Strategos' Risk said:
Questions...
1. I know some Federalists wanted to secede in OTL, but why would betray their original ideas of a strong central gov't and federal power over the states? What about Hamilton's legacy?
To over-simplify, the Federalists liked the idea of a strong central government provided they were the strong central government. They liked it less when their opponents were the central government. Hence the secession. Things were a bit more complicated than that; the Federalists were often more aristocratic and much more pro-UK than the rest of the USA.
But there were also divisions within the Federalists, with some of them being more pro-states rights than others. As it happens, this branch was the one which came out on top in New England: Pickering was pro-states rights, for instance. And when your nation is built on the idea of secession, it makes states' rights more important. This legacy does fade over time, but it means that for the next generation or two there's a lot of people who support the idea of states' rights.
2. Can you please do a quick summary of each party, for both nations?
Sure. Here goes...
Decades of Darkness Party Politics
In New England:
Federalists are conservative, aristocratic, anti-Catholic (although that is fading), pro-UK, pro-big business, mildly protectionist (but not too much, since they tend to trade freely with the UK) and staunchly nativist. More than anything else, they try to keep things as they are, and feel that the government should not interfere with the lives of its citizens.
Radicals are liberal (in the nineteenth century sense of the word), somewhat populist (in the anti-elite sense of the word), pro-tolerance to a greater degree than the Federalists (i.e. anti-anti-Catholic, promote religious tolerance, but would still be racists by late twentieth century standards), in favour of invention and the growth of entrepeneurs and commerce in general, but dislike the monopolistic, price-gouging and extortionistic tactics of some big business types in New England (and the USA for that matter). They favour open immigration and early citizenship for immigrants, too. They are strongly pro-free trade, and somewhat more favourable to the USA because they want good commercial links, although they are if anything more anti-slavery than the Federalists (which makes for some awkward commercial dealings at times, but it's usually a case of 'hold your nose but do business with them'). They also tend to be reformist in general, and favour the government doing things to improve the lot of the people. They've recently sponsored child labour laws, for instance, and want to do things like allow 'blacks' and women to vote. They are also pro-temperance, quite strongly, something which the Federalists oppose.
The Republicans have more or less disintegrated, but when they were around they were somewhere between these two parties. Pro-commerce and pro-good relations with the USA, basically.
In the USA:
Party divisions in the USA are less rigid than in New England, and a moderate Democrat can be hard to distinguish from a moderate Patriot. But, in general terms:
The Democrats started out as followers of the Jacksonian ideal of an agricultural republic. The Patriots started out as people who opposed the Democrats.
In their early years, the Democrats were supported by mostly the more rural, slaveholding areas. Planters and poor white farmers who wanted to "keep blacks in their place" basically. Things have changed a bit. The Democrats are still supported by most of the agricultural planters, and most of the farmers in the more long-established agricultural territories. The Democrats have the majority of support amongst agricultural planters, less support among urban industrialists. (The decentralised light industry on many of the plantations is the sort of thing they favour). They also tend have more support from rural farmers, but that varies by state, in some states the Patriots have things pretty much locked down amongst the rural farmers. The Democrats tend to be more opposed to internal improvements, government tariffs, or bureaucratization or governmental regulation, particularly over economic activity. The quintessential Democrat supporter would be an agricultural planter (or haciendado, come to that) devoted to a life managing his plantation, throwing expensive parties, and not really having a new thought in his life. They don’t make much contribution to art or culture, for instance. The Democrats tend to place most emphasis on the executive branch of government.
The Patriots started out as an urban party, and they still are to a degree, but they have a much more diverse support base than the Democrats. Much of their old support came from the remaining free-soil states in the Union, but they also became the party of the frontier. Miners, ranchers and homesteaders tended to prefer the Patriots. The Patriots have also become more of an urban party. Basically, the frontier areas and the more urbanised areas once things have built up; the more developed agricultural areas tend to vote Democrat. The Patriots encourage government activity for internal improvements, manufacturing, mining, and thus tend to encourage tariffs. They draw more support from urban industrialists, and so on. The Patriots, as a party, emphasise more of the struggle so that any white man can pursue the “Great American Dreamâ€, i.e. to earn a lot of money and have other people working for you. They thus get more support from the middle class, the up and coming, and the nouveax riche, although once those people become old money they tend to switch to the Democrats to support the status quo. The Patriots are in general more expansionistic and militaristic, although that is something which cuts across party lines.
Hope this helps...
Cheers,
Kaiser Wilhelm III