when i went to school he belong to the "democratic republican" party, and this party later formed the democratic party we have today. But i see in the middle school textbook they use in my (republican) school district, he is called "the first Republican president"... even tho the republican party wasn't formed until the 1840s! They even list all the qualities of "Republicanism". Is this a case of republican textbook writers rewriting history?
2006-11-11 03:58:02 · 9 answers · asked by domangelo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
my school district's textbook is definitely misleading in this chapter, and it seems to wallow in it. the fact is that many textbooks, if not most, are hoping to get the texas book contract, a place where textbook selection committees are politically appointed, and are far more concerned about so-called "community values" than anything else. the committee members are often without any educational qualifications. i suggest that parents check their children's history books well. we will never make political progress in this country if we allow our children's education to be highjacked by right wingers.
2006-11-11 04:48:02 · update #1
Coragryph is right. And I think that by today's definitions of each party, Thomas Jefferson would have been a Democrat. He was a humanitarian, and disliked aristocratic attitudes in government. Interesting man- I always enjoyed reading about his philosophy- he is definitely one of my favorite wise men in American history.
I just read the 2nd part to your question, about the textbooks--OMG!! My 17 year old stepson (yes, Texas) told me some things that were in his history textbooks as well, asking why they would make kids believe one thing, only to have to relearn the truth later on. At least he is inquisitive enough to want to do so. Some kids will never learn the truth. When will these far right people realize that you cannot rewrite history to your liking? I do not understand the mentality that only Republicans are good people, or moral, or Christian. I'm a Christian- a lover and seeker of the Truth. It is just not right to imply that one political party is the steward and dictator of what truth is- especially when they lie.
2006-11-11 04:47:08 · answer #1 · answered by catarina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Republican Party of Jefferson is connected to the current Democratic Party, though several splits and just 200 years of history make any connection between the 2 somewhat moot.
2006-11-11 04:11:58 · answer #2 · answered by JerH1 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think when the textbook authors write about Jefferson's "republicanism," they mean something different than his political party affiliation.
What they are describing are his general beliefs in government by the people, anti-aristocracy, and federalism. It's kind of like saying someone is socialistic or nationalistic. That just describes their general beliefs...it does not mean they belong to a Socialist or Nationalist party.
2006-11-11 04:47:59 · answer #3 · answered by timm1776 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither of the existing political parties were around in their present form back there. There was a Republican party by name, but it was very different than the current Republican party in both structure and ideology.
2006-11-11 04:01:51 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hahaha, yes! The Democrats and Republicans even switched their political leanings since then. The Democrats used to hold the southern vote with harsh racial conservatism. Since then, the US has gotten more tolerant, and the Republicans have picked up some of my backwoods brethren.
2006-11-11 04:03:58 · answer #5 · answered by J G 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Thomas Jefferson said as himself a republican and replaced right into a founding member of the Democratic-Republican party. by cutting-part criteria, he's thanks to the right of both significant party so given a decision between purely those 2, Republican; not even close. you should have said that Democrats use the time period "originalist" as a pejorative. "Anti-federalist" is the call given to Jefferson's faction. They were honestly federalists, besides the undeniable fact that the opposing coalition of monarchists and nationalists dishonestly took the call "Federalist" for themselves and said as their combatants "anti-federalists." individuals were/are federalists so the monarchist/nationalists who had the more suitable propaganda gadget took that call to achieve help. 2 significant camps on the founding: a) The nationalist crew needed centralized sovereignty, needed States to confirm subordinate provinces, said as themselves "Federalists" and said as their combatants "Anti-federalists." They lost the Constitutional debate yet were the first to achieve actual potential and today set-about undermining our federalist structure. b) The federalist crew needed the major authorities to be an agent for the States, needed State sovereignty, said as themselves "republicans" and said as their combatants "nationalists." They received the Constitutional debate yet were not the first to achieve actual potential and thereafter performed "capture-up" attempting to revive The structure.
2016-11-29 00:57:17 · answer #6 · answered by cutburth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question, but all I can get either is, "Democratic-Republican". I guess that's what he was. Better than a modern day one, I guess? Odd.
2006-11-11 04:11:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was wigg.That was a name of a party back then.
2006-11-11 04:16:21 · answer #8 · answered by pmdan00 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What difference does it make he was a good president
2006-11-11 04:06:58 · answer #9 · answered by norsmen 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋