CHAPTER XI

POLITICAL PARTIES AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS

It will be convenient to discuss, in connection with foreign affairs, the organization and early development of the political parties in the United States; since the attitude of these parties toward European nations constituted one of their fundamental differences. After independence had been achieved, it was unavoidable that the United States should come into contact, more or less close, with other nations. In fact, international dealings of importance had already been opened with some countries. An important treaty had been made with France in 1778, and its interpretation was now a matter of contention; the treaty of peace with Great Britain of 1783 was not being enforced in every respect; money was due to France and Holland; and there was a dispute with Spain in regard to the boundaries of Florida and the navigation of Mississippi River. The Barbary pirates, too, were not yet in a state of subjection. These various and important diplomatic matters demanded the attention of the government, and hastened the formation of party lines.

Before the Revolution the two political parties in America were the Whigs and the Tories-the same parties, naturally, which existed at that time in Britain. Of these the Whigs were largely in the majority. The colonists were, for the most part, dissenters in religion, and opponents of the old order of things in politics as well. Whig doctrines flourished in the new atmosphere. In 1775 Lord Chatham

referred to that "glorious spirit of Whiggism" which animated the Americans. It is estimated, however, that at the time of the Revolution about one third of the people were Tories and sympathized with Great Britain. These Loyalists were, for the most part, men of culture, education, and property, who looked with contempt upon the Revolutionary party. This party, This party, with the exception of Washington and a few others, was by no means aristocratic, and the Continental Congress was denominated a crowd of "wordspouting cobblers and tinkers," who found "mending the State a more lucrative job than mending kettles and patching shoes." The Revolution, however, all but annihilated the Tories, and it left the Whigs supreme. From this time on, British issues no longer dominated American politics. Issues distinctively American in character began to divide the people into political parties. Questions both national and local demanded attention.

The first great question of a national character which divided the people into parties was the one regarding the adoption of a new and stronger form of government. This question gave rise, as was noted in the discussion on the ratification of the Constitution, to two parties, the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists were in favor of the adoption of the Constitution, and the antiFederalists were opposed to such action. The Federalists favored a strong central government and looked upon the Articles of Confederation as hopelessly weak, while the antiFederalists would exalt the States and allow the central government to remain in an enfeebled condition. The Federalists saw dissolution and anarchy in the old loose form of government, while the anti-Federalists saw tyranny and despotism in the new. The more influential and substantial classes were to be found, for the most part, in the Federalist party; but, as we have seen, the anti-Federalists were not without leaders of standing and ability.

The struggle of the anti-Federalists against the ratification of the Constitution has been discussed elsewhere and need

not be repeated here. It is sufficient to note that the adoption of the new form of government left its opponents without an issue. There was no longer any reason for the existence of the anti-Federalist party on the old platform. New issues, however, soon arose which caused a new alignment of political parties, though at the opening of Washington's first administration party lines were not clearly drawn. The Federalists were in control, but the antiFederalists were no longer contenders. They had accepted the verdict of the people and were largely quiescent. They were, however, alert for criticism.

It is said frequently that the interpretation of the Constitution was the issue which caused the new alignment of political parties. It is said that Jefferson and his followers were in favor of construing that document strictly and literally, while Hamilton and his party advocated a more liberal construction; that Jefferson would restrict the powers of Congress to those specifically listed in the grant, and that Hamilton would include certain powers by implication. All this is true, but is only a part of the truth. The differences between the two schools of thought were more fundamental in character. The interpretation of the Constitution was a mere corollary to the main proposition. The fundamental difference between the two great leaders and their parties was a matter of temperament. Jefferson had an all-abiding faith in the integrity and wisdom of the masses; Hamilton had not. Jefferson believed that the common people were competent to control the government and by right should do so. To Hamilton the people were a great beast." He would place the government in the hands of the select few. This does not mean that the masses of the people should be excluded entirely from participation in governmental affairs, but that the maximum of power should be conferred upon those men most favored by education and natural endowments. Hamilton would exalt the government; Jefferson, the individual; and as the State governments were nearer to the people than the general government,

Jefferson would retain their strength even at the expense of the national government. These differences, then, were fundamental in the dispositions of the two men and their followers. The origin of political parties in America must be sought herein rather than in an attitude toward any particular question. John Adams was correct when, in speaking of political differences in 1812, he exclaimed: "Alas! they began with human nature; they have existed in America from its first plantation." Adams also expressed a view quite characteristic of himself and Hamilton when he wrote in his Defence of the American Constitutions, in 1787: "The rich, the well-born, and the able must be sepa

rated from the mass and placed by themselves in a Senate." Almost simultaneously Jefferson was writing: "I am persuaded that the good sense of the people will always be found the best army. They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves." Jefferson's writings abound in such sentiments, while in those of Hamilton views of an opposite character are frequently expressed. In short, Hamilton was an aristocrat; Jefferson, a democrat.

Here, then, was the fundamental difference between the two great men and the two great parties which they were to organize. A strict construction of the Constitution followed logically from Jefferson's view, and a liberal construction from that of Hamilton. The matter of interpretation was incidental rather than fundamental. The political creeds of Hamilton and Jefferson made it imperative that each should assume the attitude which he did in regard to the construction of the Constitution.

Having observed the fundamental differences between the two schools of political thought, it will be interesting to note the development of these differences. Party lines were being slowly formed during the first administration of Washington, and the two new parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, were in active opposition during his second administration. Hamilton and John Adams were the leaders of the Federalists, while the Republicans looked to Jefferson as their chief.

These two new parties should not be looked upon as the survivals of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists of a few years before. They were the successors, simply. There had been a complete change in political issues, and the parties of 1793 did not stand for the principles advocated by the parties of 1788. It is a fact, however, that the majority of those who were Federalists in 1788 remained in that party at a later time; and that the Republican party was made up very largely of the anti-Federalists of former days.

It now remains for us to consider some of the more specific differences between the two great parties. In the first place, the Federalists supported Hamilton's financial measures as set forth in a previous chapter. To these measures the Republicans were opposed, for reasons previously indicated.

Again, in regard to matters of foreign policy there was a distinct difference between the two parties. The Republicans were imbued with the spirit of the French revolutionary philosophy of the eighteenth century. They were ardent advocates of the power of "the third estate.' The Federalists, on the contrary, cared little for theoretical notions concerning the rights of man. The Republicans, then, were French in their sympathies, while the Federalists were British. This difference was intensified when war broke out between France and Great Britain in 1793. The Federalists favored the Jay treaty with Great Britain on the ground that it was the best obtainable at the time, and that a rupture with Great Britain was impolitic. The Republicans, on the other hand, opposed it because, as they said, it sacrificed our interests and indicated a spirit of craven submission to Great Britain. The Federalists supported the Proclamation of Neutrality issued by Washington in 1793, while the Republicans, as a rule, were incensed at the action. They favored France and considered the proclamation an act of the basest ingratitude toward that country. It may be well, however, to note, in passing, that Jefferson approved the proclamation, for the most part. Feeling between the