FREE ESSAY ON WHY DID PARTY POLITCS DEVELOP AFTER 1789 IN THE UNITED STATES

WHY DID PARTY POLITCS DEVELOP AFTER 1789 IN THE UNITED STATES

Why did Political Parties develop in the United States after 1789?
Partisan Politics in the newly formed United States of America was being established
before the stipulated time governing this essay suggests. From as early as the Articles
of Confederation and by the time of Ratification, Partisan politics was well on its way
to play an integral role in the United States political life. It was tried to be avoided
as dual-parties were thought to be a weakness in a Nation, however this was unavoidable.
The rise of factionalism is often paralleled to the fiscal policies of the 1st Secretary
of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton in modern day analysis is considered to be
a man of great foresight, this being illustrated in the three Reports he submitted to
Congress. However, these Reports guided America to theirs
Multiparty system.
The 1st of Hamilton's Reports was that on the state of Public Credit. In this report he
suggested Government assumption of Domestic Debt. This was to be liquidated by taxation,
which agitated many. However, the most controversial
recommendation in this Report was to allow Government creditors to exchange their
securities, which were depreciated at face value, for the newly implemented interest
gaining bonds. James Madison, who will be associated with the rising opposing faction,
was the voice of the opposition. Representing his interests and those of his fellow
Southerners, rejected assumption, justifying this by asserting that many States had
nearly finished paying their Revolutionary debts and that some like Virginia had in fact
paid their entire debt. Thus, it would not be fair for those States to be taxed for the
debts of others. 
Furthermore, Madison contends, with reference to the Bonds, that they will be of no
benefit to Southerners as several men with Northern interests Merchants, Speculators,
Businessmen, had postulated Hamilton's intentions and had bought the 'securities' at face
value and at prices which Nash quotes Madison describes as a fraction of the initial
worth. Thus, the exercise would be of no benefit to the 
South.
It is therefore easy to notice factional differences in relation to regional differences.
The South was already worried about the survival of their institution of slavery, as from
the onset of the creation of the National Government already what they viewed as Northern
interests were being advocated in Congress, they and their were not then as eagerly
represented in Congress as they would have liked to be.
Hamilton's fiscal insight or what Norton described as 'matters of policy', is further
illustrated in his proposal for the creation of a National Bank. This bank would assist
in the creation of one identifiable and controllable currency, it could lend the
Government money, collect and disburse money for the Treasury. This Report faced
opposition not on policy as the 1st Report but on the constitutionality of such a move by
Government. The opposition was represented by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who
both ignored the benefits of such an institution and simply questioned the
constitutionality. 
One must note that at this point that the opposing faction who became the
Republicans(Republican Party), held the philosophy of a 'strict constructionalist
interpretation' of the constitution. The constitution did not give Congress the right to
create a Bank. The Federalists, those who believed in a strong National Government and
the 'broad constructionalist interpretation' of the constitution justified the Bank by
use of the President's 'implied powers' and Congress' ability to collect taxes and
regulate trade, which the bank would do.
The broad constructionalist view and the use of implied powers further strengthened
opposition and factionalism because this ideology could be used to infringe upon the
rights of the people of the United States. This meant that though the Bill of Rights was
requested their Rights could be overturned by use of some other clause in the
constitution. The people feared this. A definite rift by this time was beginning to show
in Congress.
The final Report submitted by Hamilton which deepened the rift of differences which were
growing in the United States was that on the Manufacturers. Hamilton's aim in this Report
was to promote the growth of 'infant industries' which in turn would encourage self
reliance and discontinue the large scale importation of European manufactured goods and
supporting European economies with American dollars. Hamilton also urges the immigration
of artisans.
However, there was the difference in opinion. Agrarianism was a philosophy of the
'Republican Party' and the supporters of Jefferson. They believed that the Nation was to
be a society of farmers, run by small farmers for small farmers. Hamilton's Programme
then aimed at industrialization and had no gains for the Southern farmers only the
Northerners who had interests in manufacturing; the shoemaking and the textile industry.
This meant that opposition due to regional and ideological differences was escalated and
partisanship inevitable.
Hamilton's Reports were not produced until the period 1790 to 1791 and though not all
these Reports were accepted, they sparked opposition in a Congress which appeared to be
unified. It is from these Reports that ideological and sectional differences arose and a
marked split was being made in Congress. 
Another Hamiltonian policy which further fueled factionalism in American Politics was the
placing of an excise tax on all distilled liquors- 'Corn Whiskey'.
Opposition to this policy was exhibited by the western farmers in what is. Historically
known as the 'Whiskey Rebellion. This rebellion is paralleled by Nash et al to the
response of the Americans to the British attempts to tax them and therefore it is
recognizable to many that the American was still very sensitive to the issue of
Government taxation and suspicious, due to its connections with government supremacy.
This measure was not only to gain revenue but to place a 'social cap' to curb the heavy
consumption of alcoholic beverages, in this young and developing Nation. The issue which
spurned this insurrection was that distillation of corn had made it less bulky and
cheaper to transport over the mountains. Due to their lack of military accompaniment
during transport, they lost a lot of their produce to larceny thus unable to profit from
their crops. Distillation was considered to be the answer and now this was threatened
too.
Dissent came to a head in the summer of 1794, when collectors accompanied by Federal
Marshals went West to encourage the payment of this Tax. The Farmers, nonetheless felt
that their interests were not adequately protected or represented and saw the Tax as a
'disproportionate' measure for compensation. The disgruntled came together on August 1st
1794 to destroy Pittsburgh, but because of the presence of such heavy artillery they
cowered and retreated. Dissent was also prevalent in Maryland and Virginia.
Opposition was then strengthened by one of the issues which was never actually agreed
upon in the drafting of the Constitution. The power of the Congress to tax. Many
agrarianists 'the opposition' did not want as strong a Government as Congress was proving
to be as they believed that such a Faction would interfere with their economy and
culture. Party Politics was magnifying . Though the Rebellion never became fully
organised and concluded with Mahyrs of the cause, this rebellion served as a marker of
the rise of the political party.
By 1794, the time of the insurrection, Norton asserts that to the measures taken by
government were clearvoyant. The Opposition 'Party'- a term used loosely here can be
deemed identifiable, its leader being Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Their views, and the beliefs of their supporters, were that ' Hamilton and his supporters
intended to impose a corrupt and aristocratic Government on the: United States'. They
also argued that the federalists/Hamiltonian policies were trying to 'subvert republican
policies'. The Opposition Party - The Republican Party assumed themselves to be the true
heirs to the Republic and these true heirs believed the Nations government should be via
a simple and frugal government.
In addition, Jefferson, Madison and supporters believed in Agrarian Rule. Jones in her
text Limits of Liberty asserts that America was to be a society of small farmers for
small farmers. They believed that the Constitution was the literal path in which the
Government should rule and not just a guide asa argued and used by the Federalist -
'Hamiltonian'. This sparked the growth of Jeffersonian Republicanism.
According to John Miller, in his text The Federalist Era, Hamilton's aim was 'to promote
the unity and National power in the United States' not to create a rift of political
differences. However, as to truthfully put in Cunninghams work The Making of The American
Party System, the rise of the political party 'was not solely the results of the contest
between Hamilton and Jefferson! Differences on foreign policy, which was out of
Hamilton's league also gave ammunition for partisanship in the Revolutionary War in
France, Citizen Edmund Genet canvassing for War support in the United Sates stirred
controversy. In turn, the Government's decision to be Passive in this matter annoyed many
Citizen's as they considered France their ally. Surprisingly this was one issue that
Hamilton and Jefferson both agreed upon. To be involved in the war would jeopardized the
United States economic health'. Nonetheless, the representative group of the supporters
of the French alliance, revolution become a recognised organisation the Democratic
Republican Societies. They criticised Washington's administration because they refused to
go to the aid of France. This issue created a deep rift in political identification in
the wider society. Norton reiterates this point by identifying these societies as the
first formally organised political dissenters in the United States.
The Constitution of the United States was created with the intention of the United States
to be uni-party Republic. At no time was it thought dissent be evitable. It was the
belief that move than one party would make the Republic weak and this weakness would be
undermined by other countries.
Nevertheless, the growth of political differences secured the fate of a multiparty
nation. Further dissent is noted in the reaction to Jay's Treaty of 1794. The Treaty
rectified Anglo-American Affairs, it assured the minimisation of British presence on the
continent and their attacks on the United States neutrality rights in relation to trade
with the French West Indies. The most controversial clause, stirred the 'dormant'
Democratic Republican, was Britain's refusal to compensate runaway slaves and the United
States commitment to pay England their pre-war debts. However , 'unrest; was quelled via
Pickney's Treaty of 1796, a Treaty established with Spain allowing the United States to
navigate the Mississippi.
By 1795 then, it is safe to assess that, thanks to the information. Norton et al has
provided, regional differences contributed to differences political were identifiable
especially in Congress. By 1796, Hofstadter asserts, that partisan has were identifiable.
Republicans were the followers of Jefferson whilst the federalists were those believed in
a strong activist Government, unity of states which equated into a strong National
government. The Federalists were those who believed in Hamiltonian policies.
The Republicans feared a strong 'overbearing' government and feared the rule by the
capitalised of the North; stock jobbers, stock holders, bank directors and brokers. This
was the fear of most southerners and agrarianists. It is from this background that we
understand why the Republicans felt and proved themselves to be defenders of local rights
and privileges. Republicans believed in a participatory government in which the people
had more say on Government issues. This counteracted the federalist view of an elitest
rule Government, where the highly educated, anglicanised and aristocratic gentry class,
served to rule the nation.
It should be duly noted that the 'Republican Party' had foresight in the expansion and
continuation of West ward expansion and the opportunities which this region had. These
little factors by 1789 gained them support from the Non-English immigrants, promoting
equality and though noting the importance of neutrality, still showed empathy for the
French cause.
The empathy for the French cause was further propelled by the so called XYZ affair and
the Quasi-War with France. The anti-war Republicans, did not appreciate the cause of the
action. They stood firm in their opinion that France was a sister country and should not
be attacked. Further divisions, deeper etched the party lines; party ties may have been
jeopardized. Hostility in partisanship and the recognition of Party philosophies is
highlighted in the words of Abigail Adams, who said '... if Jefferson had been President
we should all have been sold to the French.'. The Nation then had realised its factional
differences by the Election of 1796, however, Congress nor the Constitution were ready to
introduce bi-partisan elections. 
Republican philosophy versus Federalist philosophy for the period between elections 1796
to 1800 was continual. It should be noted that the election of 1796 allowed, what one can
describe as a mixed Presidency. The Federalist John Adams was the President whilst
Republican Thomas Jefferson was the Vice President.
Therefore it is safe to assess that the Federalist still ruled the Government. The
Federalist facing their decline in popularity due to the growth of partnership sought to
destroy the creditability of their growing opponents the Republicans. It was realised and
previously discussed in this essay that the Republican party derived much of its support
from the English immigrants. Therefore via theorising and advocating that the Republicans
were subversive foreign agents whose support lies in immigrants, Congress - majority
being Federalist passed a series of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts
allowed the deportation of many Republican supporters and was a well devised plan for
federalists survival, thus lessening the growing political dissent. This act lengthened
the Naturalisation period from five years to fourteen years. Therefore citizenship being
the criteria vote, meant that the level of support the Republicans experienced was either
stagnated or faced decline.
The Republicans counteracted via the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798. These
resolutions were to nullify these Acts in these states via the power of the State
Legislature. This is easily interpreted as the republican philosophy of State rule rather
than National.
The factors that have argued give us the answer to why did political panties develop
after 1789 in the United States. However, the date must be put into prospective until the
issues.
It is often averted that partisanship was caused by Hamiltonian measures, this is only
partially true. Hamiltonian policies rekindled differences that were evident from the
1787 Ratification debates. Many of those present and those who it affected did not want
to relinquish state rights, nor did they believe that a Government should be given the
right to tax, an issue which had propelled them to cut their colonial ties. Thus anytime
after Hamilton's reports can be discussed as time frame for party development.
It should be noted also that for parties to develop their beliefs and their philosophies
must be established and it wasn't until repetitive controversial issues that a philosophy
or belief could be identified and utilised. Even when the philosophy was 'declared' to
gain support they needed to be exposed to the wider public.
This was established via the use of the 'print' media via allyists propaganda Newspapers
and or the Pamphlets and public meetings. Republicans views were printed in the National
Gazette edited by Freneau whilst in the Fenno edited United States Gazette, Hamiltonian
Federalist philosophies were printed. Each justifying their beliefs. Each party position
was precisely printed and the public could side with whose philosophy they felt
comfortable. Each party thus becoming stronger by support and number and differences
clearly observable. The circulation of such matter was nit done until 1791. Once again
the view that development of the party did not occur until after 1789 is understood.
In addition by 1789, the path the present government was going from 1787 would have been
clearly marked and thus opposition could have been definitely established with sufficient
evidence of their actions, to criticise.
In closing, it is fair to assert that the constitution and the constitutionality of the
moves made by government were the main cause of the rise of the political party. The
constitution always faced opposition, by 1789 it was still relatively new and thus how it
would operate was yet to be established thus in the final decade of the 1700's was the
initial start of conflictial ideologies and thus the feared split nation was given
birth.