Federalist Party

9 Key excerpts on "Federalist Party"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  The New Republic

  The United States of America 1789-1815

  • Reginald Horsman(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 4 The Rise of Political Parties

  The common assumption in 1789 was that 'parties' and 'factions' - and the terms were often linked - were disruptive of national unity and good government. There had been a struggle over the Constitution and its ratification between Federalists and Antifederalists, but it was hoped that once a government under Washington began to function all good men would rally around the president to support republicanism. When new divisions arose in the course of the 1790s there was a tendency for each side in the argument to look upon the other not as a legitimate party, but rather as a disruptive, conspiring faction that endangered the republic. Politicians were apt to see the insidious influence of a corrupt England or the destructive radicalism of a revolutionary France as moving factors in the actions of those they opposed and distrusted. Politicians poured out invective against their opponents, brazenly used the press to further their political ends, and had not the slightest hesitation.in attacking the motivations of those with whom they disagreed. Antagonisms were increased because there were basic disagreements in foreign as well as domestic policy. In the course of the 1790s two widely divergent political programs emerged as to how the republic could best be preserved, and how its future power and prosperity could be assured.

  The Federalist coalition that had pushed through the Constitution and fought for its ratification began to crumble within a year of the inauguration of the new government. The coalition collapsed in response to Hamilton's financial and economic plans. Hamilton and his supporters wished to use the power of the government to promote the growth of capital and its invest ment. While Hamilton had no doubt about the importance of agriculture, he thought that future growth depended on diversifying the American economy. He was also convinced that the substantial elements in society - the moneyed classes - should direct the nation's affairs. His supporters admired many aspects of the English monarchical society, and believed that close commercial ties to Great Britain were essential for the achievement of economic growth and independent power.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Growth and Collapse of One American Nation: The Early Republic 1790 - 1861

  The Early Republic 1790-1861

  • Donald J Fraser, Dotti Albertine(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Fraser & Associates

    (Publisher)

  Beyond even these policy disputes, they differed over a vision for the future of the newly emerging nation. Because they had little experience working in a partisan environment, each party began to see the other as illegitimate. This tendency was especially strong in the Federalist Party, which held power during the Washington and Adams administrations. As historian Richard Hofstadter writes: “One of the great dangers in newly organized states is that the party in power … claims for itself the exclusive custodianship of the essence of nationality and the exclusive right to interpret the meaning of national welfare.” 2 The Federalist view of their opponents, the Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison, was that their criticism on issues was “criticism of all government,” that would ultimately lead to “anarchy, subversion, and disloyalty.” For their part, the Republicans charged the Federalists with undermining popular consent and wanting to create a monarchy in America that would lead to rule by the aristocratic few and overturn the republic. 3 The 1790s were a period when the founding generation needed to manage these extensive differences of opinion without allowing the political system to fall either into chaos or dictatorship. The outcome of these disputes was by no means assured as the decade unfolded, and the nation’s experiment with a republic almost failed before the founding generation discovered a path for organizing political differences through competition, debate, and elections, rather than violence. The two-party system would ultimately become one of the hallmarks of American nationhood. The Nature of Political Differences Before launching into the history of the 1790s, it may be instructive to take a step back and analyze the nature of political differences that have existed since the beginning of human history. Aristotle wrote that “Man is by nature a political animal.” The Greek philosopher, who lived around 300 BC, was probably onto something

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Revolutionary America, 1763-1815

  A Sourcebook

  • Francis D. Cogliano, Kirsten E. Phimister(Authors)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 10 The Federalist Era

  Introduction

  After the election of George Washington as the first president in January 1789, his supporters and political allies called themselves Federalists. The Federalists won successive elections in 1792 and 1796 and they did not lose the presidency until the election of 1800. A major area of contention between the Federalists and their adversaries, who came to be known as Republicans, was political economy. Economic instability was, perhaps, the biggest problem facing the new government. Washington’s Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, developed a comprehensive economic program under the terms of which the federal government would assume the public debts of the states and promote manufacturing (document 1). Hamilton believed that the United States should emulate Britain’s economic model. Opposition to Hamilton’s program coalesced in and out of Congress (document 2). The Republicans opposed state-supported manufacturing and sought to maintain the United States as an agricultural nation of independent small farmers. The leading exponent of this view was Thomas Jefferson who served as Secretary of State under Washington and as Vice President to John Adams. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson articulated a vision of republican political economy which eschewed manufacturing in favor of agriculture (document 3).

  Hamilton sought, in part, to finance his fiscal program—which was meant to strengthen the federal government as well as the economy—through an excise tax on whiskey. In 1794 the excise duty, which was very unpopular, especially in frontier areas, led to a rebellion in western Pennsylvania. The Whiskey Rebellion was a direct challenge to the authority of the federal government and seemed to threaten the authority of the new constitution. As a consequence, the Federalists used the army to suppress the disorder (document 4). Washington’s presidency coincided with the early stages of the French Revolution, which bitterly divided Americans. Although Washington proclaimed the United States neutral in the wars of the French Revolution, the Federalists were sympathetic to Britain and the Republicans to France. In his 1796 “Farewell Address” (document 5), Washington warned Americans against political partisanship and entangling alliances with foreign powers. Notwithstanding this warning, partisanship and international tensions increased during the administration of Washington’s successor, John Adams. During Adams’s administration the United States and France waged a “quasi-war” at sea. In anticipation of a formal declaration of war, the Federalists in Congress adopted a series of measures, the Alien and Sedition Acts (document 6) which sought to limit the right to free speech and to extend the period of time which immigrants would have to wait to become American citizens. Republicans objected to these measures. As the leaders of the Republicans, Madison and Jefferson arranged for the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky to adopt a series of resolutions denouncing the Alien and Sedition Acts and raising the specter that individual states might nullify federal legislation (document 7). Although no other states endorsed these resolutions, the Alien and Sedition Acts were unpopular and contributed to the defeat of the Federalists in 1800.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  John Quincy Adams

  American Statesmen Series

  • Morse, John T., Jr. (John Torrey)(Authors)
  • 2006(Publication Date)
  • Perlego

    (Publisher)

  It may be admitted that there are sound reasons for holding party leaders to a more rigid allegiance to party policy than is expected of the rank and file; yet certainly, at those periods when substantially new measures and new doctrines come to the front, the old party names lose whatever sacredness may at other times be in them, and the political fellowships of the past may properly be reformed. Novel problems cannot always find old comrades still united in opinions. Precisely such was the case with John Quincy Adams and the Federalists. The earlier Federalist creed related to one set of issues, the later Federalist creed to quite another set; the earlier creed was sound and deserving of support; the later creed was not so. It is easy to see, as one looks backward upon history, that every great and successful party has its mission, that it wins its success through the substantial righteousness of that mission, and that it owes its downfall to assuming an erroneous attitude towards some subsequent matter which becomes in turn of predominating importance. Sometimes, though rarely, a party remains on the right side through two or even more successive issues of profound consequence to the nation. The Federalist mission was to establish the Constitution of the United States as a vigorous, efficient, and practical system of government, to prove its soundness, safety, and efficacy, and to defend it from the undermining assaults of those who distrusted it and would have reduced it to imbecility. Supplementary and cognate to this was the further task of giving the young nation and the new system a chance to get fairly started in life before being subjected to the strain of war and European entanglements. To this end it was necessary to hold in check the Jeffersonian or French party, who sought to embroil us in a foreign quarrel. These two functions of the Federalist Party were quite in accord; they involved the organizing and domestic instinct against the disorganizing and meddlesome; the strengthening against the enfeebling process; practical thinking against fanciful theories. Fortunately the able men had been generally of the sound persuasion, and by powerful exertions had carried the day and accomplished their allotted tasks so thoroughly that all subsequent generations of Americans have been reaping the benefit of their labors. But by the time that John Adams had concluded his administration the great Federalist work had been sufficiently done. Those who still believe that there is an overruling Providence in the affairs of men and nations may well point to the history of this period in support of their theory. Republicanism was not able to triumph till Federalism had fulfilled all its proper duty and was on the point of going wrong.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  James Madison

  • Terence Ball(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Party Government. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.

  Smelser, Marshall. 1968. The Democratic Republic. New York: Harper and Row.

  Smith, Abbot. 1942. “Mr. Madison’s War: An Unsuccessful Experiment in the Conduct of National Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 57: 229–46.

  Wills, Garry. 1981. Explaining America: The Federalist. New York: Doubleday.

  Wood, Gordon S. 1969. The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

  Young, James Sterling. 1966. The Washington Community, 1800–1828 . New York: Harcourt, Brace.

  Zvesper, John. 1977. Political Philosophy and Rhetoric: A Study of the Origins of American Party Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Passage contains an image

  [19]Madison v. Madison: The Party Essays v. The Federalist Papers

  DOUGLAS W. JAENICKE

  Abstract

  The most authoritative commentary on the Constitution remains ‘The Federalist’. Yet ‘The Federalist’s’ explanation and defence of the Constitution was always somewhat suspect, since, as the authors themselves admitted, ‘The Federalist’ was a polemic, written to promote the ratification of the Constitution, as well as a work of political philosophy. Moreover, Alexander Hamilton and fames Madison, its main authors, soon parted political company, with Madison in the House of Representatives leading a party in opposition to Hamilton’s policies as Secretary of the Treasury. Madison, known as the ‘Father of the Constitution’, was also the father of the party system, grafted onto the Constitution soon after the government went into operation. This chapter displays the departures that Madison’s thinking as party leader made from the thinking of Madison the co-author of ‘The Federalist’, and argues that these departures comprised a very different and in some ways a superior way of conceiving of America’s form of government.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The James Madison Library in American Politics

  Updated Edition

  • Herbert Croly(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Princeton University Press

    (Publisher)

  This result was achieved chiefly by virtue of capable, energetic, and patriotic leadership. It is stated that if the Constitution had been subjected to a popular vote as soon as the labors of the Convention terminated, it would probably have been rejected in almost every state in the Union. That it was finally adopted, particularly by certain important states, was distinctly due to the conversion of public opinion, by means of powerful and convincing argument. The American people steered the proper course because their leaders convinced them of the proper course to steer; and the behavior of the many who followed behind is as exemplary as is that of the few who pointed the way. A better example could not be asked of the successful operation of the democratic institutions, and it would be as difficult to find its parallel in the history of our own as in the history of European countries.

  II Federalism and Republicanism as Opponents

  Fortunately for the American nation the unionists, who wrought the Constitution, were substantially the same body of men as the Federalist Party who organized under its provisions an efficient national government. The work of Washington, Hamilton, and their associates during the first two administrations was characterized by the same admirable qualities as the work of the makers of the Constitution, and it is of similar importance. A vigorous, positive, constructive national policy was outlined and carried substantially into effect,—a policy that implied a faith in the powers of an efficient government to advance the national interest, and which justified the faith by actually meeting the critical problems of the time with a series of wise legislative measures. Hamilton’s part in this constructive legislation was, of course, more important than it had been in the framing of the Constitution. During Washington’s two administrations the United States was governed practically by his ideas, if not by his will; and the sound and unsound parts of his political creed can consequently be more definitely disentangled than they can be during the years when the Constitution was being wrought. The Constitution was in many respects a compromise, whereas the ensuing constructive legislation was a tolerably pure example of Hamiltonian Federalism. It will be instructive, consequently, to examine the trend of this Hamiltonian policy, and seek to discover wherein it started the country on the right path, and wherein it sought to commit the national government to a more dubious line of action.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Complete Works of Theodore Roosevelt. Illustrated

  The Naval War of 1812, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt, Good Hunting: In Pursuit of Big Game in the West, African Game Trails, The Strenuous Life

  • Theodore Roosevelt(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing

    (Publisher)

  During the ten years that had gone by since Morris sailed for Europe, the control of the national government had been in the hands of the Federalists; when he returned, party bitterness was at the highest pitch, for the Democrats were preparing to make the final push for power which should overthrow and ruin their antagonists. Four-fifths of the talent, ability, and good sense of the country were to be found in the Federalist ranks; for the Federalists had held their own so far, by sheer force of courage and intellectual vigor, over foes in reality more numerous. Their great prop had been Washington. His colossal influence was to the end decisive in party contests, and he had in fact, although hardly in name, almost entirely abandoned his early attempts at non-partisanship, had grown to distrust Madison as he long before had distrusted Jefferson, and had come into constantly closer relations with their enemies. His death diminished greatly the chances of Federalist success; there were two other causes at work that destroyed them entirely.

  One of these was the very presence in the dominant party of so many men nearly equal in strong will and great intellectual power; their ambitions and theories clashed; even the loftiness of their aims, and their disdain of everything small, made them poor politicians, and with Washington out of the way there was no one commander to overawe the rest and to keep down the fierce bickerings constantly arising among them; while in the other party there was a single leader, Jefferson, absolutely without a rival, but supported by a host of sharp political workers, most skillful in marshaling that unwieldy and hitherto disunited host of voters who were inferior in intelligence to their fellows.

  The second cause lay deep in the nature of the Federalist organization: it was its distrust of the people. This was the fatally weak streak in Federalism. In a government such as ours it was a foregone conclusion that a party which did not believe in the people would sooner or later be thrown from power unless there was an armed break-up of the system. The distrust was felt, and of course excited corresponding and intense hostility. Had the Federalists been united, and had they freely trusted in the people, the latter would have shown that the trust was well founded; but there was no hope for leaders who suspected each other and feared their followers.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy

  • Charles A. Beard(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Dover Publications

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER VIII

  THE FEDERALIST ANALYSIS OF THE PARTY CONFLICT

  THE vehement assaults of the Republicans upon the capitalistic policies of Washington’s administration forced the Federalists to exhaust the entire armory of their argument.1 Being on the defensive, however, they did not always maintain in their polemical literature that sharpness of class distinction which marked the writings of the Republicans. The wisest of them were, of course, too shrewd to add bitterness to the conflict by unnecessary attacks upon the agrarians as such, and they often employed the good tactics of blurring the economic antagonism by denying its existence or referring to the essential identity of interest between capitalism and agriculture. Yet they could not altogether escape the necessity of recognizing the economic nature of the party division when it became necessary to rally specific groups to the support of Hamilton’s measures. Consequently we find in Federalist literature frank appeals to certain economic groups for political support, denials of the existence of class divisions, assertions that the interests of all classes were identical, and condemnation of the agrarians for their assaults on capitalistic enterprises.

  When the battle over assumption was on, the newspapers fairly teemed with letters and addresses directed to the financial elements. This was particularly true when there was grave danger that assumption would be defeated. One polemical writer went so far as to threaten Congress with a special convention of public creditors at New York or Philadelphia to “facilitate” the progress of the measure through that body and added a warning that the number of “respectable men” who were holders of the public debt was too large to be treated with indifference. This advocate evidently thought also that the capitalistic element was the very substance of the new government, for he declared emphatically that it would be nothing but a shadow without “a prosperous funding system” — meaning one which would consolidate the state and continental debt and place the holders thereof on a secure basis.2

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Inquiry Into the Origin and Course of Political Parties in the United States

  • Martin Van Buren, John Van Buren, Abraham Van Buren, (Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Perlego

    (Publisher)

  To understand truly the advantages which the country has derived from the success of this policy, and the defeat of that to which it was opposed, we have only to picture to ourselves what the condition of the State governments must have been if the latter had triumphed, and to compare it with the actual state of things. Assuming that the desire to divest them of the authority which they had gradually acquired, as occasions for its exercise were developed by the necessities of the public service, at one time so strong with leading Federalists and as we have seen so openly avowed, had been limited to what was actually proposed, viz., to give to the General Government the power to appoint their governors, and through them the most important of their minor officers, including those of the militia, with an absolute veto upon all State laws,—what, judging according to the experience we have had, would now have been the character and condition of those governments? Without the authority required to make themselves useful, or respectability sufficient to excite the ambition of individuals to be honorably employed in their service, and thus to divide their attention and regard between the Federal and State governments, they would have sunk gradually into feeble, unimportant, characterless establishments—mere places for the sinecure appointments of the former. Contrast institutions like these—and only such could have been possible under the policy advocated by the leading Federalists—with the galaxy of independent governments of which we now boast, such as no confederation, ancient or modern, possessed, vested with authority and dignity, and filling the States respectively with monuments of their wisdom, enterprise, usefulness, and philanthropy; and contrast the Federal Government, resting as it now does on these tried and ample foundations, with one based on establishments like those to which it was proposed to degrade the States, and we will have some idea of the dangers that the people of the United States have escaped, and the advantages they have secured by the wisdom of their course and the patriotism of those who advised it. If the Democratic party of Jefferson's time, and under his lead, had effected nothing else for the country, they would have done enough in this to deserve the perpetual respect and gratitude of the whole people.

  Yet this was but the beginning of their usefulness, subsequent to the adoption of the present Constitution.

  No sooner had the efforts of the leaders of the Federal party to break down the power and influence of the State governments been arrested through the triumph of the Democratic party in the great contest of 1800, which was to a great extent carried on in their defense, than an attempt was set on foot to rescue a portion of the political power lost by the former, by raising the judicial power—the dispensers of which were to a man on their side—above the executive and legislative departments of the Federal Government. Of this enterprise, its origin, progress, and present condition, I have taken the notice which I thought was demanded by its importance. That it was unsuccessful, and that the balance of power between those departments, so necessary to the security of liberty and to the preservation of the Government, has not been destroyed, is altogether due to the persevering opposition of the Democratic party under the same bold and capable leader.

  Where the points in issue between political parties have been of so grave a character as those in the United States, it is not an easy matter to decide on their relative importance, or in which the right and the wrong was most apparent. Whilst some have resolved themselves mainly into questions of expediency, in respect to which errors may be committed without incurable injury to our institutions, there have been others striking at their roots, which would, if differently decided, have ended in their inevitable destruction. The two to which I have referred were emphatically of the latter character, and hence the inestimable value of the successful resistance that was made on the Democratic side.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book