John James Valente, Jr.
It took quite some time for Connecticut to reach that point of political acceptance. Political leaders formed parties early on in the mid l8th century as a result of economic, political and religioua conflict and as a reaction to rule by an establishment. It was hard for the colonists to form and accept political parties. At first they began to attack their opponents with the hope of destroying them. To survive the conflict each party gradually took on the practices and philosophies of their opponents. For instance, Federalists by 1818 began to campaign like Jeffersonians, soliciting for votes, a practice unheard of in Federalist circles in 1788. Similarly, Federalists by 1810, took on the state-rights position they despised in 1788. Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand, offered patronage positions in the early 1800’s as they attacked Federalists for doing the same. Once these practices were accepted it made it easier for the groups to compromise. Ths compromise produced the acceptance of two political parties. Such a system, contrary to the belief of our founding fathers produced consensus politics which did reflect the needs of the commonwealth.
Connecticut in a National Perspective
Political parties formed in Connecticut in a manner similar to the national experience. Parties throughout the country, as in Connecticut, divided over issues of religion, economics, and government by an establishment. For instance, most conflicts which polarized lower house members in the state government in the years preceeding the Constitution centered on religious issues instigated by the Great Awakening.
25
Economic conflict persisted in many states over property taxation. Anti-establishment politics existed in America as early as the formation of first governments. Virginia, for instance, divided its two houses between those who were thought of as “in” and those “out” of power.
Connecticut parties formed early in American history, but took a longer time to achieve acceptance than those in other states not until after the Convention of 1818. This slowness to accept political parties might be explained by Connecticut’s abundance of political conservatives and strength of religious orthodoxy. One historian has attributed this conservatism to Connecticut’a tremendous out-migration.
26
The Turnerian thesis would hold that this exodus permeitted conservatism because most of the dissidents left the state. For a full discussion of the Turner Thesis and its application to Connecticut, see Unit VI in this volume. Whatever the cause, Connecticut did have many articulate conservatives like Noah Webster and Timothy Dwight who continually preached against the horrors of political parties. The profuse existence of this negative philosophy may have deterred party formation and acceptance in Connecticut.
On both the national level and in Connecticut, parties were not created to destroy the government. As parties developed, although they were hell bent to destroy one another, they remained loyal to the country. This political anomaly, which is radically different from most world experiences, can, I think be explained by this country’s intense hatred for political parties. Although other countries had a similar distrust for parties, they did not have an intense hatred for them. Political philosophy was to subordinate conflict for the common good in America. In reality, this philosophy broke down early in America, but it was not forgotten. Rather than subvert their consensus ideal, Americans created political parties which would allow loyal conflict to exist. Besides allowing the ideal to exist, loyal opposition serves two important functions for the American political system: 1) it encourages people to remain fairly active in politics because it provides them with a stable outlet for their political desires, 2) it removes the possibility of political stagnation by one party or one form of government because it always suggests a conflict or an alternative.
Why Two Parties?
Recent scholarship on the existence of political parties in America has touched upon another anomaly typical in the American experience the existence of two parties. V. O. Key and Frank Sorauf submit that there is no one factor which has predisposed America to be a two party society. Some factors do, however, support the existence of a twoparty system more than others. In summary there are four major factors which seem to explain the existence of two parties in America: 1) our English background gave the colonists intellectual baggage which supports the continual existence of two parties, Whigs and Tories. Even in Connecticut colonists began to divide into groups of what they considered to be Whigs and Tories in the 1760’s and 1770’s. 2) Institutional factors which necessitate an election won by the majority vote of the people supports the existence of two parties. It is far easier for a majority vote to be agreed upon when two parties are involved than when more than two are involved. 3) The existence of single member districts forces the winning of only one party. 4) Social factors influence the existence of two parties. In a society with marred or hidden class consciousness the stakes in politics are smaller and the kinds of tolerance, compromise and confession necessary for a two party system to exist are easily attainable.
27
Study of Joel Barlow and Noah Webster
One way of understanding the complexities of party development is to study some of the writings and lives of some of the party’s members. In Connecticut there were a variety of writers who produced party polemic. Among them are Noah Webster, Timothy Dwight, Roger Griswold (Federalists); Joel Barlow, Emphraim Kirby, and Abraham Bishop (Democratic-Republicans). All of them present articulate views of party development and differences. Although literature from each party was tainted with anti-party philosophy, the most harsh anti-party sentiments were expressed by Federalists. Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand, tended to emphasize egalitarianism, and were more tolerant of parties. This section sketches an outline of the lives of Moah Webster and Joel Barlow in an attempt to illuminate the contemporary political philosophies in early America. Joel Barlow was selected for two reasons: 1) he changed his partisanship during his life, and 2) he is known as one of the most influential American liberals of the years between the end of the American Revolution and the War of 1812. Noah Webster was selected for his intense conservative Federalist philosophies about political parties. Both men will reflect what it was like to be caught in the nexus of early political parties.
Noah Webster (1758-1843)
Noah Webster is probably remembered more for his dictionary than for his political philosophies. Nonetheless, Webster did write many political statements which were taken as views of the Federalist party.
Webster was born in what is now West Martford on October 16th, 1758, and attended Yale from 1774-1778. During his school days, Webster, a fervent patriot, set off to fight at Saratoga but was dismayed when the battle wss finished before he got there. It was not until 1785 that Webster wrote his first political pamphlet “Sketches of American Foreign Policy,” which helped shape the developing principles of the Constitution. Webster maintained throughout his life that he abhorred parties and was a non-partisan-though moat considered him to be a Federalist. Geroge Washington, was to Webster, the symbol of true Americanism.
28
In his
History of Political Parties
(1843) (see section in Appendix D) Webster concisely articulates the Federalist abhorrance of political parties and fear of the Democratic-Republicans. The work, he said, was written to “record my testimony against the audacious practice of publishing misrepresentationa for party purposea. In short, this practice frustrates the great object of a rePublican government, by subjecting our citizens to the sway of some petty oligarchy, changeable every four years.” Webster lays the blame for political party development on the structure of the Constitution and on the desires of selfish men.
Joel Barlow (1754-1812)
Joel Barlow was a Connecticut born poet, writer, and diplomat who was considered one of the most influential American liberals between the Revolution and the War of 1812. Between 1783 and 1787 Barlow was a member of the Hartford Wits a group of Yale poets who were motivated not only by a love of literature but also by their Revolutionary past. Their goal was to initiate a national literature that would reflect American principles and accomplishments. Their work praised the institutions of the United States and the cause of human rights while attacking the beliefs of the anti-establishment (Anti-Federalists). Barlow was a true Federalist who had a deep desire for national unity. According to Barlow this desire could be fulfilled through the publication of literature which glorified the American past and brought hope to its future. One auch work published by Barlow was
Vision of Columbus
(1787), a nine book epic in which an angel exhibits America to Columbus as the harbinger of universal peace. The work received acclaim, though much of it was uncritical.
Barlow’s perochial American perspective widened when he moved to France in 1788 to work for the Soioto Land Company. While in France he made little money for the land speculation company, but made a great deal for himself. Between 1790 and 1792 he lived in London and set his literary sights on an attack an the established church, feudal property rights, and monarchism in his pamphlet
Advice to the Privileged Orders
(1792). In that same year Barlow changed his partisanship to Democratic-Republican. Barlow changed parties for two reasons: 1) he agreed with the Democratic-Republican sympathies for the French Revolution, and 2) he believed that the Federalists of 1792 were not the same party as they were in 1788, but has become monarchists and apologists for the decadent British cause.
29
At the prodding of Thomas Jefferson, a close friend, Barlow began to work on a history of the United States in 1810 which would “serve as an antidote to the Federalist history now in print.” By the time of his death, Barlow had finished only three small sections of the work. (See in Appendix E). The work well articulates the Republican spirit of the time. In the first section Berlow attacks the Federalists of 1810 as hypocrites to their name. To Barlow the Democratic-Republicans had become the true Federalists of 1788. In section two of the work Barlow demonstrates the Democratic-Republican propensity to accept experiment in govornment. Federalists, on the other hand, as we had seen through Webster prefer experience over experiment.
30