Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/Conspectus of Political History/Confederation
Confederation.
Particularists.—The Whigs of the Revolution were composed of two classes of men holding opposite views on national government. One class held to the idea that state government should be supreme; they were unwilling that a central authority should have power to coerce a state. They feared that such a government would deprive the states of their freedom, and would establish over them a sovereignty as objectionable as the one from which they were struggling to free themselves. They believed in a central government, republican in form and democratic in spirit, provided its powers were limited; but they were jealous of delegated authority, and looked with suspicious eye at every effort tending towards centralization of government. They were forced to these conclusions by their own experience and that of their forefathers, on “whose hearts the fires of persecution had burned a hatred of royalty too deep to be erased.” These partisans are designated “Particularists.”
Strong Government men.—The other class was composed of men who regarded local self-government as inadequate to meet the exigencies of the public service. They believed that a government modeled after that of England should be established over the United States, and that the governments of the states, if they could not be destroyed, should be reduced in importance. These are called “Strong Government” men. The important matters of the war prevented these conflicting views from appearing as disturbers of the public mind; but after the recognition of our independence they were freely discussed, and “were soon developed in the formation of political parties.”
The weakness of the Confederation was seen by the Strong Government men, and they determined upon a change of central authority. The condition of the country was an aid to them. National affairs were in a bad condition at the close of the war, and, under inefficient government, grew worse, till the country bordered on a state of anarchy. The states looked upon Congress as a creation of the war, and as something not necessary in time of peace. They first ignored its requisitions, then scoffed at its weakness, and finally boasted of their neglect of duty. Their want of unanimity prevented the regulation of foreign trade. Distant nations, owing to the weakness of Congress, were unwilling to bind themselves by commercial treaties with our country. The legislatures of states having ports for foreign commerce, taxed the people of other States trading through them; others taxed imports from sister states; in other instances the navigation laws treated the people of other states as aliens. The government was without power to raise money for the payment of its debts, unless the states willed to comply with its regulations. The United States were neither obeyed at home nor respected abroad. The disregard of law, which, for several years, had been manifested by the legislatures, appeared among the people, and in Massachusetts resulted in Shay’s Rebellion. It became apparent that the country was on the verge of civil war. The advocates of a strong government charged all these calamities to the Confederation, and declared that upon the success of their issues depended the perpetuity of the Union.
Constitution formed.—The constant aim of the Strong Government men was to reform the Articles of Confederation. The first definite act in this direction was in 1786, when the Assembly of Virginia “appointed commissioners to meet in convention to consider the question of commerce, with the view of altering the Articles of Confederation.” The commissioners were required to invite all the states to take part in the measure. The convention met at Annapolis, September 11th, 1786; but only five states being represented, a report was drawn up, urging the appointment of commissioners from all the states “to meet at Philadelphia on the second day of May next, to devise such other provisions as shall, to them, seem necessary to render the condition of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union; and to report such an act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state, will effectually provide for the same.” When this report was made, the Strong Government leaders made vigorous efforts to secure a full representation, and the selection of delegates whose names would give importance to the convention. Congress, in order to sanction the report, recommended the legislatures to appoint delegates to meet in convention at Philadelphia, “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and report to Congress and the state legislatures.” The convention met at the appointed time, and continued its labors until September 17th. Instead of revising the Articles of Confederation, it formed a constitution and sent it to Congress to be submitted to that body and through the local legislatures to the people, the instrument providing that, if ratified by nine of the thirteen states, it should be binding upon those ratifying the same. Congress complied with the wish of the convention, and the constitution was soon before the people for adoption or rejection.
Anti-Federal party.—All the efforts at making any change in the Articles of Confederation met with persistent opposition from the Particularists, who were now called Anti-Federals, a designation which they received from their opponents, because they opposed a federal government under the constitution. This party was in power till the Confederation was superseded by the Federal government, and it “represented very fairly the ideas and feelings that prevailed with the masses during the Revolution.” Most prominent among the Anti-Federal leaders were Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and George Clinton. This party distrusted the motives of the opposition, and feared that the strong government which the latter wished to establish would be disposed to grasp at power and become, eventually, oppressive and tyrannical. Their suspicions in regard to this led them to oppose measures which they otherwise would have supported. They did not regard the condition of the nation as deplorable as was represented by their opponents, and in behalf of their position they appealed to the peace the country was enjoying. They regarded the government of the Confederation sufficient to meet the wants of the Union. Nothing but necessity led them to change in opinion. As by degrees the Union approached dissolution, certain Anti-Federals would accept the views of their opponents. The proceedings of the constitutional convention were conducted with closed doors; this fact served to increase the suspicion of the Anti-Federals, and gave rise to rumors purporting the establishment of a monarchy. After the constitution was presented for ratification, the Anti-Federalists became “alarmed at the character of the new government to be established; increased their attachments for the governments of the states; excited fears; refused to examine and judge; and persisted in their opposition to the constitution till they were forced to accept it or dissolve the Union.” The Anti-Federalists became Close Constructionists, because they wished to interpret the constitution according to its terms and prevent an ingenious construction of its provisions.
Federal party.—When the constitution was reported by the Philadelphia convention, the energies of the Strong Government men were exerted to secure the ratification of the new instrument, and, because these partisans favored a federal government under the constitution, they assumed for their party the name of Federal. This party was in the minority till the beginning of Washington’s administration. The Federalists became Broad Constructionists, because they desired to interpret the constitution so as to invest the Federal government with a great amount of power. Discussions upon the subject of ratification were carried on in public assemblies, through the press, and in local legislatures. Jay, Wilson, Hamilton and Madison were especially conspicuous in the Federal cause. In a New York newspaper there appeared, under the name of “Publius,” eighty-five essays favoring the adoption of the constitution. These essays, written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, were collected and published in a book called “The Federalist,” “which is a classic in American political literature.” The labors of the Federalists had the desired effect. On the 2d day of July, 1788, Congress was informed by the president that nine states had ratified the constitution. That body fixed the “first Wednesday in March as the time, and New York as the place, for commencing proceedings under the constitution.”
Washington was inaugurated on the 30th of April, 1789; and government under an officer designated the “President of the United States,” was then begun.