Introduction
To be brutally honest, I feel as though I am grasping for straws writing this study guide like it’s for a Social Studies credit in middle school. I’ve been having to deal with a week of nosebleeds since it has been so dry, to boot. So, we’ll be splitting this article into two sections: this one for a generalized overview and short introduction, with then the second on modern politics and imperative gaps. Next month will be think tanks, generalized overview and the conservative landscape from an anthropological overview. The books I’ll mainly be handling, with separate website citations included, are: American Think Tanks and No Mercy.
I am sitting in a pit of blood and I look a little something like this:
Two Major Political Parties:
Democratic Republican:
.1
Time Frame: 1792-1824
Campaign: Authority of local government, agricultural interests, opposed taxation, farmers didn’t want to be bought under “eastern interests”
Philosophy of History: ‘the constitution did not permit the creation of a national bank', and most notably Jeffersonianism: strict limits to federal government, Jefferson also thought a national debt was “inherently dangerous and immoral”.
What we can garner through this is that Jefferson was more for a radical freedom, not just from England, but to a nation of agents. The idea that the wealthy could rule in such a land was preposterous and power shouldn’t be given, but endowed to all implicitly.
Most political parties at this time don’t have a lot of legislature or power to work with the people of the states, so the imperative gap between “free men” and those that hold the power must be bridged. This was seen as “proper” through the Articles of Confederacy that promote state and then local government, to say that “those who are Jeffersonians must oppose all kinds of declarative treatises, such as the Constitution” or any argument akin to such are foundationally misguided. We are dealing with concentration of power, i.e.: unnecessary endowment of the central power unto an unjust or inappropriate individual.
Federalists:
.2
Time Frame: 1788-1816
Campaign: Distribution of articles on the ratification of the constitution’s importance.
Philosophy of History:
Generally, they supported power to the wealthy, or at least corporatized taxation laws and urbanite aristocratic interests(legal men, the clergy, mercantile class interests, etc. …). This was in stark opposition to the ““agrarianism””(if you remember what we discussed in the previous paragraphs, this is closer to a rural-localism vested INTO agrarian-farmer interests. It is rather incidental, not a particular environmentalism) of the Democratic-Republican bastion led through Jefferson.
The Federalists doctrines were more legal purists rather than literalists, that individual liberties need not be added constitutionally since there was not an exact statement on suppression as such. How are we to list a complete codex of individual liberties if the list must entail arbitrary statements? (hypocritical if one considers the Declaration of Independence as completely arbitrary to begin with: what part of that is truth? Where was the line drawn in the sand towards the British “overstepping” with the monarchy? To be clear, I’m making this argument rhetorically, not necessarily imperatively in regards to “misplaced ownership of central authority”.)
Eventually, a compromise was reached on this ratification through the Bill of Rights. We will be continuing this line of argumentation on modern political movements and their relation to central authority and imperative gaps, this Friday, so watch out for that. If you couldn’t tell, obviously I think Jefferson was closer to the spirit of Western and American interests:
Donations and Funding:
You can now formally subscribe, through Stripe, to my papers. I know most people in these movements aren’t THAT stingy on strict paper trails, so this is set up for those indifferent to the type of funding.
Any donations are welcome through crypto as well(and much preferred):
Donate ETH: 0xb4Ce637b31a9fd499dEF342E327d10E0F358f199
I recently took it upon myself to self-educate on crypto and have realized I’ve been a little dismissive about it. The flexibility of being able to fund someone—or to contract someone to a monthly or singular task—as an anon/pseudonymous identity to another (without compromising an individuals personal life) is definitively valiant and respectable.
‘Dem fightin’ words, boy? …