Founders divided: The rise of political parties in the 1790s
Political parties, or "factions" as James Madison called them, are inevitable in a society where people are allowed freedom of speech and association. While the founders were wary of these parties - George Washington felt the nation would be better off without them - differing views over the nation's direction caused former collaborators like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton to become rivals. The divisions became so deep that each side branded the opposition traitors - but the historic election of 1800 would ultimately bring relative peace to the young America.
The struggle to ratify the Constitution was the genesis for early political parties. Those in favor of the document "relied on old political techniques including the manipulation of notables, cliques, and coteries to get ratification through" (Lipset 179). These techniques successfully mobilized support for the Constitution and set a precedent for political discourse. However, there were other far-reaching consequences of the Constitutional Convention. First, "it created an organ in which policies touching on the interests of persons in all of the states were to be debated" and "marked a movement away from the politics of notables" who helped get the Constitution ratified in the first place (Lipset 179). In addition, when the "Constitutionalists" marshaled nationwide public support for the document, they set the stage for "policies that addressed themselves directly to specific interest groups in all states" (179).
In his argument for independence, Paine says that the office of king itself is based on a series of lies. His main target is the theory of hereditary succession, where one man and his descendents rule a nation in perpetuity. Paine suggests that this method is a "degradation and lessening of ourselves" (12) because "For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever" (12). Indeed, the king does not descend from a line of benevolent rulers chosen by God, but from a line of thugs. When monarchies started, a king was nothing more than the "principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners or preeminence in subtlety obtained the title of chief among plunderers" (13) Paine says. While England has seen some good kings, this system has mainly opened "a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper" and "hath in it the nature of oppression" (15). Paine also argues that when men are given near-absolute power, it can only lead to misery for their subjects:
Questions over the nation's direction ultimately split the founders into political parties. Alexander Hamilton called for a strong national government, while James Madison and Thomas Jefferson preferred a model of state superiority. These divisions began to show when Hamilton put a multi-part plan before Congress. Hamilton's plan called for the federal government to assume the Revolution-era debts of each state, place a tariff on foreign goods, create a strong executive, and implement a national bank. Hamilton faced resistance from many, especially Madison who had previously supported him during the fight for ratification. Madison disliked Hamilton's plan, especially assumption because it was seen as a "fatal poison" (Ellis 51) to Virginia, which had largely paid off its debts. Even more so, "under the guise of doing the states a favor by assuming their debts, the federal government was implicitly, even covertly assuming sovereign authority over the economies of all the states" (Ellis 58). While Jefferson helped broker a compromise - Hamilton's assumption plan would go through while the permanent site of the capital would be placed on the Potomac River - the divisions ultimately created the first political party. "[Hamilton's] attempts to manage politics in the capital to get his plans through Congress then . . . brought strong responses across the country. In the process, what began as a capital faction soon assumed status as a national faction and then, finally, as the new Federalist party" (Lipset 179).
But while Hamilton's Federalists (sometimes called "Hamiltonians") orchestrated initial political victories - John Adams was a Federalist president - their policies inspired harsh rhetoric and the formation of an opposition party. The Jay Treaty with Britain for example caused an uproar. The treaty "provoked concern on the part of some merchants that the British would not pay their war debts" (Lipset 180) and also provided a chance for the opposition to crystallize. The treaty's unpopularity gave the Jeffersonians, also known as the Democratic-Republicans a chance to organize "an opposition based on popular support" (Lipset 180). Unlike the Federalists, who had relied more on the old political forces of the rich and powerful, the Republicans coordinated activities "between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties, and towns" (Lipset 180). But as the Republicans stood up to the Federalists, the leaders of both sides clashed. It didn't help that John Adams had previously advocated an executive position that sounded awfully like a monarch (Ellis 168), which alienated Jefferson. In contrast, Adams was opposed to Jefferson's enthusiasm for the French Revolution and he even referred to his friend as a "dangerous dreamer" (Ellis 170). This conflict among the party leaders reflected the overall animosity of the two groups. The Federalists "took an intolerant position regarding the opposition party" which they felt had a "dangerous reliance upon the judgment of voters" (Lipset 180). In contrast, the Republicans felt that the Federalists were traitors who were trying to undo the Revolution. For instance the Republicans thought the Federalists would seize the presidency through an Act of Congress, which "struck most Republicans as unconstitutional and unrepublican (Lewis 89). Ironically, founders like Jefferson chided their countryman for the partisan divide, yet helped fuel it simultaneously. "Federalists and Republicans alike accused their opponents of narrow-minded partisanship, never conceding or apparently realizing that their own behavior fit the party label they affixed to their enemies" (Ellis 186).
With all this partisan sniping, it would be easy to think the country was on the verge of falling apart. But the stewardship of George Washington allowed political expression to develop in a way that allowed respectful opposition without violence. Washington was the unifying force in American politics - he was the charismatic leader who stood above the political fray. Lipset explains that such a leader "must transcend partisan conflict by playing the role of a constitutional monarch" (Lipset 174). Washington did so by keeping the feuding founders - Hamilton and Jefferson - close by. Both men served in his administration and their conflict convinced him to stay on for a second term. Doing so "unwittingly [permitted] the further peaceful extension of party conflict while [Washington] was still President" (Lipset 175). Had the country been forced to elect a new leader so soon after it was founded or if "he had continued in office until his death, it is quite possible that subsequent presidential successions would not have occurred so easily" (Lipset 176).
Because the initial political conflicts occurred while Washington was still in office, when the country faced a transitional period - the election of 1800 - it was able to pull off a peaceful transition of power. Of course the election was still surrounded by partisan rhetoric - the Federalists felt Jefferson would "would fritter away federal power, stir up class resentment, and bring about an alliance with France in a war against Great Britian" while Jefferson heard rumors that the Federalists wanted to break up the Union (Lewis 86). Yet despite their differences, "the heads of both groups had worked together to make the Revolution and establish the Constitution" ( Lipset 185) and both groups were still committed to the founding document. The Federalists, as history would show, were ultimately outmaneuvered by Jefferson and Madison, and they would never return to power after 1800. This "loosely structured one-party system" ( Lipset 185) even did the country some good as the rhetoric was toned down and Jefferson's party permitted some opposition to an extent. Most importantly, the election of 1800 was a revolution, but not the violent kind seen in France, or even the one which upended British rule. It was a revolution because "The defeat of the Federalists in the elections of 1800 represented the first occasion in modern politics in which an incumbent political party suffered an electoral defeat and simply turned over power to its opponents" (Lipset 185). With a new precedent set, peaceful party activism would now become a fixture of American politics.
1,207 words, 4 pages
|
Home
