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.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

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 Federalis …