English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-25 15:15:21 · 6 answers · asked by ? 1 in Arts & Humanities History

In the United States. I know its the Federalists. But the other not sure, I am confuse its Antifederalists or Republican

2007-03-25 15:28:41 · update #1

6 answers

The "Anti-federalists" were never a party as such. Many of them did, however end up in the "Republican" party that coalesced around Jefferson and was led in Congress by James Madison.

By the way, the name of Jefferson's party was NOT "Democratic-Republicans".

The term "Democratic-Republican" was used by some of the local groups that grew up in the 1790s and ended up supporting the party's agenda. But the party itself did not go by this name except a little bit in a much later phase (post War of 1812). Jefferson and Madison would NOT have spoken of their supporters that way.

"Democratic-Republican Party" (or sometimes as "Jeffersonian Republicans") was a term later chosen by HISTORIANS to make clear that someone is talking this early party rather than the LATER "Republican Party" established in 1854.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republican_Party

2007-03-25 22:55:46 · answer #1 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0 0

Federalist and the Democratic Republicans.
Washington and Adams were Federalists and Tom Jefferson was a Democratic Republican.

2007-03-25 15:26:12 · answer #2 · answered by SW28fan 5 · 1 0

removing the opposing political social gathering would not make any experience interior the slightest. all the individuals who earlier belonged to the different social gathering may be being oppressed and, on account that they the two are so extensive, removing the two one might bring about an uproar. in case you purely advise that they might not have a candidate working for workplaces, this is. they might purely hearth up a commotion and reason extra issues, all because of the fact we could no longer artwork in unity or perhaps discover ways to tolerate one yet another. A democracy facilitates people to have a say the place that is significant, and for them to have a representative whilst needed. For what objective does the different social gathering should no longer be represented? we are each physique and political ideals are purely peoples' ideas to make existence a sprint extra suitable for some, in spite of if that be themselves or others or what have you ever. people do no longer help a candidate's ideas for well-being care or different controversy "purely because of the fact", they do it because of the fact they experience that it will help somebody-- maximum in many situations themselves. people ought to end treating the different social gathering like the enemy. For God's sake, that is like our usa is divided between communists and fascists, the way people get on each and each others' situations. we are all portion of the comparable people, and via being irrational regarding the desires or ideas of others, it will purely reason better branch and no-one would be chuffed, even slightly. there is not any longer likely to be a "winner", we are all purely going to brawl one yet another regarding the comparable issues for as long as we can nevertheless communicate, and removing a political social gathering is the coolest opposite thank you to circumvent this and save what democracy is meant to stand for in tact.

2016-12-15 08:51:55 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Assuming you mean in the US, it would be the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.

2007-03-25 15:18:28 · answer #4 · answered by Monc 6 · 0 1

in which country? If in the U.S. it could be whigs vs. tories,federalists & anti-federalists,etc..

2007-03-25 15:20:14 · answer #5 · answered by Cat 2 · 0 1

Whigs and Tories

2007-03-25 15:19:20 · answer #6 · answered by $Sun King$ 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers