From a comment left to this list of hypothetical books nobody would ever want to read.:

and there is a brief article about the Federalists that mention the last Federalist candidates and elected officials such as this quote:
“During the last days of their party, the Federalists remained in office longest in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Oliver Wolcott, Jr. served as governor of Connecticut from 1817 to 1827. That state also had two Federalist senators until 1827, one of whom continued in office until 1831. In Massachusetts, Harrison Gray Otis served as senator (1817-22) and so did James Lloyd, Jr. (1822-26). Josiah Quincy was mayor of Boston (1823) and was replaced by his friend Otis (1829-31).

Defeatist Rufus King was the only Federalist outside of these states who held an important elective office during this time. He was senator from New York (1813-1825) and minister of England (1825-26).”

………..

New England is historically the graveyard for political parties — the Federalist Party died there, the Whig Party died there, and the Democratic and Republican Parties have found some low points confined there (the 1936 presidential election and the 1972 presidential election.)

Actually, New Englanders were always threatening to secede from the nation, until the balance of powers shifted (notably the two Adamses — Northerners — were one term presidents while the other presidents up through Jackson were two-termers) and the South seceded first.

Now we know the last Federalists.  Presumably we can get to the debate on whether Jefferson effectively destroyed the Federalist Party by out-Federal-isting them, and just how strongly he hewed to any Jeffersonian principals at all.

Oh.  And there’s also a link analyzing the Larouchites’ victory in the 1986 Illinois Democratic Primaries.   Which effectively destroyed the Adlai Stevenson political clan.  I still don’t fully understand.  I assume a lot of people will end up deciding, partially not fully informed, by looking at the voters’ pamphlet.  Where they would see one statement from individuals promoting a set of principals in accord with the National Democratic Party, and one other set of candidates promoting (ahem) forming a “Nuremberg Tribunal” to investigate drug dealing by Zionists and journalists, represented by Henry Kissinger and Katherine Graham.
And they would gravitate toward the former.  But what do I know?  Many factors have to align just so to create an anomaly.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 15th, 2007 at 9:04 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.