Talk:Federalist Party

Was Marshall a member or not? Make up your mind.
The overview reads:


 * .... one of the party's most influential members was John Marshall, who strengthened the powers of the judiciary while Chief Justice of the United States. Although Marshall never joined the party...

He was either one of the parties most influential members or he never joined the party but he can't be both. I suspect I know what you are trying to say but you have to find a better way to say it. In fact I think I understand what you are trying to say with enough certainty to make the edit myself. Undo me if I have made a mistake.

Also just BTW, who the hell is John Jay? Please don't tell me his favorite maxim until you have told me who he is. Ryan Albrey (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Joining the party" is an anachronism in 1801. I don't think the Federalists had any formal structure at all; the DRs had an occasional non-binding caucus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Classical Conservatism?
One of the party ideologies is listed as classical conservatism. I don't think that's accurate; the Democratic-Republican party represented a more libertarian, states' rights platform, whereas the Federalist party was about a strong central government and economic protectionism, a bit more in line with American liberalism. -- LightSpectra (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two weeks and no response. One more day and I'm going to remove "classical conservatism" from the box. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definition of conservatism; at the time, Conservatism was the reaction of Joseph de Maistre, not the novel radicalism of Adam Smith Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Industrialization seems equally doubtful; is Robert Livingston, Jefferson's ambassador to France, a Federalist? Yet he did as much for American industrialization as any man of his time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not everyone in a political party has to agree with its ideology. Hamilton and Adams however worked strenuously to industrialize the nation, as opposed to Jefferson who wanted an agrarian republic. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate to say that the Federalist party was about a strong central government; as the article says, the 'federalist' name is misleading -- you're projecting modern political disputes onto them. The primary divide between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (and between liberals and conservatives, in that era) was over democracy and republicanism and especially the French Revolution; the Democratic-Republicans (as both their names suggest) had a more radical support for these things, while the Federalists were generally more suspicious of democracy, opposed the French Revolution, and believed in a "natural aristocracy" and traditional social order, positions that mark them as traditionalist conservatives (in ~1800, mind.)  See the section in the article on Traditionalist Conservatism devoted to the Federalists for more detail. --Aquillion (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have re-entered Classical Conservatism as one of the primary ideological components of the Federalist conception. It is a misconception to believe that a libertarian, states' rights agenda corresponds in the slightest to a traditionally conservative agenda, specifically in the 18th century. A strong centralized state with an aristocratic (or in this case, elitist) backbone was one of the primary centerpieces of contemporary conservatism; the Democratic-Republicans, although agrarians and (occasionally) anti-federalists, were deeply rooted in the liberal tradition regarding suffrage and individual liberties. The American System is also a thoroughly nationalistic and conservative economic system, rather alike to the British Toryism of the 19th century. 99KingHigh (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a quotation from Diggins, making it clear that this was not a European conservatism: In terms of "classical conservatism", the Federalists had no truck with European-style aristocracy, monarchy, or established religion. Historian John P. Diggins says that: :Thanks to the framers, American conservatism began on a genuinely lofty plane. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, John Jay, James Wilson,, and, above all, John Adams aspired to create a republic in which the values so precious to conservatives  might flourish: harmony, stability, virtue, reverence, veneration, loyalty, self-discipline, and moderation. This was classical conservatism in its most authentic expression.  Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Genealogy
Both the preceding and succeeding parties are doubtful. The preceding party was listed as that figment, the Pro-Administration Party. The succeeding party was the National Republicans; while the two parties shared some philosophy and personnel, it seems perverse to call a branch of the Democratic Republicans the successor to the Federalists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the concern in saying that the Pro-Administration Party preceded the Federalists? Adams and Hamilton supported Washington, and they went on to found the Federalist Party. Whereas Madison, Jefferson and Franklin mostly opposed Washington's policies, and they then became the D-R Party. -- LightSpectra (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Governed
"the Federalists, notably Hamilton, were distrustful of the governed,the Republicans, the governed." The intent of the sentence is unclear; could someone who knows what is trying to be said clarify this? Skyemoor (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton
I edited the page to say that Hamilton had been an Aide-de-Camp to Washington, rather than chief of staff. Washington did not have a chief of staff. Hamilton did fill that role, but given that "chief of staff" is nowadays an actual position, it is incorrect to give Hamilton that title.

The WP article on Hamilton says

"Hamilton served for four years, in effect, as Washington's Chief of Staff..."

and is correct.

jbarntt 03:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)


 * Regardless of what the other WP article says, Hamilton was not his Chief of Staff. He had no such position. He was his Aide-de-Camp, but functioned as a Chief of Staff would in modern times. Giving him the latter title, as opposed to the former, is still historically inaccurate. Moreover, there is a huge difference between being someones "Chief of Staff" and "in effect Chief of Staff".
 * Frank Scipio (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington
The article states:

"George Washington is believed to have been broadly sympathetic to the Federalist program, he remained an independent his entire term."

While literally correct, it implies that there is some doubt or ambiguity re: Washington's support of the Federalist program. In fact there is no such doubt or ambiguity.

His support of Hamilton's views on assumption and credit, the Bank of the United States, as well as the Jay Treaty and his suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion are sufficient to remove any doubt re: his sympathy for the Federalist program.

I have therefore replaced "is believed to have been" with "was".

jbarntt 16:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

Interpretations
The article contains this in the named section:

"The Federalists were dominated by conservative businessmen and merchants..."

This is correct, in that historians do consider the Federalists to have been conservatives, and the Democratic-Republicans to have been liberals. I think this is misleading to a contemporary reader however. To a modern reader, each of these parties have some aspects of both modern liberalism and conservatism, enough to make the use of the words "conservative" and "liberal" regarding them misleading.

I have therefore edited out the word "conservative" in the above sentence.

jbarntt 18:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)

The Rise of the Federalist Party
The article contains the following statement:

"James Madison, Hamilton's ally in the fight to ratify the United States Constitution, dropped his nationalism in response to demands in his Virginia district and joined with Jefferson in opposing Hamilton's program."

Madison's apparent change of view is a long standing matter of historical debate. If he did so, and because of constituent pressure, a good citation to the matter is required. It is also dubious that Madison joined Jefferson in opposing Hamilton. As I recollect, the issue of credit and assumption was already before congress when Jefferson returned from France, (diplomatic post), to assume the role of Sec. of State, and that Congressman Madison was already opposed to the plan.

I haven't edited this part of the article, because I am relying on memory. Nonetheless, it is problematical.

jbarntt 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarntt (talk • contribs)


 * I removed " dropped his nationalism in response to demands in his Virginia district and" from the sentence in question. Dropping his nationalism, although I know what was intended, sounds too harsh without clarification.  As far as Madison acting because of "constituent pressure", this suggests a lack of principle on Madison's part that really should not be in the article without a source (as well as further clarification. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Effects of foreign affairs
I asked this in the prior (now archived) discussion, and as far as I can see it still applies (has not been changed). Additionally curious (off topic) this page seems to have a ton more vandalism than any other page I have browsed the history of, anyone else notice? Can message me a reply. Thanks folks. --gobears87 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Regarding the section entitled "Effects of foreign affairs" - Is it just me or is the language (specifically use of term "The Republicans") confusing, or perhaps just plain wrong? I am a historian using Wikipedia only for quick reference and reminders, but I am aware that the term used would lead most average readers to believe it means the modern "Republican" party, whereas that group didn't come into existence until the mid-1800s. At first I thought it might refer to the French "Republicans", but apparently not (some were Francophiles, it claims). If it is meant to refer to the "Democratic-Republicans" it should say so, and not lazily abbreviate and thereby mislead. Hopefully someone out there is interested enough to answer, and hopefully correct this. --gobears87 (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) but originally December 2008.


 * If people mix up Alexander Hamilton with Ronald Reagan, then they need to read more closely. The time frame is clear enough. The Jeffersonians called themselves "Republicans," as do most historians. Political scientists in 20th century use "Dem-Rep" terminology because they like to use tables that compare parties over the centuries. Rjensen (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Conservative positions?
"Historian Patrick Allitt concludes that Federalists promoted many conservative positions, including the rule of law under the Constitution, republican government, peaceful change through elections..."

Sure a written constitutions, a state not governed by a monarchy, and regular elections were fairly radical ideas in the late 18th century? What exactly is meant by "conservative" in this context? --Jfruh (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Allitt mean the Feds set the standards adopted by most American conservatives ever since. Rjensen (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that should be made explicit then, which I'll try to rewrite. As it is it comes across that the Federalists were conservative within their own historical period. It's always confusing to try to import modern-day political views into the past.  (For the record, I think the broad strokes of this sentence would probably be agreed to by mainstream American political parties of any stripe.) --Jfruh (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed this now though I do find some of the assertions in the sentence puzzling (aren't modern-day conservatives more likely to complain of "judicial activism" than they are to support "judicial supremacy"?) --Jfruh (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I mentioned above, their conservatism was what we now call Traditionalist conservatism; although the actual revolution didn't occur until the Federalist party was in decline, the core philosophical divide can be seen in the differing reactions that each side had to the French Revolution, and especially in the view of a "natural aristocracy". Things like opinions on the power of the judiciary or the powers of the Federal government are more transient (and I suspect this is true even today); the Federalists supported a strong federal government when they controlled the federal government, and a strong judiciary when the judiciary became their last bastion of power.  But their real driving goal was opposition to what they saw as populism and a suspicion of what we would now call democratic principles. --Aquillion (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * David Hackett Fischer in Revolution of American Conservatism: Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (1965) makes the interesting point that the younger Federalists after 1800 realized that their elders were too elitist to win over a popular electorate.  The younger Federalists therefore adopted the Republican tactics--and began to appeal and democratic fashion-- in order to build up a large popular base-- although it was never as large as the Republican base.  They took off the wigs, so to speak. In terms of policies, I think their main goal was to build a strong national government, in close cooperation with the financial and business community.  They succeeded in doing that.  The Republicans never liked banks, and managed to close down the First Bank of the United States just as the war of 1812 was starting.  That was a disaster for the government because the Treasury had great difficulty financing the war.  Madison reversed himself in 1816 and sponsored a replacement, the Second Bank of the United States. Calhoun (A leading Republican at this point) followed Hamiltonian policies in 1820 when he rebuilt the War Department. Rjensen (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were not a federalists, but were anti-federalists, that much can be seen in the introductory paragraph.24.99.80.183 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Madison was very much a federalist: he, Hamilton, and Jay are considered the primary authors of the Federalist papers. Jefferson was on the line about the Constitution, but was not an anti-federalist per se. Both men became alienated from Hamilton after the ratification fight. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Colors?
Hey, you guys say that their colors are black and yellow, but then the little boxes next to the words are black and white... Can you do something about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3227:4FB0:35B3:A063:B11C:5C34 (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Claim that only two sitting Presidents have directly led American military forces.
I suggest this be researched, because I think many Presidents have led American military forces, unless it is meant directly into battle. The only President to directly lead American military forces into battle was President Washington. President Madison, as Commander in Chief, led American Forces during the War of 1812, but I do not believe he actually led any American forces into battle during that war.

I tried to comprehend whether I needed to sign and date my request, but at 72, I guess my mental abilities have suffered, and I could not determine from the many directions I read whether to or not, so I will sign my legal name, 76.29.143.131 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) John Smith (really) and provide the date as 76.29.143.131 (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 02/06/2016.

Symbol
I'm just curious- where does the symbol for the Federalist Party come from? How did we decide on the wheel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.240.118 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Political Position?
I believe it may be inaccurate to say the Federalists were right wing. They advocated for many Left-Wing ideas such as the abolition of slavery and tariffs. Sure, they were against the French Revolution; but that was more because of the Reign of Terror, not being against Republicanism. Also, it seems like Modern-Day Progressives find more in common with people like Hamilton and Adams who argued for Government control in the economy. Modern-Day Conservatives usually claim people like Jefferson as their Ideaological founder for supporting a minimalist government and Lazzei-Faire economics. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would place the Feds as Left Wing and the DemReps as Right. 68.203.145.15 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You make some good points. I think one could argue in either direction.  That's probably why historians rarely use "right" and "left" when describing American politics from 1776 to 1865.  I've removed the position line in the infobox. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 01:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of Federalist do not advocate the aboliton of slavery. Some of them, like Southern Federalist William Loughton Smith, were fervently pro-slavery. Protectionism is not the leftist idea. Both John Adams and Alexander Hamilton opposed the French Revolution from the beginning, well before the Reign of Terror. Historically, most of classical conservatives were mercantilists rather than free-marketeers. In contrast to progressives, Federalists never advocated state intervention to reduce economic inequality.Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody in the 1790s advocated state intervention to reduce economic inequality. That's why it's misleading to use modern categories for parties in that era.  It would be better not to describe Federalists and Democratic-Republicans using the misleading terms "left", "right", "center", as those terms don't apply to American parties in this era.  This article describes what the Federalists stood for, and that's what matters. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 03:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Nobody in the 1790s advocated state intervention to reduce economic inequality"
 * North Carolina Regulators rioted and petitioned for progressive taxation and government debt relief already in 1760s. Thomas Jefferson participated in the abolition of entail and primogeniture in Virginia; he also wished to give any person who do not owned fifty acres of land allotment out of public land. Both Regulators and Jefferson were relative economic egalitarians, the first being more radical than the second. On the contrary, Federalist economic policies were anti-egalitarian. For example, whiskey tax discriminated against small-scale brewers and privileged large-scale ones. Goverment subsidies to manufacturers proposed by Hamilton were opposed by Jefferson on the basis that they can be abused to benefit well-connected businessmen.
 * "...misleading terms "left", "right", "center", as those terms don't apply to American parties in this era."
 * The Left-Right distinction is based on contradiction between proponents of equality (at least, relative) and proponents of social hierarchy. This distinction was highly relevant to the American politics of that time. Federalist were very skeptical and often deeply resentful of democracy. They wanted to install in the United States hierarchical, centralized state similar to that existing in Britain. Most conservative of them advocated president for life with powers similar to that of British king, Senate modeled after British House of Lords, and even established Church. By contrast, Anti-Federalists were proponents of relatively egalitarian and democratic society. Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing the Federalist Party (which began in the second Washington administration) with the "Federalists" before the Constitution was ratified. The Constitution established that the president would serve four year terms, not for life, and his powers were nothing like that of a king.  And during the entire existence of the Federalist Party (1792 to 1820s), no Federalists proposed altering the Constitution to give the president king-like powers or lifetime tenure. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 08:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are wrong: Alexander Hamilton considered the Constitution to be, as he himself called it, "shilly-shally thing", which ought to be replaced in future by more conservative document. Jefferson wrote about Hamilton: “I had heard him say that this constitution was a shilly-shally thing, of mere milk and water, which would not last”. This position of Hamilton is comfirmed by what he wrote himself. In one letter he called the Constitution "frail and worthless fabric": "Mine is an odd destiny. Perhaps no man in the United States has sacrificed or done more for the present Constitution than myself, and contrary to all my anticipations of its fate, as you know from the beginning, I am still laboring to prop the frail and worthless fabric; yet I have the murmurs of its friends no less than the curses of its foes, for my reward. What can I do better than withdraw from the scene? Every day proves to me more and more that this American world was not made for me." Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I wrote, "And during the entire existence of the Federalist Party (1792 to 1820s), no Federalists proposed altering the Constitution to give the president king-like powers or lifetime tenure." That is correct.  I never said that no individual Federalists ever wrote in private letters that they would like this.  If I found that a certain prominent Democrat wrote something in a private letter, should that be used to determine how Wikipedia characterizes the Democratic Party?  I think it would be better for parties to be characterized based on their public platforms. &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 21:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * After ratification of the Constitution there was a disagreement on how much powers this Constitution gives to the central government. For example, Hamilton argued that implied power of Constitution based on Necessary and Proper Clause did allow creation of the National Bank. Anti-Federalists were disagreeing with it. French Revolution still was the contentious issue which resulted in the division between pro-British Federalists and pro-French Republicans. And the opposition to French Revolution on the part of Federalists was based not just on aversion to crimes of Jacobins, but on disagreement with egalitarian ideas associated with the Revolution. Religion was also the point of contention: Federalists attacked Jefferson's Deism, while Republicans challenged the clergy’s authoritative power and ultimately championed a more democratic Christianity. For example, High Federalist Timothy Pickering has opposed Jefferson on the basis that the latter and his supporters are allegedly wanted to debase morals and religion, and to make government more democratic thereby ending “the protection of the best”. Ritter Hildebrandt (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Dark Salmon
Was this really a color of the Federalist Party? The page in Newman cited to for this proposition does not mention dark salmon anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjengles3 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Right-left politics
Since there was a small edit-war over this, maybe we should discuss it again. Could anyone pull the quotes from the two sources used to cite the current description of them as center-right to right-wing and post them here? I couldn't find it on a quick search through either, though they're only partially available online. As a lot of the discussion above concluded, it's fairly complicated given that the left-right divide as we know it today was only just forming. It's true that they opposed the French Revolution and were broadly more suspicious of egalitarianism than the Democratic-Republicans, but I'd want to see what a source says more clearly. (And most of the discussions above don't seem to have discussed the sources much.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a summary of RS in scholarly journals: 1) "Conservatives, Federalists, and the clergy stiffened against the threats of rationalism, secularism and disorder" by Gary Nash --online. 2) Lance Banning (1976): "Republicans viewed the Revolution as a fight against executive tyranny and the destruction of liberty and believed themselves to be engaged in the same struggle against the Federalists." 3) Lawrence Kaplan (1976): "credit for perceiving the dangers of the French influence has often been attributed to the Federalist party which rallied against the French Revolution and Napoleonic imperialism." 3) Simon Newman (2000): "Federalists saw Fries' Rebellion in 1798 and Gabriel's Rebellion in 1800 as parts of a frightening international wave of revolt exemplified by the French Revolution." 4) Benjamin Riley (2001): "Federalists and Democratic-Republicans used the rhetoric of absolute evil and aristocracy to criticize their opponents. "  5) Harlow Sheidley (1991)  "As members of the Federalist Party they [the Boston elite] saw the 1820 state constitutional convention as an opportunity to correct and forestall a rising impulse for democratic reform. Circumstance and shrewd political infighting enabled them to prevail over their Republican opponents."  Rjensen (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Those are definitely positions I'd describe as being on the right. Since the most recent dispute focuses on the template, though (which unfortunately doesn't allow much of the nuance that those sources offer), I was wondering if we had clear-cut sources unambiguously describing them as center-right or right-wing.  If not, maybe we should change that template text to something that tries to capture a bit more of the nuance, or just leave it off and let the article cover it in more depth. My intuition is that most sources are more cautious about putting them clearly on the left-right scale because the divide was only just starting to form then (and because the mostly-undemocratic nature of politics at the time meant that parties often didn't have to take ideological positions as consistent as the ones we're used to today.)  --Aquillion (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent quote: "From the beginning two sets of ideas would emerge, ideas that would form the basis for...the political Right and the political Left.... Each of the two opposing camps had its champions, with Hamilton (and, to a lesser extent, John Adams) emerging as the chief spokesman on the political Right and Jefferson along with Paine... representing of the ideas of the political Left....The conservatives put their faith in the elitist ideas of statesman, bankers, and manufacturers – the powerful and prestigious – in linking voting to property rights and in gradual change."   Rjensen (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That'll do for now, I guess; added to the article. I'm still wondering about the exact description of "center-right to right-wing", which seems oddly specific, and whether we should tone it down or make it more broad.  I also wish we had a source that unambiguously described the Federalists rather than just Hamilton and Adams, even if they were its most important figures.  (Especially since their grip on the party only really extends to 1800, while the article covers more than that.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like an IP changed this a few days ago, and there was a bit of back and forth over it since. Given that the IP didn't change any of the sources (and in fact seems to have intentionally reworded the quote from one, making it inaccurate) I assume it was vandalism.  More generally, while we might debate whether to call them center-right to right-wing specifically for a variety of reasons (right-left politics wasn't as well defined back then, and some sources refer to Hamilton's faction within the Federalists, specifically, as being its right wing), it's completely absurd to call the Federalists a left-wing party overall - they opposed the French Revolution, which was what the entire left/right divide originally described, and every source that does identify them on the left-right spectrum puts them on the right. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Difference between Federalist and Official Federalist Party
Clarification is needed on Federalist and The Federalist Party. All Over Wikipedia it seems that these are co-mingled. The biographer Joel Richard Paul (who wrote John Marshal biography) was interviewed on CSPAN and he purports that there wasn't a Federalist Party until the election of 1800. Where Jefferson won bc the Federalist Party was divided. I included a link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?452890-1/qa-joel-richard-paul (13:30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethanyaloha (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between the Federalists and the Federalist Party? This needs to be explained. Display name 99 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Political position
A discussion related to the political position in the infobox is ongoing at Talk:Democratic-Republican Party. Ezhao02 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

GLEN MAKET
Someone has vandalized the article by replacing meaningful text with the phrase GLEN MAKET in multiple places. Whilst I might correct those instances, I don't have seniority to deal with the underlying problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.157.242 (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

conservative -yes first =yes
Historians of conservatism in USA include it, and it started before Republicans. See Fischer, David Hackett. "The revolution of American conservatism: The Federalist Party in the era of Jeffersonian democracy." (1965). Also Prince, Carl E. "The Federalist Party and Creation of a Court Press, 1789–1801." Journalism Quarterly 53.2 (1976): 238-241. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Restructure of article?
The article is a poorly structured mishmash of topics. I found it particularly difficult to pick out the important subject of the the decline and fall of the Federalist party. I suggest a more systematic, perhaps chronological treatment in which all of the existing topics are incorporated. 209.93.146.110 (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Center right faction = Adams
Historian Sarah Kreps in 2018 argues the Federalist faction led by President John Adams during the 1798 Quasi-War could correspond to "today’s right-of-center party." Sarah Kreps, Taxing Wars: The American Way of War Finance and the Decline of Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2018) p. 53 and chapter 3. Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Later Years or Legacy
I'm researching a lot of Federalist and Federalism in general and I'm curious if there should be a section with various views from various historians on this article? Like how effective or not effective it was etc? Lincontrain (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Conservatism and developmentalism
The discussion of whether or not the Federalists are conservatives has been much-discussed, but there's an important point I haven't seen brought up. Conservatism, especially the traditionalist conservatism of the 1800s, was frequently based on preserving the existing characteristics of a nation. Socially, with their opposition to immigration, the Federalists fit this, but they did not at all economically. They advocated for radically developmentalist policies, aimed to completely change the economic condition of the country from an agrarian nation to a trading and manufacturing hub — this does not sound in line with the natural tendency of conservatives to dislike change and aim to preserve existing social systems. Indeed, it could be said that economically, the Jeffersonians were more conservative, as they wanted to continue the nation's agrarian system.

In fact, on the Wiki page for Traditionalist conservatism, we find the following quote: "The countryside, as well as the values associated with it, are greatly valued (sometimes even being romanticized as in pastoral poetry). Agrarian ideals (such as conserving small family farms, open land, natural resource conservation, and land stewardship) are important to certain traditionalists' conception of rural life." This seems largely anathema to Federalism, and much more in line with Jeffersonianism. This page also says "Traditionalists consider localism a core principle, described as a sense of devotion to one's homeland, in contrast to nationalists, who value the role of the state or nation over the local community. Traditionalist conservatives believe that allegiance to family, local community, and region is often more important than political commitments. Traditionalists also prioritize community closeness above nationalist state interest, preferring the civil society of Burke's "little platoons". This is contrary to the entire guiding debate of the First Party System, as the Federalists were staunch nationalists as their most major principle. Either the page for traditionalist conservatism needs to be edited, or the Federalists cannot be considered traditionalist conservatives. 71.161.96.241 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We would need sources which make these points, not our own opinions. And we also list Jacksonian democracy as supporting agrarianism, as Jacksonians nominally supported the "yeoman farmer" ideal of "small landowning, family farmers". Dimadick (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The page itself says that the Federalists favored "modernizing, urbanizing" policies, and that their legacy was a "strong federal government" — these both seem to directly contradict the elements of traditionalist conservatism. 71.161.96.241 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)