The period immediately following the adoption of the Constitution of the United States was, in a reasonable guess, to be a period of harmony as the new republic forged ahead in securing the liberty that had been so hard won during the Revolution. In the general foresight, it seemed that, though the path had been hitherto rocky, the nation was on the direction of a new period of harmonious political interaction. Factionalism was gone; a relic of the Articles of Confederation, and the new national leaders would direct the republic with a coolness and wisdom that would surely come from the interaction of the most virtuous citizens of the nation. Virtue would carry the day, and these “Natural Aristocrats” would be above the usual fray that had previously been the dominating tone of politics. Especially with the esteemed leader, George Washington elected unanimously to the executive, a man of renowned character and calm demeanor, the nation was on the correct course. Unfortunately, this was about as far from the truth as could be. The nation almost immediately fell into a pattern of intense division, with the central topic of the day being what exactly the course of the young republic would be. Much to the dismay of everybody, factionalism immediately pervaded the whole arena, even if in spite of itself. Two new proto-parties emerged, the Republicans, headed by Thomas Jefferson, and the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton. These were two groups directed by insurmountable and irreconcilable differences concerning not only the nature of the Constitution and its role, but ultimately what the fate of the United States was to be. This great debate, fundamental to defining the purpose of the republic, was the catalyst for one of the fieriest periods in American history, and would help define the politics of the nation.
There were many assumptions made about what the governmental process was going to be like with the new Constitution. One of the most pervasive was the idea that simply because of the separation of powers, ambitions would be very hard to exercise upon. (Sharp, 2) With every private and public ambition acting against other ambitions, only the best and most serving to the public good could emerge. This was part of the Federalist argument for the Constitution in the first place, and this theory was fundamental in both forming the construction of the republic’s new framework, and for arguing the logic of that construct.
One of the more pervasive assumptions regarding the Constitution and the future course of the young republic was centered around the belief in the rise of the “natural aristocracy”. This was a group of highly educated, landed, elites that would form the core of the citizens elected to governmental service. These men would be highly virtuous citizens, placing the good of the nation and republic beyond their own personal desires, for in their learned nature, they would know the future of the republic rested on always putting the public good first. Their own civic virtue would both enable them to be elected, by propelling them to renown, and from there they could create and administrate a government that served nothing but the public good. The public good was an objective and object that was clearly recognizable, and that consensus on reaching it would be a matter of gentlemanly debate. These men would be above the maelstrom of petty politics, and especially above factionalism that was the dominant theme in every political culture that had hitherto existed. (2, Sharp)
One of the most influential reasons this idea became so recognized is largely based around the first president. George Washington was to man the epitome of the virtuous republican. He was the very epitome of the natural aristocrat. During the war he had sacrificed greatly, all for the preservation of the new nation as free and independent. He was also renowned for his ability to choose and defer to subordinates. He was not brilliant in any specific martial occupation, so he would often refer to men who were. In cases of supply, he would defer to Nathaniel Greene, on issues of order he would refer to the Baron von Steuben, etc. This ability to look past individual glory and fame earned him much respect as a leader. His candidacy for president was one of the more successful arguments for the Constitution. It was largely accepted that Washington would be the first president, and a man of his abilities would be instrumental in setting the tone of the republic. He was exactly the model that all expected the men who would be sent to government to follow. His election testifies to that end; he was elected unanimously to the office. During the period preceding and immediately following his inauguration he was flocked to by thousands, all trying only to get a glimpse of the man they held in such high regard. They flocked to the shores of the Hudson to see his barge go by, and otherwise filled the roads and towns that he traveled upon his trip to the capital. (18, Sharp)
To initial observations, it would have seemed like everything was working too. He picked for his cabinet men who were preeminent in the community of the founding fathers. Many felt that the course was obscure, but that the future would prove to be extremely promising. James Madison, fundamental in arguing for the Constitution, expressed this very plainly when he said, “Our successors will have an easier task, and by degree the way will become smooth, short, and certain.”(18, Sharp)
The most influential member of Washington’s cabinet quickly became known. Alexander Hamilton, the new Secretary of the Treasury, had very specific designs for the new nation’s direction. This was something that was not only based on the realities of the nation’s standing in the world politically and financially, but also by his experience as a Continental Army officer.(39, Sharp) The government under the Articles of Confederation, which was the model established for the duration of the war, had very little power to tax. It was an almost useless warring establishment, and one that often left the army in extremely dire straits. Following the war, the national government remained an impotent force, resulting in a period that was highly dangerous. The nation was crippled by huge debts that could not be resolved, restless and disillusioned populations, and a feeling that the nation was in dire need of new direction. (325, Shankman)
Hamilton had fought hard for the Constitution. With James Madison and John Jay he had helped write the Federalist Papers, a series of essays that formed the dominating means of Federalist, or pro-constitution debate. In fact, he had written the great majority of the essays. He was very strongly invested in enabling the Federal government to obtain more influence over national politics and direction, and the formulation of a strong central government became paramount to him.
In many ways Hamilton intended to establish a national government that operated in as similar a way to the British government as possible. Hamilton felt that many British institutions were admirable. Indeed, Hamilton believed that the British model was “the most perfect government that ever existed.” He even proposed a system at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that was in essence an Americanized version of the British system. It’s only real difference being that the national governor would have been elected.
Following the convention, however, he dropped all intent of wishing to establish an entirely British system in the U.S. This gave way for simply strengthening the established framework so that it could favorably compete with Britain. This was the final goal of Hamilton’s work. His intentions were to help produce a country that could defend itself against external and internal threats, protect and acquire trade agreements. Fundamentally, Hamilton’s goal was to secure the United States as a sovereign and independent world power capable of competing with the European powers of England and France. It wasn’t merely a question of making the U.S. a viable international entity, but one that could also assert its will in matters of trade and war. Hamilton anticipated that the nation being constructed around him and by him was one that could ultimately be an eminent world power, and one that could secure great strength in international affairs. (43, Sharp)
The first task that Hamilton undertook achieving this end was resolving the debt incurred during the war. Hamilton settled on a plan of absorbing the individual state debts into a single national debt. The ultimate goal was not to simply pay the debt off, but to fund it. This method of maintaining a debt would involve simply paying interest on accumulated debt, utilizing taxes to as the means.(34, Sharp) This was fundamental to establishing American credit and to begin establishing the American station in the world. This method insured a steady stream of income for the nation in a way that simple taxation didn’t. This wasn’t a Hamilton invention; in fact the British had been doing it for decades.
The next step, and one of the most important, was the creation of a national bank. This bank, which would be privately run but government chartered, would function primarily as the face and core of the government’s debt. It was designed on the idea that the bank would sell $10 million worth of stock, the national government purchasing $2 million of this amount. The remaining $8 million would be for sale to the public. Apart from purchase with money, $6 million of the $8 million privately purchasable stock could be purchased with debt certificates, equal to their face value. This was both an effective means of further centralizing the debt of the U.S., but was also instrumental in establishing positive American credit. (38-39, Sharp) Apart from this Hamilton also proposed and created a “Society for Establish Useful Manufacturers”. This was, ostensibly, a publicly chartered corporate entity designed to foment the creation of a larger and more competitive manufacture base in the U.S. This entity also sold stock, to the amount of $1 million. This stock could also be purchased with debt certificates. (331, Shankman)
The next, and possibly the most pressing of issues, was to enforce the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and specifically, to ensure the removal of British army stations in the extreme Western frontier in the Great Lakes region. Even though the treaty had consigned all the territory east of the Mississippi to the United States, Britain had maintained a string of forts that were in direct violation of the treaty. Aside from this, the army presence there had incited Indian attacks on Western American settlements, causing extreme stress between the relations of the two nations. Besides the obvious intention for enforcing the terms of Americas independence, the goal was also to establish and reinforce trade between the United States and Britain.
Hamilton met intense resistance to all these measures. To many, including men like Jefferson and James Madison this was the beginnings of a descent back into the world they had just left. Where Hamilton saw the power to reinforce the weak foundations of the nation’s structure, the opposition saw it as the accumulation of corrupting power. Their first objections to the Hamilton initiatives were to the restructuring of the debt. They saw it as a gross violation of the rights of the states, both as independent entities in the larger framework of the constitution and as a violation of the principles they thought the country was founded for. (40-41, Sharp)
The bank only fueled that fire. Without question they saw Hamilton as violating the constitution. To Madison, who was especially prominent in arguing for the constitution, this was entirely unacceptable. This was clear evidence to them that Hamilton had been entirely corrupted by power and was trying as much as possible to secure even more. To totally violate the Constitution (in their eyes) by establishing a bank, a power not entrusted to the federal government by the constitution was an absolute violation of what many had fought so hard to secure. Hamilton argued that it was entirely constitutional, arguing that the necessary and proper clause entrusted the government with whatever power was felt requisite. The response was that that belief was a gross misinterpretation of the intent of the clause, which they argued only served to grant powers absolutely required in times of extreme emergency. This whole debate is indicative of the rapidly growing schism between the two emerging factions. (39, Sharp)
It is important to recognize that while all of this was happening, the French Revolution was in full swing. This was an incredibly dividing development in the U.S. One side saw the Revolution as being the natural sister to the American Revolution, and felt that it was the responsibility of the U.S. as a fellow republic to support France in its venture to rid itself of monarchy.(114, Sharp) To the opposing side it was a dangerous and scary turn of events. The situation at this point had declined from the more conservative early stages into a much more radical and violent one. Violence became dominant, and led to a feeling of anarchy and turmoil that was highly troubling to many observers. Even more disconcerting was the French revolutionary government’s declaration of war with Britain in 1793. Now not only was the struggle an ideological one, but now a question of who the U.S. would support in the war. As it would develop this division fell on the same lines as those concerning the plans of Hamilton, and only compounded the fiery disagreement.
These two fundamentally opposed groups quickly began to organize, even if they all believed factions were extremely disagreeable. The fact these emerging proto-parties developed is highly ironic, considering the consensus the founder had on the nature of parties and faction. Nevertheless, the Republicans, headed by Jefferson and Madison, and the Federalists headed by Hamilton. Even the names of these two parties are indicative of the differences separating them. The Federalists adopted the name that had been previously used by the pro-Constitution element of the convention debates in the 1780s. The Republicans picked a name that would specifically indict the opposition as being anti-republican. Indeed, the pervading tactic here was ultimately to raise questions about the loyalty of the other side. To be an “anti-Federalist” raised questions about one’s support for the constitution and the new government, and to be an “ant-Republican” raised questions of possible monarchic leanings. This almost backhanded attack on the opposition is fairly indicative of the amount of vitriol that was to come. (42, Sharp)
The Jay treaty of 1794 would prove to be one of the most vehemently opposed elements of Hamilton’s plans. The treaty was what, if only marginally, secured the United States’ rights as a sovereign power from the British. One of the more important articles of the treaty secured America’s rights to the seas and to free trade with either of the two opposing powers. (117, Sharp) This was outrageous to the Republicans, who saw trading with Britain as not only aiding and abetting an enemy of revolutionary France, but also as evidence that the Federalists were secret monarchists, bent on converting the American republic into a new monarchy. (117) This seemingly outrageous jump is not so hard to understand in the context of the ideology that the founders espoused. To them the only people fit for government were the “natural aristocrats”, people learned and wise enough to be able to see beyond petty differences and recognize the object of the public good. Fundamental to that theory was that there would be little to no actual dispute, and that recognizing what the means of achieving the public good was would be an affair of relatively easy and respectful debate. That these two parties were so irreconcilably opposed was evidence to both that the other was made up of people wholly unfit to govern. The other side was invariably not made up of natural aristocrats, and that the only possible response would be to denounce them as such.
As the Federalist party expanded the power of the central government, they also managed to alienate some of what should have been their most loyal constituency, the manufacturers. Manufacturers had long faced a rough struggle competing with British merchandise and manufacturing. They were almost always at the loss for the simple fact of British production abilities. To begin to compete the manufacturers of America demanded that a prohibitively high tax be placed on imports. This was something Hamilton simply couldn’t acquiesce to. To fund
the national debt Hamilton relied on the tax revenue generated by reasonably taxing imports. The frontier was far too rough to be able to effectively exercise an internal tax, and this was the only reliable source of tax income for the debt. To place a prohibitive tax would be to entirely cut off that revenue. Slowly but surely, the Republicans were beginning to be able to diversify and expand their support base. (326-331, Shankman)
Republican support was largely made up of independent land owners, wishing to secure their place as the dominant class of American citizens. Many of the founders, especially Jefferson, believed that the only course for a Republic was to remain an agricultural nation. Much of his learning had ingrained this in him; it was a classical theory that human existence was divided into 4 distinct phases. The first phase and second phase was the birth of civilization, the hunter gatherer and initial domestication phases. The third phase was the transition to an agrarian lifestyle, and the fourth was the transition to a mercantile, manufacturing economy. To Jefferson, and the Republicans, this was the period where republics go to die. The fourth stage was dominated by vast differences in wealth which causes vast inequalities and the breakdown in civic virtue. The third stage was the only true home for a republic. There every virtuous citizen labored in the fields to their own ends, and were entirely independent of each other. This independency resulted in citizens who could measure legislation at its worth, rather than have their judgments weighted by questions of personal benefit. To the Republicans the Federalists were artificially pushing the nation towards the fourth stage and towards a period where the corruption of England would become the model for the United States.
In many ways the Federalists did alienate the small farmer. Particularly in the western territories, citizens who largely lived entirely independent lives free from almost all government interaction were being pulled into a society they did not see themselves a part of. Instrumental to this was the inclusion of internal taxes into Federalist legislation. One of these taxes was the 1791 tax on whiskey. In the western territories, where hard money was scarce, whiskey was largely the tender. To tax whiskey then, was almost the equivalent of taxing money. This tax infuriated particularly the farmers of western Pennsylvania, until culminating in the Whiskey Rebellion. While the rebellion was quickly defused and dispersed, the threat remained. The whole affair led only to a further decrease in Federalist popularity. (94, Sharp)
In 1796 a new election for the office of the presidency was held. Though much to the dismay of Hamilton, who at this point had retired from public life to return to his practice as a private lawyer, (This didn’t stop him from leading from behind the scenes.) Washington refused to run for a third term. Washington had devoted much of his life to the cause of republicanism, and he was content that his service had been enough. He had suffered much from the criticisms of Republican sympathizers, even to the point where his own loyalty began to be questioned by some. Though the race was close, the Federalists clinched it in the end with John Adams as the new president. (154, Sharp)
Adams first move as he began his presidency was to retain the cabinet of Washington. This was intended to ensure a smooth transition from Washington’s presidency, but its ultimate result was to allow for Hamilton to continue influencing new legislation. Immediately the most prescient concern for Adams became the war waging in Europe. By this point the war was at some of its most intense, and like it had been for Washington, ensuring America’s neutrality became the most important concern for Adams.
The war, at this point in time, had escalated greatly in Europe. This was a monumental struggle, one which pitched both France and England into a life or death frenzy. It was a very really possibility that the victory of one side would mean the utter destruction of the other. Because these temperaments ran so hot, trade with either side would surely pit the other against the trader. For this reason, the Jay treaty became a point of extremely intense contention between France and the United States. Further angering the French, the American government had decided to rescind the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France. The argument for this was that the alliance had been with the French crown, and not with the French nation. Because the revolution had deposed the King, the treaty was therefore nullified. (164, Sharp)
The tensions rapidly began to escalate. Beginning in early 1798 diplomacy with France began to falter. French privateers in the Caribbean and elsewhere in the Atlantic had begun to wreak havoc with American shipping, both engaging and capturing American ships and cargo. This was an outrage to the American government, and to the American people. As a neutral nation the United States was entitled to freedom on the seas from any foreign power, and because it lent no specific help to any one side in the war, the French had no grounds to attack.
French officials refused to meet with American delegates, or would send them to government departments that were unrelated to diplomacy. Ultimately, the tensions reached their height with the “XYZ” affair. Three French agents, in meeting with American delegates finally agreed to allow discussion to be made about allowing American shipping neutrality, but only on the condition that the French agents be individually paid a large bribe, and that the French government being gifted a tribute of $10 million dollars. This couldn’t be any more outrageous to the United States. As a neutral nation it was entitled to free passage on the sea, and to have a tribute demanded for that right was an egregious insult. Popular outrage against France was immediate and huge. France had violated the rights of Americans, and huge outpourings of support for the Adams presidency and the Federalist party fairly reversed the losses they had suffered over the last several years. (171, Sharp)
Largely influenced by Hamilton, the Federalists began the initial stages in constructing a new national army. Since the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783, and the disbandment of the Continental Army, the nation had been without any substantial standing military, barely allowing for a paltry regular force that was divided in the west. Through 1798, with the threat of invasion now a reality, the U.S. immediately began gearing for war. The legislation to raise the army was passed through Congress, but only on the demand that Washington be made commander of this force. In many ways this was a strange decision, considering Washington’s highly advanced age by this time. Washington only agreed to accept the command with the charge that Alexander Hamilton, his Revolutionary War era aide-de-camp be made lieutenant general. With Washington being in no condition to take the field, this essentially gave Hamilton the command of the army. (214-215, Kohn)
Besides creating the new Provisional Army, John Adams also began restoring the U.S. Navy into a legitimate fleet. Construction began on several new heavy frigates, capable of defending American maritime rights, recapturing French prizes, and countering the French privateer threat. The conflict soon became an undeclared “Quasi” war. In the Caribbean and in the Atlantic American vessels began fighting back against French privateers, and began to powerfully assert American rights.
Through these initial successes the Federalist party and the Adams administration quickly experienced a huge amount of popular support. Hatred for France was at an all time high, and with this in mind, the Adams administration began work on new legislation to prevent internal threats from becoming aids to external ones. In 1798 there were several thousand French exiles and citizens residing in the United States. This was a credible threat to the United States should war with France come to pass, and the Adams administration introduced legislation that would severely limit the threat that those aliens could pose. This legislation became known as the Alien and Sedition acts. The Alien act allowed for the government of the United States to deport any alien who “was dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States”, and also allowed for charges of libel to be brought upon anybody who published “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or any of the government’s officials.
Immediately following this Federalist approval disappeared. These acts, though designed with the intention of enabling the country to both defend against foreign and domestic enemies attracted a tone of despotism. With the well timed “Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions” (203, Sharp) the Republicans were able to portray the acts as being unconstitutional, and Adams and the federalists as tyrants. Together with traditional republican distaste for standing armies, and these attacks of monarchism, the Republicans secured themselves again as the rising party. From that point on the Federalists were fighting a losing battle with the Republicans. (160, Sharp)
They weren’t, however, with France. Napoleon, who at this point was centering himself as leader of the French Republic was eager to resolve the Franco-American conflict so he could concentrate on European matters. In the autumn of 1800 the French signed the Convention of 1800, an agreement that ended the Quasi-War, and secured the freedom of American shipping on the high seas. Quickly following this end of hostilities, the Provisional Army was disbanded.
Unfortunately for the Federalists, this happened too late for it to have an impact on the election of 1800. Utilizing traditional agrarian fears of the Hamiltonian national government, the failure of the Federalist party to secure its own constituency, the mass distrust shed on the Federalists with the army and Alien and Sedition Acts, and also the discord in the Federalist party itself, the Republicans were able to secure a victory in the election. Though there had been a major hang up in the election through a deadlock that lasted for weeks between two Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson for president, both were Republicans. Thomas Jefferson eventually came out the winner, with Burr as vice-president. This was the end of the Federalist party. Never again would the Federalists secure a national election. With the death of Hamilton in a duel with Burr in 1804, the spirit of the party was gone and it ceased to be a viable political entity.
The period of the 1790s was one of great change and adaptation for the U.S. government. It was a decade long battle for supremacy between two irreconcilable ideals. On one side was the Federalists, pushing to create a stronger national government that would more loosely interpret the constitution and hope to secure America’s place as a world power, and on the other the Republicans, hoping to secure an agrarian America, with a small government, and a focus on the individual as an independent entity. With all its initial hope for a peaceful, smooth process, the
nation, and specifically the ruling elite, still couldn’t avoid the ultimate trappings of politics. Though the theory of the natural aristocracy did not die out with this period of politics, even possibly growing stronger with the 1800 election, it was now and forever known that the constitutional framework could not prevent the vitriol, faction, and tension that had always defined politics.
Kohn, Richard H. Eagle and sword the Federalists and the creation of the military establishment in America, 1783-1802. New York: Free, 1975. Print.
Shankman, Andrew. ""A New Thing on Earth": Alexander Hamilton, Pro-Manufacturing Republicans, and the Democratization of the American Political Economy." Journal of the Early Republic 23 (2003): 323-52. Print.
Shankman, Andrew. "Malcontents and Tertium Quid: The Battle to Define Democracy in Jeffersonian Philadelphia." Journal of the Early Republic 19 (1999): 43-72. Print.
Sharp, James Roger. American Politics in the Early Republic The New Nation in Crisis. New York: Yale UP, 1995. Print.
US HISTORY DISCUSSION!!! -The Origin of Politcial Parties - The Federalists & Democratic Republicans
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Markas
ing traitor. He should have been hanged.
