Every once in a while, we need a reinforcement of central gummint power. Not in the sectional crisis, nor in the late unpleasantness of the rogue "Union" conquering the Southland, not in perpetuating the New Deal or getting all glassy eyed over the likes of Eisenhower or JFK or LBJ but definitely in defense of the nation's power to wage foreign wars and to stop substantial interstate criminal activity of the (malum in se) traditional criminal variety rather than the (malum prohibitum) "wrong just because we prohibit it" variety.
As to Eisenhower, not only did he irrationally restrain Patton from finishing various vital jobs in WW II and undermine the efforts of Joe McCarthy and many others like him, but he advocated what he hilariously referenced as "modern Republicanism" which amounted to Harry Truman in GOP drag with less public attitude. It turned out thankfully that "modern Republicanism" was neither as demonstrated most forcefully by the success of Ronaldus Maximus.
What killed the Federalists and the Whigs and will probably eventually kill off the GOP is a slavish devotion to the interests of financial elites at the expense of everyone else. Cost of labor too high? Send the jobs to Bangladesh where willing five-year olds can be enslaved at 10 cents an hour with no benefits. Need a better bottom line, ditto. Join GATT and WTO so that there will be like-minded money peple governing our economy internationally rather than populist politicians. No more elections having an impact on keeping the steel industry and other defense industries here when other nations will take our investments and protect us from the public.
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of centralized gummint power was exercised in favor of nationalism, the Great White Fleet, the emergence of the US as an international force to be reckoned with. He created national parks (not constitutional but big deal!) His trustbusting sided with the public against the usual elitist gang of suspects. If you think he was a Hamiltonian, you are wrong. Nonetheless, if one GOP POTUS can define the party, then we offer Andrew Johnson, U. S. Grant (to a limited extent), Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronaldus Maximus as defining counterexamples to your thesis if not to TR who was a rather good president.
Did you know that George McGovern in his ranting against the Vietnam War, plagiarized large sections of Lincoln's speeches ranting against the Mexican War without attributing the quotes to Lincoln: "This chamber stands knee deep in innocent blood," blather, blather, blather.... Lincoln and McGoo were in some respects political blood brothers. It is highly ironic in that Lincoln launched the most savage illegal war in American history and one that killed only Americans.
The Know Nothings were a third Party and were not affiliated with either Whig (Lincoln denounced them) or Democrat.
They were also anti-Immigrant, and anti-Jewish as well.
Every once in a while, we need a reinforcement of central gummint power. Not in the sectional crisis, nor in the late unpleasantness of the rogue "Union" conquering the Southland, not in perpetuating the New Deal or getting all glassy eyed over the likes of Eisenhower or JFK or LBJ but definitely in defense of the nation's power to wage foreign wars and to stop substantial interstate criminal activity of the (malum in se) traditional criminal variety rather than the (malum prohibitum) "wrong just because we prohibit it" variety.
I think putting down a rebellion and ending slavery is a legimate use of Federal power.
As to Eisenhower, not only did he irrationally restrain Patton from finishing various vital jobs in WW II and undermine the efforts of Joe McCarthy and many others like him, but he advocated what he hilariously referenced as "modern Republicanism" which amounted to Harry Truman in GOP drag with less public attitude. It turned out thankfully that "modern Republicanism" was neither as demonstrated most forcefully by the success of Ronaldus Maximus.
Eisenhower saved U.S. lives by not going into Berlin which was going to be divided anyway, wheather we took it or not.
I think the Nation did pretty well under Ike.
Had not the Democrats stole the 1960 election and lied about a phony missle gap, Nixon would have won that election and who knows how different history would have been.
What killed the Federalists and the Whigs and will probably eventually kill off the GOP is a slavish devotion to the interests of financial elites at the expense of everyone else. Cost of labor too high? Send the jobs to Bangladesh where willing five-year olds can be enslaved at 10 cents an hour with no benefits. Need a better bottom line, ditto. Join GATT and WTO so that there will be like-minded money peple governing our economy internationally rather than populist politicians. No more elections having an impact on keeping the steel industry and other defense industries here when other nations will take our investments and protect us from the public.
Can't argue with that, but it was slavery that made the Whig Party irrelevant, since they tried to avoid dealing with the issue, the most pressing issue of their day.
Teddy Roosevelt's idea of centralized gummint power was exercised in favor of nationalism, the Great White Fleet, the emergence of the US as an international force to be reckoned with. He created national parks (not constitutional but big deal!) His trustbusting sided with the public against the usual elitist gang of suspects. If you think he was a Hamiltonian, you are wrong. Nonetheless, if one GOP POTUS can define the party, then we offer Andrew Johnson, U. S. Grant (to a limited extent), Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, William Howard Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Ronaldus Maximus as defining counterexamples to your thesis if not to TR who was a rather good president.
Johnson was not a Republican.
The other's you mention were in favor of high tariffs, a strong role of the Federal government in internal improvements
Which were Hamiltonian!
Trust busting was anti-Free enterprise, which even Hamilton would never had been for!
The only thing the Federal government should have been concerned about were special privileges granted by the State governments which hindered competition.
So, your view of what constitutes Hamilitonian doctrine seems quite selective.
Did you know that George McGovern in his ranting against the Vietnam War, plagiarized large sections of Lincoln's speeches ranting against the Mexican War without attributing the quotes to Lincoln: "This chamber stands knee deep in innocent blood," blather, blather, blather.... Lincoln and McGoo were in some respects political blood brothers. It is highly ironic in that Lincoln launched the most savage illegal war in American history and one that killed only Americans.
LOL!
Lincoln was against the U.S.-Mexican war because he was suspious that it was going to be used by the Democrats to increase the spread of slavery.
Lincoln didn't launch any war, the Confederates did that when they fired on an U.S. military fort and illegally took over Federal property (owned by all the States).
Lincoln upheld the Constitution and the only reason there is a United States of America today is because he had the moral courage to defend it, a benefit you clearly take for granted.