The Federalist party of 1787-1788 was not the same as the Federalists of 1791: the former embraced all those who desired to save the country from the chaos of the government under the Articles of Confederation; the latter included those who supported Hamilton in his plans for conducting the affairs of the country.
Many who acted with Hamilton in 1788 were not with him three years later; but this does not mean that if the old problems had to be faced again such men would be opposed to their former position. The problems of 1791 were new problems; they had to do, not with union or chaos, but with two clearly defined lines of internal policy. After the completion of the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, anti-Federalism died, because its raison d'etre was gone. Although a few threats were made later to dissolve the union, notably by Massachusetts when it seemed that assumption was defeated, such a policy received no serious support from any considerable number of men. In the first Congress there was not more than a handful of members who had been anti-Federalists. Those who had supported that cause now attached themselves to one or the other of two new parties, most of them joining the Republican organization.
Thomas Jefferson was well adapted to head a militant democracy. His mental qualities were those which gave him mastery of the art of leading the people. He was intelligent, quick-witted, shrewd, imaginative, suspicious of despotism, and prejudiced. He was unawed by superior rank. He was a patient, skilful, and undiscouraged organizer of party, and a sagacious observer of the trend of public opinion. His very faults served to strengthen him for the political task which he was to assume. Had he possessed self-restraint and broad-mindedness he would hardly have been a popular leader in the conditions which surrounded him. He had an appreciation of literature, architecture, and science unusual in the New World, and thus gave to his political activity the crown of being a man of culture.
His task was a plain one. At bottom he proposed to build a democracy. Hamilton had rested his plan of government on the influence of the upper classes, a thing not difficult in England, where suffrage was restricted; but in a country which had a widely extended popular suffrage, only the effort to rouse the people was necessary in order to overthrow class influence. Thus reasoned Jefferson, and with wisdom. His new party was at first called "Democratic" and "Republican," but through the partiality of his followers for French republicanism, the latter term was permanently adopted.
The methods by which the Republican leaders sought to rouse the people were not always becoming; but it may be asserted that the appeals of their opponents were but little more temperate. It was the old story of popular agitation, a fight between the "people" and the "aristocracy"; and in the end it fulfilled all the hopes of those who planned it. Popular feeling against England, gratitude towards France, love of state autonomy, dislike of Tories, prejudice against monarchy and wealth, impatience of high taxes, jealousy of section against section, and whatever other thing could serve a turn with the people, all were marshalled in support of the Republican cause. During the revolutionary period party feeling had worked itself out on the Tories; now there sprang up rivalries little less severe between the two parties striving for political mastery in the independent nation.
Jefferson and his associates were honest. If they adopted methods unworthy of intellectual men, it was because they thought them justifiable under the circumstances. Their party was a great machine in which were many parts. Jefferson was nox responsible for everything that a Republican editor might say, although his sense of party expediency might well tell him that he ought not to repudiate the rash utterance of a subordinate which would not have been approved by him in the first instance.
The Republicans were especially strong in the south, where society was divided between a small number of great planters and a much larger group of small farmers. The former were usually Federalists; but the latter were Republicans, although with them there might act many people of means, who from one or another motive preferred to identify themselves with that party. To the rural south, which had little in common with the commercial and manufactupng north, Hamilton's splendid system was a matter of indifference. Moreover, this part of the south, which is to say the majority of it, was Arcadian; and when was Arcady practical or modern? To these people it seemed that speculators and banks and protected manufactures were snares and delusions. They did not think that money could be rightfully gained through the rise in the prices of government bonds and bank stock. They decried the whole class of speculators in securities, although there was hardly a public man in the south who was not concerned, frequently through government favor, in speculations in land, the only other great commodity of uncertain and changing value.
Madison's split with Hamilton, which has already been mentioned, opened the way for the unification of Virginia; for to the young leader came the bulk of the old anti-Federalists and many of the Federalists. Jefferson gave his influence also. The one stalwart anti-Federalist who would not cooperate was Patrick Henry, Madison's old antagonist, although Jefferson tried to bring him into the combination. He hated the secretary of state savagely; and he was growing rich. It was as natural for him to readjust his party affiliation under new conditions as for Madison to do so. He remained neutral for some time, but in his last years he became an avowed Federalist.
The Republican leaders were early made to feel the necessity of the support of the press. Most of the papers were in the interest of the townspeople, or Federalists. John Fenno, editor of the United States Gazette, had been early taken under Hamilton's protection, and followed the capital from New York to Philadelphia. To counteract his influence, Madison, Henry Lee, and Aaron Burr concerned themselves. Philip Freneau, one of the best known of the poets of the day, a native American of French descent, and a strong Republican, was in 1790 working on a New York paper, but he formed a purpose of setting up a newspaper of his own, perhaps in New Jersey. The three politicians mentioned had known Freneau at Princeton, when all were students there. They suggested his name to Jefferson, who agreed to give him the position of translating clerk in the department of state. The salary was only two hundred and fifty dollars, but it did not require all the services of the recipient; and Jefferson thought that it might be something of an inducement to get Freneau to set up his proposed paper in Philadelphia. He offered to give certain favors, also, in regard to priority of news, derived from his foreign despatches, and Freneau accepted the proposition.
In the autumn of 1791 the poet-politician was in Philadelphia and made his bow to the public as editor of the National Gazette, probably the most biting critic of public men and policies then existing in the United States. In poetry and in prose, with satire and with invective, he penetrated every weak point in the armor of the Federalists.
His regular weekly diversion was roasting Hamilton. Even Washington and Mrs. Washington suffered from his criticism. He objected to the monarchical ways of the president and to the court splendor which Mrs. President displayed. He was noisy, but powerful. His enemies called him a "barking cur," and they poured contempt on him and his whole tribe. Their disdain he returned with the good measure of the plebeian who feels the boot of the aristocrat. Jefferson saw the violent spirit which was springing up, and disapproved of it, but he was too wise to attempt to check it.
The two parties were now fairly launched, and they did not fail to find matter over which they could dispute. The two Adamses, father and son, gave the occasion to one noticeable controversy. The French Revolution gave a decided stimulus to republicanism in America, and to check this tendency John Adams, then in England, wrote The Essays of Davila, a heavy discussion of the principles of government, advocating a government in which the enlightened classes should have the greatest influence. The book aroused much criticism from Adams's opponents, and he was pronounced an aristocrat and finally a "monocrat." His championship of titles as necessary in order to secure respect for the government was taken as proving the same tendency.
Republicanism was speedily put to the proof of public discussion. In 1791, Thomas Paine wrote his Rights of Man, in reply to Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution. He published it in England, and for doing so was declared an outlaw by the English courts. In reply to Paine's theories came a piece signed "Publicola," in style so much like "Davila" that the public concluded that it was from the same pen. Adams denied the authorship, and it was afterwards learned that the article was by his son, John Ouincy Adams.
Meanwhile some Republicans in Philadelphia decided to bring out an American edition of Paine's pamphlet. Jefferson had a copy of the English edition in his possession, and on request sent it to the publisher, with a note explaining his action.
He went further by remarking that he was glad to see that Paine was going to be placed before the American public, and that something ought to be done to counteract some of the doctrines which were being advocated in recent writings by persons in high places, a plain reference to "Publicola." The publisher, probably contrary to Jefferson's expectations or wishes, used this letter as an introduction to his book. Adams took the matter seriously, and nothing that Jefferson could say would satisfy him. It was long before the two men resumed cordial relations. The most important effect was the impression that the incident made on the public, by calling attention to a hitherto undiscovered division in the administration, and the tendency was to put the secretary of state at the head of the new party.
Another occasion of the appearance of party strife was the apportionment bill, made necessary by the census of 1790. A bill was brought in to allow one representative in Congress for every thirty thousand inhabitants. After it had passed the House, November 24, 1791, it was found that it would leave unrepresented certain large fractions in the north and none in the south. The Senate voted for a rival bill which gave representatives to the large fractions, and this led to the charge that the north got more than its share. The measure passed both Houses, but Washington, after careful consideration, vetoed it on constitutional grounds. A new measure was then adopted providing one representative for every thirty-three thousand. The extreme Federalists found satisfaction in the fact that at last it was proved that the president could veto a bill.
Relations between Jefferson and Hamilton by the spring of 1792 had become so strained that the inevitable outbreak was impending. Neither could disguise the distrust he felt for the other, and both participated in many little differences in the cabinet meetings. Hamilton was impetuous and disdained concealment, and the biting paragraphs of Freneau led him to move first. In July, 1792, a short letter signed "T. L." appeared in Fenno's paper, charging that Freneau was given government employment in order that he might the better abuse the administration. Freneau brusquely denied the charge, and countered by the hint that Fenno's government printing was more of a bonus than his own paltry salary. Then came a reply signed "An American," in which the attack against Freneau was repeated with considerable temper, and it was plainly charged that Jefferson had used his government patronage to support a political organ. Both of these letters were written by Hamilton, a proof that he had concluded that the time had come for an open rupture. Possibly the object for which he fought was to bring Washington over completely to the Federalist ranks; for Freneau's scurrilous attacks aroused the anger of the president, and if it could be made to appear that Jefferson supported Freneau, might it not weaken the confidence of Washington in the secretary of state?
The controversy ran its course. Jefferson, according to his custom, remained silent; but numerous faithful adherents fought in his behalf. Aside from its political significance, the incident serves to illustrate the futility of Washington's plan for a bipartisan cabinet. It was to the credit of Jefferson that he saw the anomaly of his position and early proposed to retire from office.
Washington, however, was bent on maintaining the existing arrangement as long as possible. He believed that each month it continued more power was secured for the "experiment" of the new government. Before the explosion just mentioned he had seen the estrangement and planned to remedy it. Arriving at Mount Vernon in July, 1792, he talked freely with his neighbors, George Mason and others, about the situation, and from them he received a catalogue of the grievances of the discontented against Hamilton, a paper really drawn up by Jefferson. Washington sent it to Hamilton and asked him to reply to it. This happened four days after the publication of the "T.L." letter, and it is not probable that it was related to the Freneau matter. Hamilton's reply justified himself against Jefferson.
Then the president wrote to both of the secretaries, with the plain purport of bringing about a reconciliation between them. Each responded by throwing the blame on the other. Jefferson offered to resign, and Hamilton suggested that both should quit the cabinet. But it was harmony and not a rupture in the government that Washington wanted, and the proffered resignations were not accepted. During the following autumn and winter there was no open conflict, but the spring of 1793 at once brought the question of neutrality, which made it impossible for things to go on in the old way.
A financial crisis which came early in 1792 was another source of political strength for the Republicans. Capitalists, enriched by dealing in government securities, were so infatuated that speculation became an epidemic. During 1791, United States bonds, stock in the bank, and other securities were steadily bid up, while hundreds of rash projects were launched by an enthusiastic public. Hamilton observed the process with dismay. He knew that the bubble must burst, and he feared that it would injure both the newly established bank and the public credit. He gave warning to some of the leaders of the movement, but without avail. In the first months of the year the market turned. Cries of distress rose from those who saw ruin staring them in the face. Hamilton vainly tried to turn aside the danger by buying bonds from the public and thus relieving the money market. With the resources at hand he could do little. In two or three weeks stock in the bank fell from 120 to 74, and six-percent. government bonds dropped from 130 to 106.
One of the worst sufferers was William Duer, formerly an assistant in the treasury department, but since 1790 the head of the column of Midas. He now found himself in a debtor's prison, from which he was said to have issued threats of terrible revelations if some people who had money did not secure his release. From the horde of speculators, great and small, and from the public generally, there now came a torrent of criticism for all who had been connected with the recent bubble. Hamilton was unjustly accused of some mysterious connection with its projectors. Many people would not believe in his innocence, and his opponents used the occasion to heap opprobrium on him and his financial system.
To these events bearing on the development of parties must be added the political significance of St. Clair's defeat. This lamentable and inexcusable affair brought discredit to the American arms, in a region where they ought to have been easily successful. The Republicans did not hesitate to demand a congressional investigation, which the Federalists could not refuse. It acquitted St. Clair of blame; but Washington demanded his resignation, an action which only half relieved the hot indignation of the country.
From the preceding sketch of political conditions in 1792 may be seen the hopes and chances with which the Republicans entered the first presidential campaign they ever waged. Their hopes were so good that the Federalists felt much anxiety. If Washington would not stand for reelection, what could they hope under a leader like Adams, or any other prominent Federalist. Could Washington be persuaded to become a candidate? It was known that he had declared against a second term, and in the spring of 1792 he was considering the preparation of a farewell address like that which he issued four years later. To the first advances of Hamilton and others he returned a refusal. He consulted with his friends. Jefferson, divided between his political views and his friendship for his chief, hesitated to give an answer, probably intending to get the counsel of his friends; but he soon realized the extent of the demand for Washington, and he added his opinion to that of the other leaders, that the president should accept another term. Although he was longing for rest and retirement, Washington consented. He later had many opportunities to desire that his decision had been otherwise.
The result of the election of 1792 was certain after the second term had been decided upon. The Republicans contented themselves with trying to defeat Adams by bringing out George Clinton, of New York; but Adams had 77 votes and his opponent only 50. In the congressional elections they had better success, securing a majority of the House of Representatives which sat from 1793 to 1795. To have won fifty votes for Clinton in an election which was overshadowed by the name of Washington was no mean achievement for a party which had just been organized. Much of this result was due to the excellent local organization which Jefferson and his followers in Congress had planned in the beginning of the campaign. From now on they were able to carry on an agitation which could reach every part of the country.