Board 8 > Board 8 Elects - The Election of 1788 - Washington vs no one - PROJECT INTEREST

(+) Yeah! (+)

Hey all welcome to Board 8 Elects! a topic series in which we discuss each historical election from the perspective of the year it took place in!

The idea here is to re-litigate each election from the perspective of when it took place. I will be providing each candidates platform (where possible) so the merits of the election can be discussed and voted on. If possible lets speak of the issues in the present tense.

I am going to ask you vote via BOLDING the name of the candidate rather than providing a poll because I feel the poll encourages gut voting and I would really like to see some discussion.

Topics will be live for 3 or 4 days - basically until I make the next topic voting will be active in this one.

I will include 3rd or 4th party candidates only in years where they were major factors - so far that looks to me mostly like an early 19th century phenomenon plus 1912, 1924, 1980, 1992 and 2016 but we can revisit this.

Washington ran unopposed in both the 1788 and 1792 elections so instead we are going to vote for his Congress:

Federalist or Anti-Federalist?

Without further ado allow me to set the scene of the election of 1788 and 1792:

The Issues:

We have just ratified a constitution but the role of the federal government is still very much up for grabs - exactly what form will things like taxation take?

Having just concluded a war with Great Britain and by 1792 our only major European ally (France) now neck deep in the chaos of a burgeoning middle class revolt - how should the United States engage with Europe?

Should the United States have a standing military?

Should there be a Bill of Rights? As of 1788 four states (New York, North Carolina,Vermont and Rhode Island) still have not even ratified the constitution and their major contention is that the constitution gives far too much power to the new federal government and infringes too much on the rights of the individual.

How powerful should the judiciary be? In the light of the patently unfair British judicial system some are skeptical that a strong judiciary has merits and that the legislature should really hold most power to decide law while others see an impartial independent judiciary as a vital check on congressional and presidential power.

The Party Platforms

Anti Federalists

• The Constitution needed a Bill of Rights to protect state and individual liberties.
• The Constitution has created a presidency so powerful that it would become a monarchy.
• The Constitution did too little with the courts and would create an out-of-control judiciary that can rule by fiat.
• The national government located in New York City would be too far away from the people and thus unresponsive to the needs of localities.
• They did not have a single foreign policy but largely were pro-isolationism
• Led by New York Governor George Clinton and famous Virginia patriot Patrick Henry

The Federalists

• Believed a Bill of Rights was wholly unnecessary because the constitution did not give the federal government rights not listed in the document
• Believed in a strong independent judiciary capable of countermanding the president or congress
• Insist the president is actually quite weak given only limited delegated powers in the constitution.
• George Washington is the man. And by association so is Alexander Hamilton.
• Wanted to build an alliance with Great Britain so long as independence could be guaranteed.
• Called for further centralization of power with the federal government - the key to which was a nationalization of debt and creation of a National Bank

So head to the polls! Decide who Washington should listen to!

EASY VOTE FORM
Federalists vs Anti-Federalists

---

Federalists

---

Also in general some feedback on the topic series idea would be cool - this is obviously kind of a trial run and a bit of an odd one because it features no real candidates

---

Federalists

---

The Anti-Federalists were instrumental in getting a Bill of Rights into the Constitution, which is obviously something that can't be downplayed in terms of importance. However, in my readings of this era of American history, the Anti's have largely come across as paranoid and delusional, particularly when it comes to the role the Federalists played in the government, and often resorted to completely unfounded rumormongering and personal attacks in order to try and consolidate more power in a government they claimed should barely even have power at all. (Benjamin Franklin Bache was the absolute worst. Like a Revolutionary-era Alex Jones.)

The biggest problem with Washington himself turned out to be the whole slavery "thing" - even setting aside his own personal slave owning, he had a golden opportunity to end fugitive slave laws and ended up enforcing them surprisingly vigorously... but it's 1788, and you literally have people like Thomas Jefferson on the side of the Anti-Federalists (even if he isn't officially one at this point), so that aspect of this election (and several elections to come) is kind of a wash. A strong judiciary and centralized government are key in this uncertain time of building the nascent republic!

So, yeah, Federalists.

---

I do agree - I didn't really touch on it but Henry and Clinton were somewhat respectable (you aint seen the last of George Clinton) there is a certain paranoid style to the Anti-Federalists.

Ultimately we might need to extend a Bill of Rights either way. Vermont and North Carolina in particular look like they probably aren't going to ratify the constitution without one.

It is a bad look for New York to be holding out too. Technically our capital isn't located within our country right now and that's awkward.

---

Seems to me the Anti-Federalists had some good ideas for some bad reasons.

Votes Federalist

---

I've got some serious problems with each of these factions, but I guess I'll go with the Federalists.

---

Yeah I know anagram - these factions make you really feel like you're voting for the lesser of two evils.

Hopefully that eventually changes huh?

---

lol

---

Gonna give this a little bump

Can the Anti-Federalists mount a comeback and pass this "Bill of Rights" poppycock?

---

Federalists

I very much like this topic's premise. However, I'm skeptical that my level of knowledge is where it should be to participate, so I'll probably just be spectating for the most part.

---

I am going to seek to provide as good of a summarized detail for the future.

I have plans to link some good primary source stuff where possible too as we move into elections that are you know...actual elections.

So if you feel like educating yourself on the race before voting you'll be able to.

---

Federalists
---

Also this is a good time to laugh at Washington's expense.

He bemoans the existence of political parties but he basically got everything he wanted via a political party existing.

---

Federalists

Last chance before I start to write up the next one

---

Out of curiosity who would have been president if the anti-federalists won?

Or was there no actual election?

---

Well historically Washington ran unopposed both times.

But Anti-Federalist from New York, George Clinton, received electoral votes so he probably wins the Vice Presidency

---

Federalists

---