Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
supersoulty

Jefferson vs Adams - 1800

Recommended Posts

I hate being a critic of people's senarios, because I understand the amount of work that goes into these things. I have recently endevored to create a "History of the Future" line that will track all the election for the next 50 years. So far, I'm on 2016 and I have been working at it for two months.

Anyway, I have noticed some glaring inaccuracies with this senario that I think should be brought up. The first, and most obvious, is that Jefferson did not support expansion during the election. In fact, the entire Democratic-Republican Party was opposed to the idea of further expansion. Rather, it was the Federalists who were strongly in favor of the idea. Hence, this is why Jefferson did not consult the Democratic-Republican control congress on the LA Purchase. He knew that it was too good a buy to pass up (even for an anti-expansionist) and that it stood a good chance of being defeat in congress. Of course, anti-Adams historians would later spin it so that Adams was opposed to the idea, and thus, without the "great and benevolent" Jefferson, America would be 1/3 of its current size.

Second, Jefferson never made any public proclamations opposing slavery, pretty much anytime after the Declaration of Independence debate on it. He stayed quit in public and only confided his own feelings to close freinds and his diary. Adams, on the other hand, was very much opposed to slvaery and was very public about as much.

Third, the rational behind the national bank was not to benefit the Federal government per se but to combat the state banks, which were corrupt and tended to set high interest rates on loans and low rates on personal accounts. In the more wilderness areas of the country, they were acctually the only place where people could safely put their money. Privatly owned banks were just too unreliable. The common attack against the bank was that it catered to the wealthy, but in reality, the bank was better for the common man than any option that existed up until the creation of the Federal Reserve System. Jackson's paranoid crusade against and ultimate destruction of the bank can be directly blamed for not only the crippling economic depression of the 1830's and 40's, but also the near century of economic instablity the county suffered from afterwards.

Fourth, Adams did not view political parties as an "unfortunate nessesity" as the Federalists were not really an organized party, the way the Democratic-Republicans were and did not even view themselves as being a party.

Once again, not to trash your senario, because it is good, but you do seem to have fallen into some commonly held misconceptions that are, unfortunaly, enforced by the anti-Federalist, anti-Adams persuasion of most historians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate being a critic of people's senarios, because I understand the amount of work that goes into these things.  I have recently endevored to create a "History of the Future" line that will track all the election for the next 50 years.  So far, I'm on 2016 and I have been working at it for two months.

Anyway, I have noticed some glaring inaccuracies with this senario that I think should be brought up.  The first, and most obvious, is that Jefferson did not support expansion during the election.  In fact, the entire Democratic-Republican Party was opposed to the idea of further expansion.  Rather, it was the Federalists who were strongly in favor of the idea.  Hence, this is why Jefferson did not consult the Democratic-Republican control congress on the LA Purchase.  He knew that it was too good a buy to pass up (even for an anti-expansionist) and that it stood a good chance of being defeat in congress.  Of course, anti-Adams historians would later spin it so that Adams was opposed to the idea, and thus, without the "great and benevolent" Jefferson, America would be 1/3 of its current size.

Second, Jefferson never made any public proclamations opposing slavery, pretty much anytime after the Declaration of Independence debate on it.  He stayed quit in public and only confided his own feelings to close freinds and his diary.  Adams, on the other hand, was very much opposed to slvaery and was very public about as much.

Third, the rational behind the national bank was not to benefit the Federal government per se but to combat the state banks, which were corrupt and tended to set high interest rates on loans and low rates on personal accounts.  In the more wilderness areas of the country, they were acctually the only place where people could safely put their money.  Privatly owned banks were just too unreliable.  The common attack against the bank was that it catered to the wealthy, but in reality, the bank was better for the common man than any option that existed up until the creation of the Federal Reserve System.  Jackson's paranoid crusade against and ultimate destruction of the bank can be directly blamed for not only the crippling economic depression of the 1830's and 40's, but also the near century of economic instablity the county suffered from afterwards.

Fourth, Adams did not view political parties as an "unfortunate nessesity" as the Federalists were not really an organized party, the way the Democratic-Republicans were and did not even view themselves as being a party.

Once again, not to trash your senario, because it is good, but you do seem to have fallen into some commonly held misconceptions that are, unfortunaly, enforced by the anti-Federalist, anti-Adams persuasion of most historians.

Another thing I noticed too, the "Mercantilism" issue should probably be called something like "Small States vs. Large States" as that would correspond with the issue stances. Mercantilism was actually the economic system of the British Empire. That being said, this is still a great scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acctually, Merchantilism was an issue during this time, but it was mostly an issue between states that had large port cities and those that did not (with some large southern states like Virginia taking the side of the anti-merchantile groups). The discussions over what type of economy (merchantile vs. agricultural) and what type of society (urban vs. rural) that America should be revolved largely around the dispute between northerneastern merchants and southern/western farmers and plantation owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate being a critic of people's senarios, because I understand the amount of work that goes into these things. I have recently endevored to create a "History of the Future" line that will track all the election for the next 50 years. So far, I'm on 2016 and I have been working at it for two months.

Off-topic, but that sounds like an excellent idea! Are you going to release it all at once, or will you be sending some off before you're done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Off-topic, but that sounds like an excellent idea! Are you going to release it all at once, or will you be sending some off before you're done?

All at once, I hope. I have the basic plot worked out. Just need to get the tough work done. I'm happy with myself, in that by 2028 the US politcal map is almost totally different (Republicans still control some of their old haunts, as do the Democrats, but not the same as now) and I have done so by using treands that seem realistic (if a bit exagerated). I intend to put a "Read Me" file with each one that acctually explains the events that lead up to each election, so you aren't left in the dark about what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"- Pro gay-marriage, but also pro-life"

Heh, we have something in common there.

Heh, I'm biased. I'm gay, but not a woman who'd ever be in a situation to get an abortion...so a lot of my liberal friends blast me for that.

If you ever need any help on the scenarios, drop me a line. They sound very, very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh, I'm biased. I'm gay, but not a woman who'd ever be in a situation to get an abortion...so a lot of my liberal friends blast me for that.

If you ever need any help on the scenarios, drop me a line. They sound very, very interesting.

I am neither. I used to be very prejudiced against gays, to be honest, but my views have changed considerably in the past four or five years. As for the abortion issue, I'm pro-life, as I said, but I want the government to be more active in helping unwed mothers to make it easier to deal with the economic circmstances of pregnancy and early childhood. That would include an approuch to help women pay for and attend local colleges in order to provide for the long term security of their family.

Any, if I need any help, I will be sure to get a hold of you. Thank you for offering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×