John James Valente, Jr.
The Republican Perspective on the Evolution of Political Parties
When the federal constitution of the United States had been framed by a National Convention and proposed to the consideration of the people, its adoption became an object of deep solicitude to those who understood it, and of real interest to the world at large. It was recommended by a majority of our enlightened citizens, though it was opposed by a minority respectable both for their numbers and talents. Its merits were at that time u(n)folded and the arguments for its ratification inforced with singular energy in a set of papers called
The Federalist
, first published in New York in the year 1788.
The title of that memorable and meritorious work gave name at the time to a numerous portion of our leading men who declared themselves friends to the constitution. While they were denominated federal, it seemed natural to fix upon their opponents an opposite appellation; and those who voted against the adoption of the constitution were called antifederal.
Such was the state of parties, and such the names by which they were designated, during the discussions on the question of ratifying the constitution. Nor did they materially change for two or three years after it had recieved the sanction of the people and had begun its operation in the hands of the national government.
It is no part of my present object to develop that interesting and instructive portion of our history which followed those events and occupied the last ten years of the eighteenth century. It is well known that during that period the word federalist underwent a total change of meaning in its sectarian use, as applied to a political party in this country. Instead of designating a friend to our federal system, which naturally supposes a republican, it now designates a monarchist; a doubtful friend if not an enemy of republican principles, and of all representative government.
By monarchist however I do not necessarily mean royalist, or the adherent of a kingly goverment exclusively.
Monarchia
, unum imperium, signifies one integral dominion. In this country it would signify an amalgamation of the several states into one great state; which great state, administered by a single magistrate, whatever were his title, would be a monarchy, in the sense in which I use the word.
I must also apprise the reader that I am far from ascribing any dishonest views to the monarchists of of the United States. I consider them as sincere in acting from their opinions as I wish them to consider me in announcing my own in the course of these essays. They doubtless believe that a monarchy is the best form of government. I believe a federal and representative system the best, especially for this country. Let us however live in good fellowship, and in the free exchange of opinions; it is a commerce that may be advantageous to both parties.
Many of the old antifederal men, without changing their principles have changed their denomination, and now call themselves federalists; while most of the genuine federalists of 1788 (who are still the same, being friends of the federal constitution) are no longer called by that name. These call themselves republicans; their opposers stile them democrats.
Names are of so much importance in political discussion that it is doubtless to be regretted that the republicans ever consented to give up their ancient denomination of federalists. To them it exclusively belonged and was appropriated; to them in its true sense it still belongs; they have uniformly supported the federal constitution under all the shocks it has recieved from its enemies who have usurbed its name. It is probable that the danger to which the cause of liberty has been exposed in this country has been greatly owing to this deceptive denomination of parties. The name of federalism was inviting, it was analogous to our situation; it was constitutional and patriotic. The effect therefore of yielding it up to be exclusively assumed by the secret friends of monarchy was powerful; it drew after them for a while a majority of the citizens of the United States. And there is no wonder that in this case it should take the great mass of the people several years to learn to discriminate between men and things, and to find out the true object their leaders were driving at, so as to leave them to the natural strength of their own little party.
In fact the delusion is not yet destroyed. A vast plurality of those who still vote with the monarchists under their federal disguise, are in reality true republicans; and they would have always remained with us, had we retained our original and true denomination, which our oppenents have usurped.
Would it be advisable at this day for the republicans to resume their rights in this respect, and take back the name they never ought to have resigned.
20
(P)erhaps not; but I have a reason which I hope will be satisfactory for resuming it myself, as a writer on this occasion. Being a genuine federalist of the school of 1788 I am going to invite the attention of my countrymen to a few essays on the present and approaching condition of the United States, considered in their federal capacity.
My predecessor the
Federalist
of 1788 showed the importance of
adopting
the constitution; my object is to show the importance of
preserving
it. I shall endeavor to do this in as clear and concise a manner as the disultory nature of newspaper discussion will admit, by dividing the general subject into something like the following sections. 1 The nature of our political system considered under its two great characteristic features, representation and federalunion. It’s capacity of extension, of affording protection to the citizens, of protecting itself, of encouraging the development of the human faculties and virtues of communicating by the influence of example its own pacific principles to other nations, and civilization to other governments. 2 The best means of ameliorating our political system. Exterior defence—interior improvements—arts and sciences—education—new settlements—how far our federal system may be extended geographically—how far its administration may be improved— what are the dangers that now threaten it, or will assail it hereafter.
21
Many subordinate topics will necessarily branch out from these general heads. A wide range should be indulged in the history of other goverments and the progress of the social arts within those ages to which our histories reach, as well as a view of the capacity of the same social arts for farther advancement. So that the prospect in which we expatiate may be duly compared with the retrospect, in which there is no deception.
My attachment to the leading principles of our present constitution, it will be percieved, arises to enthusiasm. I have not eloquence enough to impart this enthusiasm to the reader; but I hope to engage him to form some estimate of so important an object, and to search with candor the means of preserving if not improving it.
I apprehend no immediate danger of a dismemberment of the empire from the audacity of a few daring adventurers whose views are understood.
22
But I would guard against such attempts in future by the best of possible precautions, by making it more and more the interest of every description of citizens to cherish the federal union, and by enabling them more and more to descern that interest.
It is easy to percieve an immense weight of duty lying upon the present generation. It is not difficult to foresee the fatal result of negligence, should it be indulged; nor to anticipate the fruits of timely wisdom and a well directed attention to the unspeakable advantages that providence has placed within our power.