Interpretation of The Federalists How a political faction went from the creators of the U.S. Constitution to thrown in the dustbin of history.

by Paul Brox I. Background Who were the Federalists? 3 ◈ The Federalists were a political faction that existed from the 1780’s until their dissolution as a political party in 1824. ◈ The Federalists came to dominate the political scene from the publication of the Federalist Papers in support of a new US Constitution, to the end of John Adams’ presidency in 1801. ◈ From 1801 until 1824, they had assumed the position as a minority party. What did the Federalists believe in? 4 ◈ The Federalists held many different beliefs, but their primary idea was their support of a strong central government that was modeled similarly to the British government. ◈ They also believed in improved relations with Great Britain, instead of supporting the French Revolution. ◈ Their vision of a strong central government included the ability large standing military to quell rebellions, levy taxes to raise revenue, and other functions for the federal government’s benefit. Why did the Federalists initially rise? 5 ◈ Many Americans believed that the Articles of Confederation had failed, and were wanting a more powerful central government than what was provided to them. ◈ Incidents including Shay’s Rebellion prompted a need for a central military and a powerful central government that would answer to threats of national security. ◈ The Articles of Confederation had made states too powerful, prompting the Federalists to declare a need for a US Constitution. How did the Federalists retain their national standing? 6 ◈ The Federalists achieved success as a party during the presidency of John Adams, where they also controlled Congress. ◈ They remained the second largest political party throughout their opposition to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. ◈ They had fluctuations in their popularity, becoming more popular when Jefferson signed the Embargo Act of 1807, leading to many Americans opposing his actions. ◈ They declined in popularity after the Hartford Convention, where they had lost legitimacy as a party. II. The Beginnings A Failed System - The Articles of Confederation 8 ◈ The Articles of Confederation was the United States’ first system of government. It consisted of a legislature with 13 representatives, one from each state.

◈ The Articles of Confederation aimed to make a largely powerless central government, with individual states being left to make decisions on raising militias, the economy, and other important issues. A Failed System - The Articles of Confederation 9 ◈ Leaving states to make decisions for themselves, there was no central standard for the rights of American citizens.

◈ Because of this, state legislatures could interfere with their resident’s rights without any repercussions. Quote from a Founding Father 10 “If the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights” -Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of a US Constitution to protect rights nationwide. A Failed System - The Articles of Confederation 11 ◈ Because the central government could not levy taxes, they were unable to raise any revenue. ◈ Among other issues, one of the most concerning was the government’s inability to pay Revolutionary War veterans the pensions they were promised. ◈ This had led to a violent uprising in western Massachusetts, in which the national government was unable to respond to, and the state was forced to raise a militia to put an end to the rebellion. Quote from a Founding Father 12 “If there should not be a large army constantly at the disposal of the national government it would either not be able to employ force at all, or, when this could be done, it would amount to a war between parts of the Confederacy concerning the infractions of a league, in which the strongest combination would be most likely to prevail, whether it consisted of those who supported or of those who resisted the general authority” - Alexander Hamilton, arguing that a lack of a central power would cause chaos between states. Opposition to a new US Constitution 13 ◈ The stance of the Federalists gained them enemies as well. ◈ Anti-federalists such as Thomas Jefferson opposed a strong central government on the grounds that it would infringe on individual and state’s rights. ◈ Anti-federalists also feared Federalist monetary policy, believing that it would create policies favorable to the upper class.

Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most prominent Anti-Federalist. A Failed System - The Articles of Confederation 14 ◈ Despite the warnings of the Anti-Federalists, the US Constitution was ratified. ◈ Historians recognize the Articles of Confederation as a sort of “villain” in the story of the early republic, seeing it as a failed system which did not set up a strong government. ◈ History would take a much different interpretation of the Federalists as the constitutional republic matures. III. In Control President George Washington 16 ◈ George Washington became the first President in 1789. ◈ Though he never officially held association with any political party, the Federalists commonly attributed their ideas to that of George Washington. ◈ John Adams, the first and last officially Federalist president and Washington’s vice president, rides on the tide of the popularity of George Washington, but later loses his popularity. President John Adams 17 ◈ President Adams had ridden on the coattails of Washington, but quickly reduced his popularity due to the unpopular Alien and Sedition Acts. ◈ The Alien and Sedition Acts were acts to limit immigration and to prosecute against speech that was critical of the government. ◈ Though received well by Federalists, the Democratic-Republican party hated these policies, saying it was a violation of free speech rights. Federalists’ Interpretation of the Sedition Act 18 ◈ Noted Federalist Alexander Hamilton doubled down on his position and stated his desire for a more broad Sedition Act. ◈ When his push for a larger sedition act had failed, he went to the state courts to try and prosecute those who were apparently committing seditious acts against government officials. ◈ These lawsuits were not enough to stop Democratic-Republican victories in New York in 1800, however. The Sedition Act had proven unpopular. A Fair Interpretation? 19 ◈ It is important to note that Alexander Hamilton’s wishes for a broader Sedition act never came to fruition. ◈ No act was taken into effect that was any broader than the original Sedition Act that was signed in 1798. ◈ John Adams and the Federalists typically get a bad reputation for being tyrants, but the scope of the Sedition Act was quite limited compared to other propositions, and it isn’t fair to tie John Adams to this. Tyrant John Adams? 20 ◈ The published works of John Adams counters the idea that Adams had tyrannical ambitions in his presidency. ◈ During the debates on the US Constitution in the 1780s, John Adams had analyzed the effects that an oligarchy and powerful elite would have on the United States. ◈ While other Federalists had devoted energy into worrying about the effects of a radical public, Adams had warned of the dangers of a powerful elite. IV. Minority Party Status The Election of 1800 22 ◈ The Federalists were defeated in the Election of 1800 in Congress and the Presidency. ◈ John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson, becoming the first president to only serve a single term in office. ◈ Federalists had also been served defeats in state legislature races, losing the New York state elections in May of 1800. The Election of 1800 23 ◈ Because of their bruising defeat in the Election of 1800, the Federalists had lost their national standing as a major political force. ◈ They had tried to convince the American public by warning them that war and chaos may ensue if the Democratic-Republicans were to assume office. ◈ However, at first, the calls proved to be overblown, as the Democratic-Republicans maintained most of the structure of the Republic, and did not make any drastic changes. The Minority Party 24 ◈ Because of their defeats in 1800 and their warnings of chaos and war not coming to effect, they had lost the organization needed to reclaim their status as a major political forces. ◈ Historians interpret this lack of organizational power as the reason why they had also been defeated in the Election of 1804, where they lost seats in their stronghold in New England. ◈ The party would need to wait until their warnings were understood in order to rise to become a formidable opponent to the Democratic-Republican administration The Embargo Act & Federalist Resurgence 25 ◈ By 1807, however, the actions of Democratic-Republicans became more unpopular. ◈ Thomas Jefferson signed the Embargo Act of 1807, which angered most of the American public. As such, the Federalists had taken back some seats in the Election of 1808. ◈ When war with Great Britain broke out in 1812, the Federalist Party had become the war’s opposition party, calling for an end to the war and peaceful relations with Great Britain. A Comeback? 26 ◈ The Federalists had lacked the organizational power to be an effective political party for about seven years, between 1800 and 1807. ◈ However, the validation they received when their fears proved correct set the stage for the Federalists to become a viable political force against the Democratic-Republicans. ◈ The surge continued through 1812, as war with Britain would break out. A Comeback? 27 ◈ Historians interpret this surge as the manifestation of unpopular actions by Democratic-Republicans, including the Embargo Act and the war against Britain.

◈ Though they did not get full control of the government again, their resurgence into a formidable political force shows that the Federalists were in fact able to organize and assemble an opposition to the Democratic-Republicans. V. Authorship, Hartford, and terminal decline Authorship Controversy 29 ◈ With newfound success, the Federalists must also hold themselves together through controversy and challenges to their status as a solid political party. ◈ One controversy that arose was the Authorship Controversy. There was speculation that George Washington’s famed farewell address was actually written by Alexander Hamilton. ◈ Because part of the Federalists’ political strategy was to use George Washington’s credibility and Federalist-leaning views in their favor, it was thought that the controversy would subvert Washington’s credibility, and damage the Federalists. Continued Controversy at Hartford 30 ◈ To formulate a response to the War of 1812, the Federalists decided to hold the Hartford Convention. ◈ The Hartford Convention laid out grievances with the Madison Administration continuing the war against Great Britain. ◈ The Hartford Convention was also an attempt at discrediting Democratic-Republican politicians. Continued Controversy at Hartford 31 ◈ Historians interpreted the Hartford Convention as a political disaster because of how they had presented their ideas. ◈ Historians note and conclude that the Federalists had lost touch with the American people during this convention. ◈ Historians also note that when the United States began winning battles in the War of 1812, any sympathy for the convention was destroyed. Continued Controversy at Hartford 32 ◈ The controversy at Hartford continued when the Federalists backtracked on many of their key issues, arguing for power to be taken away from the federal government, when they had argued the exact opposite when they were in power. ◈ The convention proved to be a fatal blunder for the party, and historians conclude that this was part of how the Federalists faced their terminal decline as a party. Talks of Secession? 33 ◈ A more disputed claim is that the Federalists had tried to make the New England states secede from the Union due to the war, essentially making them traitors. ◈ Though there were some talks of secession, it never advanced through the convention far enough to be a serious proposition. ◈ Despite this, Democratic-Republicans used the few talks there were to destroy the Federalists’ credibility more than it already had been destroyed.

A political cartoon interpreting the Federalists as wanting to go back to the British. Talks of Secession? 34 ◈ Harvard professor and historian Samuel Eliot Morison disproves the claims of serious secession talks. ◈ He asserts that Democratic-Republican politicians fed a lie to the public so they could cover their own mismanagement of the war. ◈ The fact that secession talks were quickly rejected reinforces this claim that the Federalists’ reputation as traitors because of these rejected propositions is not deserved. Terminal Decline 35 ◈ Because of these unfortunate turns of events for the Federalist Party, they had their reputation permanently tarnish, and were on their way out as a political party. ◈ Under Monroe’s administration, the Federalists officially dissolved as a political party, and a new era for American politics began. ◈ The once champions of the U.S. Constitution had now been in thrown in the dustbin of history. VI. Closing Thoughts Closing Thoughts 37 ◈ Based on the evidence I gathered throughout my research and analysis phases of the project, historians do not seem to be the culprit of the tarnished reputation of the Federalist Party. Instead, this came from the Democratic-Republican party, and their status as the majority party after the Election of 1800, and the reception of the American populace to attacks made by Democratic-Republicans to the Federalists. ◈ The attacks that were made by the Democratic-Republicans were very effective in tarnishing the reputation of the Federalists. Historians have thankfully taken a more unbiased look at these attacks, but it is important to note that they had to note that such attacks were false claims at all. Closing Thoughts 38 ◈ When taking a look at the Federalists, we will always need to ensure that we are taking an unbiased look into their actions and statements. We need to acknowledge their status as a minority party, and that the Democratic-Republican’s advantage as the majority party will shape our perception of the Federalists. ◈ We also need to acknowledge that the Democratic-Republicans are a political faction, and will say and do anything that is politically beneficial to them. The attacks that Democratic-Republicans made on the Federalists were likely for political gain, and while some of their tarnished reputation would be the fault of the Federalists (eg. Hartford Convention), some were lies to serve the Democratic-Republicans (eg. talks of secession during the convention). The Anti-Federalist claims of treason and tyranny are untrue and biased. Thank you for your time! Email: [email protected] PN: (480) 506-9868 Images Cited 40 “The Constitutional Convention.” Constitution Facts - Official U.S. Constitution Website, www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/the-constitutional-convention/.

Rembrandt, Peale. Thomas Jefferson. 1800.

Trumbull, John. Alexander Hamilton. Wikipedia Commons, 1806.

All references to Stuart, Gilbert. John Adams. Wikipedia Commons, 1800-1815. historians and sources can be Styles, Hunter. “Resist Like It's 1786: Modern Protest Movements Have Echoes of Shays' Rebellion.” Valley found in the Advocate, 6 Mar. 2019, valleyadvocate.com/2019/03/06/resist-like-its-1786-modern-protest-movements-have- annotated echoes-of-shays-rebellion/. bibliography. “Interpreting Public Opinion Through Art.” Omeka RSS, Please email me if projects.leadr.msu.edu/uniontodisunion/exhibits/show/federalist-party/public-opinion. you wish to receive a copy if I have not “War of 1812.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., given it to you. www.britannica.com/event/War-of-1812.