Beginnings of a Two Party System

During the drafting of the Articles of Confederation in 1781 it became evident there were clear differences of philosophy concerning the scope and role the new federal government would play in a burgeoning nation. Delegates were divided amongst themselves into “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist” factions. These early factions seemed to be divided along political as well as regional boundaries, with the “Federalists” being predominately mercantile men of the north who favored a strong central government and the “Anti-Federalist” gentleman farmers of the south, who feared a strong central government and were predisposed to favoring states rights. These two factions would later evolve into our nations first political parties.

Ironically, it was Alexander Hamilton’s [a staunch Federalist himself] policy of debt assumption and the creation of a central bank which inevitably led to the creation of political parties in America. His policy heavily favored the northern states with their manufacturing classes and the “moneyed” elite such as, stock brokers, bankers and speculators. Hamilton’s policies as the Secretary of the Treasury undoubtedly put the onus on the south to manage the country’s debt. Tax and tariff laws enacted under the policy affected southern agrarians more sharply in the purse than that of their northern neighbors. Federalist ideology held “that those who have more strength and excellence, shall bear rule over those who have less”. It was their unmitigated duty to protect the perfect union from the rabble swine of democracy. “Democracy” was not the beginning, but the sure fire end to a Republic. The masses had not either discipline or intelligence to temper their unruly passions with logic or reason. Government of the people they could accept, but not government by the people. This would surely necessitate chaos.

On the other hand, Jeffersonian Republicans favored a weak federal government and a participatory electorate. Jefferson placed a high premium on education and a highly literate citizenry. “Absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority was the vital principle of republics.” Anything less was to rule by tyranny. His abiding fear of strong government stemmed from his determination to preserve the American farm from the heavy hand of organized business, which, to his way of thinking, always attempted to convert government into an instrument for extracting money from the mass of the people, especially farmers. Farming was a way of life ordained by God in his eyes and he believed that farmers embodied virtues best suited for the rigors of living in a Republic. Republicanism held an airy optimism that all things were possible for an enlightened people and it was just the start of mans inquisitive engine, his mind. It would not be wrong to assume the Federalists and Republicans were aligned along regional lines (north and south) due to their political and social affiliations. Many prominent Federalits such as Hamilton, John Jay and Daniel Webster made their homes in the north, while the likes of Jefferson, Madison, Edmund Randolph and George Mason were men of Virginia and the southern colonies. However, their were some renown converts to the Federalist such as, Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee as well as esteemed Virginians such George Washington. Hence, it would be safer to assume that the Federalist and Republicans were divided regionally due to their economic affiliations and circumstances more so then the social and political factors.

Given the policies of debt assumption, it was Hamilton’s belief that by assuming the states debts it would later serve to stimulate the nation’s economy and embolden the public’s confidence in the government as a powerful confidant to commerce. This also held true with Hamilton’s decision to honor the nation’s debt with her former foe Great Britain. He was convinced, after the tutelage of William Pitt, it would prove to be a reciprocal blessing of free trade between America and Britain. Most importantly, it was a stark realization amongst Federalists that America was in no position to antagonize Britain due to the economic reality of the time. It was more prudent economically in the long term to forge an attitude of neutrality. This policy tipped heavily in favor of northern commerce to the expense of southern farmers. It was the north where much of the industrial and mercantile bulk existed. The north also had supplied much of the goods and services rendered to the cause of liberty during the nations struggle for independence. However, the Republican’s view was that the farmer and soldiers, as well as the everyday citizen deserved the full benefits of debt assumption also, for they came to America’s aide during her darkest hour. From the outset of the policy there was howls of dissent from the Madisonian Republicans in Congress. Madison had proposed that the Federal government assume the debts of the states as they stood in 1783. This was reflected in the attitude of the representatives in Congress towards assumption of debts which was predetermined by the size of the debt of each state. States such as, Maryland, Georgia and North Carolina voted against assumption considering that their debts were smaller and New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts voted in favor. Pennsylvania, with heavy debt was divided on the issue. The stalemate in Congress threatened the very existence of the union and Jefferson stepped into the fray, by urging of the Secretary of the Treasury, and wheeled his influence to obtain the necessary votes to break the deadlock. Jefferson struck a deal in exchange for locating the capital in Philadelphia for ten years followed by it’s permanent move to the Potomac. Both Jefferson and Madison pledged to change the votes of several southern congressmen favoring debt assumption.” Eventually, Hamilton’s plan had to be modified, largely in part of Congressman Roger Sherman of Connecticut. In the end, a compromise between Madison’s and Hamilton’s plan of debt assumption was affected. States with smaller debts were given grants by the Federal government; thereby purging the assumption of some of the objections and particularly of its gross injustice to Virginia

Unfortunately, it would be this same division along party [regional] lines that would fuel great debate over the course of the next eighty years over the rights of the federal government versus the rights of the states and would lead to the ultimate test of the Constitution in one of history’s bloodiest wars, the American Civil War.