what party succeeded the fedralists?

in the early days of America it wasn't 2 party rule like it is now (for the most part anyway) however there are 2 parties that would later be identified historically these where called the party of Jefferson and the party of Hamilton or as we call them now the democratic republicans (Jefferson) and fedralists (Hamilton) the fedralists where loyal to the king of Europe and supported for example the tea tax (keep that in mind it'll be important later) while the democratic republicans where opposed to the throne neither party was left wing but rather conservative (fedralists) and libertarian (democratic republican) this is best seen when looking at the works of the democratic republicans most of whom are our founding fathers they wernt just constitionalists they wrote the document as their own new rules for the land they had planned to escape from the monarchy at they would establish our governance system with a system of checks and balances and a democratic vote to not just minimize government power but put the power into the hands of the people all of this today funny enough would be considered right wing brexit was considered a right wing movement for exzample constitutionalism is seen as a right wing position and the idea of a republic is the furthest thing from a left wing position furthermore the democratic republicans refused to live under the rule of anyone which was the point of the checks and balances system to begin with the federalist party would be no more after the election for which the parties where named at the time instead a lawyer who considered themselves a fan of jefferson would found the democrat party (point in favor of dems being the successors 1 repubs 0) andrew jackson was the man i was referring to not only would he found the democrat party he was also the first democrat to become president something that's actually not very common when you look at the position of presidents from this point on the democrats considered themselves mostly democratic republicans thus why they are listed as succeeded by both republicans and democrats this is effectively where the party broke the federalist were gone at this point so the party that succeeded them would be the one with the closest views to their own in this case anti american views pro tax and collectivist under 1 person rule in this case the president would be viewed as a king his word above the rest circumventing the checks and balance system jackson while claiming to be a fan of jeffersons views heavily distorted those views into something not really recognizable as a jeffersons views a hallmark of democratic policy is pro tax so theres another point (dems 2 repubs 0) jackson would constantly circumvent the checks and balances system in favour of trying to add more land to the u.s. this would result in the thing he's best remembered for declaring the american mexican war which would be how we earned new mexico california would also become a state under his presidency which seems to be a point against dems here (dems 2 repubs 1) however that's where i get into the next point and that is the anti-american views of the democrats most famously seen during the civil war when republicans would form around the idea of abolition (btw republicans where 2nd to break away from the democratic repulicans so thats another point against dems sooo dems 3 repubs 1) now while it's true republican abraham lincoln did circumvent the checks and balances (dems 3 repubs 2) he did so in having his hand forced in trying to keep the union together it was democrats who had supported the confedracy (dems 4 repubs 2) now theres an argument that there was a party switch down the line however 1 i don't believe this as the only stated evidence for this is the dixicrats who supported goldwater who btw was a member of the NAACP (although they had since his election had been denounced for opposing the civil rights bill i implore you to do research on why he did so however it's not clear exzactly what he didn't like in the bill but he often had spoken about supporting just about everything in it meaning we likely would have had a different version of the bill under his presidency but thats whataboutism based on speculation)it would be about this point where neo cons would be the republican party for a while while dems where the anti-establishment now if you think there was a party switch i actually have some bad news for you it's still democrats that are anti-america seen in their constant burnings of the countries flag many of them talk about feeling uneasy around the flag and they even love to trash talk the founding fathers so either there was a second party switch since the one you think happened or the parties never switched and it's about here where i suspect someone will point out the republicans have been debating amongst themselves on weather or not to succeeded from the union lately (dems 4 repubs 3) however theres 2 things about this 1 it's a debate they arent unified on the idea and 2 the reasons why they want to succeed which brings me to the final point rule by authority not the people now i've already counted this against republicans for breaking the checks and balances but theres a trend with republicans and thats that they're not very power hungry i noted that neocons took over the party for a short while i would say this ended when a populace beat out the neocons see during the time of the neocons there was a trend in the democratic party as well that being the people they would put forth where establishment this is where 1 party rule became a thing or at least thats what many call it cuz you could either get a war mongering neocon republican or a tyrannical establishment dem this is where lesser of 2 evils became the voting philosophy of many (just a reminder it may seem like 2 party rule but we do have 3rd parties and if we all actively voted against the 2 dominant parties a 3rd party would stand a chance) but since then famous neocons such as bush and mit romney have come out in support of the democrats why because the old republican party is back the last republican president was anything but establishment i would spend time proving this but i'd need a whole blog post to do so so we'll pass on that meanwhile the dems have just voted in a man with a deeply racist past who has caused the worst inflation of my life (and i thought bush was hard to beat) and he rules by decree he often circumvents the checks and balances and even fluants it and for minor things his attorney general who would have been fired if trump was still in office has committed treason and even the speaker of the house a democrat had attempted and quite possibly succeeded in a military coup but thats now what happens when we go back in time well the confederacy very likely would have been a monarchy similar to that of europes these people where collectivized behind their military speaking of jackson himself saw himself above the system in the presidency so a constant with democrats is that they see themselves as a collective and a constant with their leaders is that they want to be a dictator and have tried to be so in various forms the tamest of which was jackson who just simply ignored the checks and balances when things didn't go in his favor (dems 5 repubs 3) based on that score it's close and very clear that both parties have had a very dirty past but dems indeed fit the role of fedralist successors far more than republicans so now why did i wright this blog? simple i was looking at the wikipidea pages of both the democrats and the republicans and noticed that incorrectly they list republicans as successors of the federalist but only list democratic republican and the party that that the democrats succeeded i sat back and thought about what i knew about both parties and this bothered me why? cuz it doesn't make sense that the repulicans would come from a party that had long since disappeared when they became a party but it does make sense that the democrats had succeeded that party as it disappeared pretty much the moment they appeared i then thought on it more and i don't think this incorrect information is there by accident wikipedia has a known left biased which means they support democrats so it could be this mistake was intentional to try and plant that idea that republicans are fedralists in the minds of people who don't know any better which is kinda malicious i have no problem criticizing either party but i want my criticism to be coming from reality and to say that the republicans are the federalist is not reality and the point of this was to show why it's not reality

just wanted to tac this on i forgot to count a point against republicans for being conservatives so the final score is actually dems 5 repubs 4 doesn't really change the final analysis though