Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.
The Beginning and Provincial America to Transition
Page 1 of 1
Introduction
Following the American Revolution it became clear that the new country was in need of
restructuring. The government of the United States put in place during the Revolution was
relatively weak under the Articles of Confederation and ineffective in dealing with matters of
economic policy, security, and more. Therefore, in an effort to address the problems associated
with a weak central government, the Founding Fathers of the country met in Philadelphia to
discuss, debate, and develop a new, stronger federal government. The delegates to this
meeting, though, were far from unified in their vision of this new democracy and intense
arguments raged over the issues of how strong the central government should be and how
much autonomy the individual states would maintain. Additionally, there were divisions related
to the manner in which the new government would be set up. These debates resulted in a
division between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, a development that precipitated the
development of political parties.
The new country was also fraught with divisions related to the issue of the “peculiar institution”
of slavery, which had grown to occupy a central place within American economic and social life.
The Revolution Rhetoric that had undergirded the colonists’ quest for freedom was not
compatible with the existence of a widespread system of slavery. The question of how
government-sanctioned chattel slavery could exist within a “free” society occupied many
thinkers during this turbulent time in American history. This issue that continued to surface in
debates within leadership circles would temporarily be settled when the new nation officially
ratified the Constitution.
The Constitutional Convention The Constitutional Convention was a meeting of 55 men representing all of the states, with the
exception of Rhode Island and its representative Patrick Henry, who was “extremely uneasy”
about the convention’s intention to create a strong centralized government, since previously the
states had been relatively autonomous. His objections were best articulated during a speech
before the Virginia Constitutional Convention in June of 1788 when he denounced the proposed
changes to the new government insisting that Americans’ “rights and privileges [were]
endangered, and the sovereignty of the states would be relinquished.” This new “consolidated”
form of government, he maintained, “[would] oppress and ruin the people.” Most of the
delegates, however, were open to the idea of making possible a federal government that would
have the power to conduct international trade, generate revenue, conduct war, mint a uniform
currency, and oversee other matters of concern to all of the states. The delegates, mostly
younger, well-educated white males, elected the victorious General George Washington by
unanimous vote to preside over the proceedings. Other notable delegates included Benjamin
Franklin (who was the oldest at 81), James Madison, and many leaders of the move for
independence.
Over the course of five months the delegates met behind closed doors in the Philadelphia State
House and debated the future of government for America. The debate heated up as delegates
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 2 of 8
from the large states squared off with delegates from the small states. Two different plans arose
that would ultimately shape the future of the country.
The Virginia Plan James Madison, a delegate from Virginia, came to the Constitutional Convention well prepared
and with a proposal in hand that would come to be known as the “Virginia Plan” (or the large
states plan). It was called the “large states plan” because it proposed more representation for
states with the largest populations. The plan outlined a system of government with two branches
– an executive branch and a Congress with two houses. Madison had also conceived a
separate Judicial Branch. Under this plan, representatives from both houses of congress would
be apportioned based on the population of states. This plan was very controversial, as it was a
significant change from the Articles of Confederation, which allowed for equal representation,
regardless of a state’s population. Naturally, the smaller states vociferously decried the Virginia
Plan.
The New Jersey Plan The New Jersey Plan was a proposal put forth by William Paterson, a delegate of New Jersey –
one of the small states. The New Jersey Plan proposed that there would be equal voting in a
unicameral national legislature. It also afforded to the central government more powers, such as
taxation and regulation of interstate and foreign commerce.
The Great Compromise With the small states pitted against the large
states, there was doubt as to the future of the
government. While the delegates did vote to
adopt a three-tiered structure of government
(executive, legislative and judicial), they could
not agree on the question of representation in
Congress. Finally, a proposal called “The
Great Compromise” solved this issue. The
agreement allowed that there would be equal
representation in the Senate, and proportional
“The signing of the Constitution” retrieved
from: http://www.archives.gov
representation in the House. Regardless of
size, each state would have two senators,
while the number of congressmen representing each state in the House of Representatives
would be determined by each state’s population.
The issue of representation based on population became a major issue of contention between
the northern and southern delegates. The southerners wished for their slave populations to be
included in determining their states’ population while the northerners did not want the South to
have an unfair advantage in the House of Representatives based on their slave population. In
order to address this disagreement another compromise was reached that has come to be
known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stipulated that each slave would count as threefifths, or 60 percent, of a person for purposes of determining the population of each state. This
compromise, which placed into the Constitution the stipulation that enslaved peoples of African
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 3 of 8
descent were less than human, officially embedded into the fabric of the nation the already
widely-held notion that Blacks were innately inferior.
Slavery
The subject of slavery, though, continued to be a hotly debated topic, not only between
northerners and southerners, but also amongst northerners themselves. Although Americans
tend to view the northern colonies as anti-slavery, the fact remains that the North was deeply
entrenched in the institution of slavery. During the era when the Constitution was being drafted,
there were 40,000 slaves in the North. In 1790, for example, only Maine, Vermont, and
Massachusetts had no slaves, while New York had over 20,000 slaves, New Jersey had over
11,000, and tiny Delaware had almost 9,000. Living alongside the enslaved populations of
northern Blacks were thousands of free blacks, many of whom had been freed through the
widespread northern practice of gradual emancipation. Gradual emancipation was designed to
encourage slaveholders to free their slaves with as little financial loss as possible. Once a state
adopted gradual emancipation laws, slaves of a certain age were promised their freedom at a
fixed point in the future – an arrangement that gave slaveholders time to shift from slave labor to
hired labor. Northerners required a much different form of labor than did southerners, as the
northern economy revolved more around commerce than agriculture. Therefore, most of the
slaves in the North were engaged in labor related to domestic service, manual labor, and shop
keeping, and there was little need for the huge
amounts of slaves required to drive the southern
plantation system. It is for this reason more than
The push to abolish northern for morality that northerners were willing to
abolish the practice of slavery.
slavery was fueled by “Revolution Rhetoric,” The push to abolish northern slavery was fueled
by “Revolution Rhetoric,” or the speeches and
the speeches and ideas related to ideas related to America’s determination to be
free of British rule. For certain northerners,
America’s determination to be statements like “All men are created equal” and
free of British rule. “Give me liberty or give me death” rang true, not
only for whites but also for Blacks. While many
Americans were able to separate the idea of
freedom and equality for whites from the reality of slavery for Blacks, others believed the
rhetoric applied to everyone. This, together with the lack of need for a slave system in the North,
influenced northern colonies and, later, states to emancipate their slaves. Slaves were
immediately freed in Vermont in 1777 and in Massachusetts in 1780, while Pennsylvania
(1780), Rhode Island (1784), and New York (1799) made arrangements to free their slaves
under the system of gradual emancipation.
Needless to say, “Revolution Rhetoric” had no effect on the southern states, which were as
determined after as before the American Revolution to strengthen the institution of slavery. The
difference between northern and southern attitudes toward slavery would continue to be a
contentious issue throughout the early history of the nation – a disagreement that would finally
divide the newly forged democracy.
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 4 of 8
Federalists v. Anti­Federalists Although the Three-Fifths Compromise temporarily solved the issue of the role slavery would
play in the new nation, there were still many issues over which the delegates strongly
disagreed. It was eventually decided that for the Constitution to be ratified, nine of the 13 states
would need to adopt it – a difficult notion as many did not agree with the Constitution as it was
written. For this reason, ratifying the Constitution became a significant hurdle for the
representatives to the convention. Disagreements at the convention placed the delegates into
two well-defined camps. The Federalists who were proponents of a strong, centralized
government supported the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists who were committed to placing
more power with the states opposed the Constitution.
The Federalists argued persuasively for their position and were represented by some of the
most influential statesmen and brilliant minds of their time, including George Washington,
Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. They were opposed by
the Anti-Federalists, who insisted that running a large centralized government would require
taxes that would be burdensome to the people. They were also concerned that such a strong
central government would resemble the despotic regime from which they had so recently
separated. In order to control the power of the federal government they articulated the need for
stipulations within the Constitution that would protect the individual from the whims of the
government. They called these protections the “Bill of Rights.”
Ultimately, the Federalists prevailed and it was agreed that the Constitution would be adopted,
and that a Bill of Rights would be added after the document was ratified.
The Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights were ten amendments to the Constitution that were adopted in 1798 and
guaranteed, among other things, freedom of religion, the right of citizens to bear arms, the right
of individuals to refuse to allow soldiers to be quartered in their homes, protection from
unreasonable search and seizure of private property, the right to trial by jury, the right to a
speedy trial, assurance that a person would not be tried twice for the same crime, and
protection from excessive bail.
The Constitution and its Bill of Rights is an incredibly durable and flexible document that has
stood the test of time. Since it so carefully established the method by which the country would
be governed and, more importantly, since Americans were committed to upholding its tenets,
relatively few changes have been made to this document since its ratification. There have been
only 17 changes to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was adopted and every westernized
country has adopted a Constitution based
on this model.
Although Americans agreed that the Constitution was the nucleus of American government,
they did not agree on the manner in which the document would be interpreted. Some of the
arguments revolved around the aforementioned issue of slavery; others centered on the related
issue of states’ rights versus a strong centralized government. These differences would result in
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 5 of 8
the creation of political parties, the descendents of which we refer to today as the Democratic
and Republican Parties.
Hamilton and the Federalists George Washington, the first President of the new
country, was first and foremost a military strategist
and understood that in order to be an effective
politician he would need to surround himself with
talented political thinkers. One individual whom he
relied heavily upon was Alexander Hamilton, his
Secretary of the Treasury. Like Washington, Hamilton
was a staunch Federalist and, in addition to
effectively articulating the federalist position, he
actively endeavored to ensure that these policies
were implemented. One of the areas he most desired
to influence was the nation’s economy.
Due to the expenses associated with conducting the
Hamilton is perhaps best known for his
Revolutionary War, the country and the states had
desire to create a national bank.
accumulated a great deal of public debt and, being the
proponent of a large central government that he was, Hamilton proposed that the federal
government should assume these debts. Much of the public debt was held by the wealthy, who
had purchased bonds and certificates under the previous government, and Hamilton wanted to
ensure that these were honored. In order to facilitate this he proposed that the federal
government institute a cycle of bond sales and purchases, rather than simply paying off the
debt. Hamilton, ever accused of being an elitist, envisioned a large and permanent debt that
would result in continued investment, which meant that the wealthy would have a vested interest
in the success of the government.
Additionally, Hamilton is perhaps best known for his desire to create a national bank, which
would serve as a center for providing loans and currency to businesses, depositing federal
money, collecting taxes, and appropriating money. Most importantly, and possibly most
controversially, this national bank would be free of competition for federal business.
Each of Hamilton’s propositions were costly and, just as the Anti-Federalists feared, he sought
to introduce two new taxes in order to pay for his proposals. One was a tariff on imports, which,
in turn, would raise the price of imported goods and protect American manufacturing. The other
was a tax on the distillers of alcoholic liquors, which would most heavily fall on the whiskey
distillers. As a result of this proposed tax, the whiskey distillers began one of the most notorious
insurgencies in American history – the Whiskey Rebellion. In western Pennsylvania, farming
communities that had started as producers of corn found that the cost of transporting this bulky
item was too high, so they distilled the corn and transported the resulting product – whiskey. In
1794, when Hamilton’s tax on the whiskey was enacted, these farmers not only refused to pay
it, but embarked on a campaign of terrorizing the public officials that sought to collect the taxes.
Upon hearing of these farmers’ lack of regard for federal authority, an outraged Hamilton
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 6 of 8
brought the news to Washington, which raised an army of over 15,000 men to subdue the angry
farmers. No match for such a strong show of force, the rebellion collapsed.
The farmers’ reaction to the whiskey tax is illustrative of the fact that although Americans
supported the Constitution in general, there were many aspects of the new government that split
the American people into two factions. Although the Federalists were in power, they were
portrayed as the party of the wealthy and the elite, as opposed to the Anti-Federalists who,
portraying themselves as the party of the common man, enjoyed a strong and loyal following.
Republican Opposition to the Federalists The Anti-Federalists organized under a new name, the Republican Party, which counted among
its leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, with Jefferson becoming the “face” of the
Party. (This Republican Party is not the same as the Republican Party now present in the
United States). Jefferson believed the United States would best function as an agrarian society
with limited manufacturing. He professed to believe in the ideals espoused by the common
citizen, or the “Yeoman Farmer,” a term that harkened back to the medieval English farmers,
who were not aristocrats but were ranked higher than the peasants, and owning their own land,
were answerable to no one. In Jefferson’s opinion, American citizens should be independent,
individual farmers only loosely attached to the bureaucracy of government, and therefore,
obligated to pay few taxes. His vision of a small federal government that was responsible for
only international and other such matters that could not be overseen by the individual states ran
counter to Hamilton’s concept of a large and more intrusive centralized federal government.
The differences between the ideals espoused by Hamilton and Jefferson are illustrated by the
stance taken by each at the onset of the French Revolution, an uprising of the French people
against the French monarchy and its associated aristocracy. Jefferson and the Republicans,
who fancied themselves as speaking for the common man, generally supported the French
revolutionary forces who were anti-aristocratic and pro-democratic. Conversely, the Federalists
and Hamilton were wary of the insurrectionary impulses that surrounded the French masses’
overthrow of the established religious and political powers in France, a movement that climaxed
with the public executions of the king and queen.
Other divisions between the two parties could be seen
regionally. In the urban North, where industry and
commerce drove the economy, the Federalists enjoyed a
strong following. Southern farmers, on the other hand,
related to Jefferson’s imagery of an agrarian society
people, with individualistic yeoman farmers, and cast
their lot with the Republicans.
Southern farmers related to Jefferson’s
imagery of an agrarian society people
In 1796, George Washington was urged to run for a third
term as President, but he declined. In his farewell
address he endeavored to set the stage for a Federalist
successor, but the Federalist attempt to remain in power
was poorly planned. The Federalists argued amongst
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 7 of 8
themselves as to whether the controversial Alexander Hamilton or Vice President John Adams
should run for the Presidency. In the end, the Federalists decided that Alexander Hamilton had
received too much negative publicity, so, after much wasted time, they backed John Adams.
Conversely, having quickly settled upon the ubiquitous Thomas Jefferson as their nominee, the
Republicans were able to organize a very effective campaign.
Although the dominant party, the Federalists struggled with internal strife. At this time the
candidates for President and Vice President did not campaign together as a single unit as they
do now and each was elected separately. Adams did not have the support of all Federalists,
especially that of Alexander Hamilton and his supporters. The result was that the Federalist
ticket was divided between those who supported Adams and those who supported Thomas
Pinckney, Hamilton’s choice for the Presidency. It was finally decided that Adams was to be the
nominee, but, in an effort to spite him, some Federalists chose to vote for Pinckney. When it
came time for the election Adams did indeed defeat Jefferson and became President, but
Jefferson was able to defeat Pinckney for the Vice Presidency. Therefore, the President was
Federalist John Adams and the Vice President was Republican Thomas Jefferson. Imagine the
difficulty of conducting state business when the President and Vice President espoused ideals
that were diametrically opposed to each other. This confusing and non-productive method of
electing the President and Vice President was later changed to the present system, whereby the
President and the Vice President are members of the same political party.
The Federalist Party was now divided and weakening and they would never again win an
election. However, this party left a lasting legacy on American society in the form of the
Constitution, a document that reflects many of their most cherished ideals. With the election of
Jefferson to the Vice Presidency, the Republicans began to exercise national power and
ushered in a new era that began with his ascension to the Presidency.
Copyright © 2010 The Learning House, Inc.The Constitution and Political Parties
Page 8 of 8