to the republican party several times. It was in lower case as probably there was not an incorporation at that time but the lines were already drawn and of course he would have used the name that fits the definition of what our government actually is.
Thanks for the redirect. Oh, and this is a good read on the early financial issues as Thomas Jefferson saw it of our young republic.
Well. Fasten your seatbelts. That is where we’re headed.
The letter captures a time when the factions still behaved with some sense of decorum. That would end with Washington's funeral.
The American Revolution led to liberty. The French Revolution led to tyranny.
Many here dont care but there is a massive difference between revolution and rebellion.
Revolution is uprising against genuinely unjust treatment/laws.
Rebellion is unjustly attempting to overthrow/usurp just and right powers that be.
Again, thank you for your wise guidance. You do live up to your name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.