Federalists
See also: Anti-Federalists
CONTROLLED MEANING: One who supports federal government and the union of the states in America.
CORRECT MEANING: In the first years of The United States as a nation, two political parties competed for control. One was "the Federalists" (sometimes called "Monarchists") led by Alexander Hamilton. They were in favor of centralized federal power over the states. The other was "the Democratic-Republicans" (sometimes called "Jeffersonians"). They preferred a weaker central government with a loose federation of the states retaining their independence and sovereignty. Many, like Patrick Henry, had opposed Alexander Hamilton's new constitution (and new government) from the beginning. They became known as "Anti-Federalists."
The Anti-Federalists were in favor of a FEDERATION of independent states (under the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1777) rather than the a new Federalist government where the states would lose their independence. The Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful against the Federalists. Washington and other powerful elitists sided with Hamilton, and the new Federalist government was created in Philadelphia in a secret convention in 1787.
The new constitution did not create a confederation. It destroyed the current confederation by creating a new central SUPERSTATE which swallowed up all the individual states and removed their independence. In the 1860's, the Southern States (The Confederate States) attempted to reclaim their independence resulting in The War Between The States (i.e, The Civil War) but their defeat by the powers of "The Union" proved that the states had indeed lost their independence.
The Federalists had only the wealthy aristocracy. None of the common people were in the Federalist Party.
The supporters of the proposed Constitution called themselves "FEDERALISTS." Their adopted name implied a commitment to a loose, decentralized system of government. In many respects "FEDERALISM" — which implies a strong central government — was the opposite of the proposed plan that they supported. A more accurate name for the supporters of the Constitution would have been "NATIONALISTS."
The "nationalist" label, however, would have been a political liability in the 1780s. Traditional political belief of the Revolutionary Era held that strong centralized authority would inevitably lead to an abuse of power. The Federalists were also aware that that the problems of the country in the 1780s stemmed from the weaknesses of the central government created by the Articles of Confederation.
For Federalists, the Constitution was required in order to safeguard the liberty and independence that the American Revolution had created. While the Federalists definitely had developed a new political philosophy, they saw their most import role as defending the social gains of the Revolution. As James Madison, one of the great Federalist leaders later explained, the Constitution was designed to be a "republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government." Read more...
By Michael Gaddy:
FEDERALISTS: DIFFERENT FROM A MONARCHY, HOW?
What form of government did the Federalists hope to create in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787? Possibly more ink has been spilled over this subject than any other in this country’s history. Historians, politicians and judges have argued the fine points of this argument for over 200 years. I posit that the best mode of discernment concerning this question would be to use the words and actions of the Federalists themselves.
First, let us examine a letter from George Washington, the premier Federalist, to John Jay who would become the first Chief Justice of the soon to be created Supreme Court for clues as to what form of government he hoped to create:
“I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation without having lodged some where a power, which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States.”
Here the future president outlines his desires for a government which will “pervade the whole Union” in an “energetic manner” in order to supersede the powers of the several States. Does the words omnipotent monarchy have relevance here? Now, ole George prepares to let the cat out of the bag:
“Many are of opinion that Congress have too frequently made use of the suppliant humble tone of requisition, in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.”
So, Washington does not see his proposed government to be representative of the people at all but one in which the leaders of said government are to “assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.” From what source does ole George perceive the leaders of his government should acquire this “imperial dignity?” Also, how does a government which can “command obedience” to its wishes/dictates differ from the government of King George upon which much blood and treasure had been expended to defeat?
“Be that as it may, requisitions are a perfect nihility where thirteen sovereign independent disunited States are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with them at their option.”
Right, George, so much for that “consent of the governed” BS ole Thomas Jefferson wrote about–it’s all about “imperial dignity” for Washington, Jay and their fellow Federalists!
“It is much to be feared, as you observe, that the better kind of people, being disgusted with the circumstances, will have their minds prepared for any revolution whatever.”
Pardon me, George but just who, in your mind, were the “better kind of people” you mentioned here?
“What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing. I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of Government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single step.”
My word, George, the government you have advocated above, implemented in this letter, is no different in any measurable form from a “monarchical form of Government.” What else would you call a government of better people who can assert their imperial dignity and command obedience with no concern for the thoughts or concerns of those being governed?
Having established George Washington’s schizophrenic thoughts on the new form of government to fellow Federalist John Jay, let us move on to the government advocated by James Madison in his letter to Edmund Randolph just weeks before the convention in Philadelphia.
“I am also perfectly of your opinion that in framing a system, no material sacrifices ought to be made to local or temporary prejudices.”
Was Madison saying here that the “prejudices” of the “local” people as opposed to those held by he and his fellow Federalists should not be considered?
“I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States, is utterly irreconcileable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty.”
Madison here makes two points in my humble opinion: He has no intention whatsoever of following the mandates of the State of Virginia as pertains to amending the Articles of Confederation. Here he admits to a conspiracy to violate the standing Constitution of the day and does so in writing. Secondly, he proposes to dispose of the independence of the individual states, a point which he will continue to develop as his letter continues. Can we say he was “inspired by God” at this point?
“Let it be tried then whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.”
Here Madison states his belief that a “middle ground” can be established as long as the central government is supreme and the states or “local authorities” are only “subordinately useful.” My, my, ole James doesn’t want the state or local governments to even exist in any manner other than that which would be “subject or submissive to the control of others.”
Jefferson’s “Consent of the governed” mandate again falls victim to the intent of the Federalist mindset. Madison promotes a top-down form of government which is the exact opposite of the bottom-up form of government promoted by Thomas Jefferson as featured in a previous lesson.
“Let the national Government be armed with a positive & compleat authority in all cases where uniform measures are necessary. As in trade &c. &c. Let it also retain the powers which it now possesses.”
Again, A Federalist, just prior to the convention in Philadelphia, proposes what could best be described as a monarchy. Will Madison out and out support a government not unlike the Crown? Hold on!
“Let it [National government] have a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative Acts of the States as the K. of G. B. heretofore had. This I conceive to be essential and the least possible abridgement of the State Soveriegnties.“
This is a point that I have had trouble with for decades; how did the Federalists somehow see the government they desired and obtained as being materially different from the one a war had just been fought to escape? “As the King of Great Britain had” and “the right to assert their imperial dignity and command obedience.” Really, they saw an actual difference?
During 1780, before their stirring successes in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, the Federalists dreamed of a national military dictatorship. General Philip Schuyler raised the call for dictatorial powers to be given to George Washington in the spring of 1780, and such leading nationalists as James Duane, Alexander Hamilton (soon to be the son-in-law of Schuyler), and Washington himself were receptive to the idea.
A convention at Boston in August, representing Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, issued highly Federalists resolves, including the payment of Continentals by taxation, the creation of executive boards in Congress, and a virtual executive dictatorship.
The Boston meeting inspired the New York legislature, in mid-October, to call for great internal power to be given to Washington. In November, the New England convention met again at Hartford, and urged great power to Congress, including taxation to pay interest on the public debt, and far greater power for Washington. In response to this rapid drift toward monarchy, those who would become Antifederalists tried to counterattack by proposing a radical decentralization of political rule.
Throughout New York, for example, local precinct and county committees arose, and Albany County delegates called upon everyone to “recommence acting by committees.” But these vague phrases quickly proved abortive.
Meanwhile, young Alexander Hamilton, who was emerging as the brilliant premier theoretician of the nationalist/monarchist forces, adumbrated the long-range Federalist nationalist program in a letter to James Duane. Ultimately, wrote Hamilton, a new constitutional convention must be called, to endow a central government with “complete sovereignty” over the political, economic, and military life of the several states. And above all, this political power must be based on the coercive economic power of various forms of taxation, which power Congress conspicuously did not have under the Articles.
In the meantime, Congress must build up executive power by establishing powerful executive departments under single heads; and the army must be permanently riveted upon public life to serve as a disciplined coercive arm of the central government. One means would be to grant handsome lifetime pensions to its officers.
The sharp political swing in favor of the Federalists from 1780 to 1781 meant that the nationalist oligarchs could achieve their aims without having to turn toward a military dictatorship. It was more satisfactory to them to work within the existing democratic forms to achieve at least their short-run goals.
By early 1781, for example, John Mathews was content to abandon his proposed military dictatorship, and instead called for dictatorial powers in Congress.
In control of Congress in the 1781 session, the Federalists moved swiftly and efficiently to fasten their counter American revolution program upon the country. Thus a return to British Monarchy using a different name.
Their first step, spearheaded by James Duane of New York, was to build up a powerful executive by creating executive departments, each in the charge of one man. This meant not only the erection of quasi-independent departments manned by nonelected bureaucrats, but also the centering of power in one man rather than in the democratic revolutionary institution of boards or committees.
On January 10, Congress decided to create a department of foreign affairs, to be run by a noncongressman secretary; and on February 7, a similar decision was made to create departments and individual secretaries of war, marine, and finance. Since the linchpin of the Federalist nationalist program was financial, the finance appointment was the crucial one, and it went inevitably to the eminent leader of the Federalist oligarchs, Robert Morris. - from Michael Gaddy