I am asking YOU to explain YOUR assertion.
Again, insultingly implying that if I only did a little research I would fully understand your assertion without you needing to defend it yourself, makes you look like someone who lacks the intellectual ability to substantiate their own assertions.
If I read your latest post correctly, you seem to be delineating Jeffersonian and Hamilton philosophy as agrarian vs pro business.
Being from NC, I see the agrarian side of Jeffersonian philosophy being mostly inherited by the populist party towards the end of the 19th century, and the pro buisiness being inherited by the Whigs before the civil war, and then the Republicans after the war. Both populists and republicans joined together into fusion party to oppose the Democrats.
I am curious what you mean by the "militant wing" of the abolitionists that you say would be considered terrorists by todays standards.
When I think of 19th century terrorists, I think of the Democrats who used violent mobs to intimidate and oppress their political opponents. I do, in fact, see a direct parallel with current politics in that regard. They used the popular media of the day to demonize a catastraphized straw man, and foment fear and hatred of that strawman sufficient to gain impassioned fearful and hate filled supporters.
I am not sure how you define and equate Jeffersonian philosophy and modern Constitutional Conservative philosophy. I would be grateful for your explanation.
I thought I did a fair job of doing just that. Clearly there is some aspect which needs to be explored further to qualify for your satisfaction.
Again, insultingly implying that if I only did a little research I would fully understand your assertion without you needing to defend it yourself, makes you look like someone who lacks the intellectual ability to substantiate their own assertions.
Any perception of intended insult is yours. I speak with many people and I find it not uncommon for people to have no knowledge of either Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian philosophies of government. It is the norm, not the exception.
If I read your latest post correctly, you seem to be delineating Jeffersonian and Hamilton philosophy as agrarian vs pro business.
That's not quite right. It is "pro business" insofar as it feels government money and power should be spent to prop up industries. It also creates an inherent "elite" that are better suited to run everyone's lives. Crony Capitalism is a predictable outcome of a government bent on enhancing opportunities and profits for businesses. This philosophy is not all that distant from Fascism.
I am curious what you mean by the "militant wing" of the abolitionists that you say would be considered terrorists by todays standards.
I didn't say that. I think you are confusing me with someone else whom I noticed said that somewhere upthread...but I agree with that point. Yes, the abolitionists were the militant wing of the Big City Liberal party, just as BLM and Antifa are the currently named militant wing of the Big City Liberal party.
I think of the Democrats who used violent mobs to intimidate and oppress their political opponents.
Before or after the war? Because it makes a big difference.
I do, in fact, see a direct parallel with current politics in that regard. They used the popular media of the day to demonize a catastraphized straw man, and foment fear and hatred of that strawman sufficient to gain impassioned fearful and hate filled supporters.
I am at a loss to understand your particular reference here. I can't think of a group more demonized than Southern slave owners.
I am not sure how you define and equate Jeffersonian philosophy and modern Constitutional Conservative philosophy. I would be grateful for your explanation.
Limited and minimalist government.
"In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."