how do you believe republican's views on current issues nowadays differ with republicans of the 1790s?

Question

like on issues that are current today

like how would the opinions of a republican from the 1790s differ with the opinions of a republican around the 1990s on issues today?

there were republican around the 1790s. but i think they were mostly known as the democrat-republican party.

Answer 1

There are some similarities between the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790's, the Democrats of the latter 1800s, and some parts of today's Republican Party.

The main similarity is that all three (at least in theory with some parts of the Republican party) preferred a more decentralized government with more decisions at the state level. In all three eras, the Federalists (in the 1790s), the Republicans (in the latter 1800s), and the Democrats (today) preferred to place more power in the central government.

The main difference is in the support of business. The reason for preferring centralization in the period between 1790 and 1930 was to promote a better environment for merchants with businesses that crossed state and national boundaries. The opposition preferred protecting small local businesses and family farms over big business. Today, the Republican Party is still primarily the party of big business. As such, their support for local authority on some issues is trumped by the desire to have national rules protecting industry when the two conflict.

Other than general philosophy, there really are not that many issues today that would even be recognized by someone from the 1790s.

p.s. Many of the key leaders in the Republican Party identify their party more as the successor of the Federalists than the successor of the Democratic-Republicans.

Answer 2

You are sort of correct that during the 1790s there were people who identified themselves as "Democratic-Republican." But that group shortened their name to the Democratic Party. Today's "Republicans" are not of the same party as the "Democratic-Republicans" of the 1790s. The Republican Party started in the mid 1850s.

Answer 3

Well, actually, the parties have somewhat flipped. The original Republican Party was by the standards of our day, positively progressive. They were abolitionists (largely) the moderate parts of the party were more or less mum on the issue but believed that some form of suffrage for blacks was inevitable.

The 1790's equivalent was the Whig party, which was pro-states-rights and nearly libertarian (as were both parties).

It is VERY unlikely they would find our current government anything remotely desirable.

To describe the original Republican party, it was by and large able to ascribe to itself the progressive viewpoint of Abolition, or anti-slavery, pro-suffrage, the closest modern analogy might be the (perhaps) homosexual anti-discrimination rights or (in recent history) the civil rights movement (largely championed by Democrats in the 1960's).

Some democrats are staunchly in favor of such rights, most centrists are mum on the issue and Republicans are adamantly against such rights, framing them as "family" values issues.

There is no equivalent regarding financial matters, since while the first Republican President, was Abraham Lincoln, and he had to deal with similar problems (war profitteering, disidents, a persistently negative take on the war by the press), Lincoln as a point of political genius "framed" the war as one about slavery vs. the way it started originally which was as a question on the issue of "states" rights. Largely this issue was settled after the war, giving unprecedented and broad powers to the federal government.

Over time, this has changed, and after WW2, the more or less permanent institution of an industrial base explicitly focused on war-development, has been in existence.

Since the second world war then we have seen increased influence of this essential part of the government to the point where not only does it represent a large and powerful segment of our population but a rather profoundly anti-democratic influence.

Since the late 1950's the US has tried and largely failed to reign in this power of this set of conglomerates and corporate interests.

To that end, both parties have varyingly tried to appear "strong" on defence, and as late as the 1960's it was the Democrats who could be said to have been "strong" on defense. With the Viet Nam debacle, clearly the roles reversed again and with the Reagan administration the republican ties to the defence industry were solidified , but make no mistake, both parties are deeply beholden to this new industrial complex.

As far as the other platform concerns relating to the republican values of earlier (pre WW1 times), they largely are completely unrelated parties with completely different agendas and needs than existed prior to 1910 or so , let alone the 1860's or even the 1790's.

By the standards of our measurement, ALL politicians - regardless of party would have been considered hopelessly liberal in their standards, mores and standards of governance.

For their parts, what we consider regrettably essential to the republic, imperial mandates, summary "detentions/rendition" or duress based interrogations or the acquisitive approach to our private information and liberties, would all be things to which - to a man, the founding fathers would have been violently opposed.

We know this because they were.

As a point of contrast, New York city, was for all intents and purposes burnt to the ground by loyalist sympathizers/military elements, during the revolutionary war. What did the founding fathers do in response, they still founded our constitution.

Answer 4

Republicans are great supporters of national protection and a minimum of funds clever they have an inclination to place coaching on the returned burner, besides the shown fact that Im useful that any republican candidate might propose the importance of coaching. they believe that gun administration is our Constitutional suitable given to us via the 2d replace. additionally they believe that if weapons have been made unlawful that basically the criminals might have weapons and that would make the US far much less risk-free. they believe that abortion is incorrect because of the fact the fetus interior a woman is a living individual who has all the rights that any one else in this united states could have. additionally there is in many cases a non secular connection made here, via asserting that the fetus is a manufactured from God and could be saved alive and not murdered. they believe that immigration is okay no remember if it somewhat is done legally. they're for strict exams for skill immigrants and that they believe that unlawful immigrants are unfavorable to the financial gadget because of the fact they might and are keen to artwork for below minimum salary. additionally they believe that unlawful immigrants could be risky because of the fact they're very unfavourable and keen to do many stuff (especially circumstances unlawful issues) to get via. they're very professional-capitalism and that they believe that the government needs to stay out of the financial gadget and permit the unfastened marketplace exist. opposition will effect in greater useful products and greater worthwhile companies who will in turn create greater jobs and strengthen the middle type. this is merely form of an define and particularly some republicans might have various viewpoints on those subject concerns, yet in any case i'm hoping this helps.

Answer 5

There where no republicans in the 1790's they didn't start until the 1860's

Answer 6

Well, they didn't start that early.

We need to go back to the Goldwater-Reagan days of Republicanism by advocating limited government and individual liberties. No more of this neo-conservative BS.

Go Ron Paul!

Answer 7

Unfortunately they are being mishadled. and repulicans know it as well as the democrats. That's why we have to be so causious about the issues today. I have found it to be good and bad.

Answer 8

the right wing wants extensive military oriented government...back in the day they (counter federalists) wanted a limited federal government...