Struggle for National Government

Protection.—Protection was begun in the first tariff act, whose object, said its preamble, was the protection of domestic manufactures. The duties, however, ranged only from 71. to averaging about 81%. The system, too, had rather a political than an economic basis. Until 1789 the States had con trolled the imposition of duties. The separate State feeling was a factor so strong that secession was a possibility which every statesman had to take into account. Hamilton's object, in intro ducing the system, seems to have been to create a class of manu facturers, running through all the States, but dependent for pros perity on the new Federal Government and its tariff. This would be a force which would make strongly against any attempt at secession. The same feeling seems to have been at the bottom of his establishment of a national bank, his assumption of State debts, and most of the general scheme which his influence forced upon the Federalist Party.

The First Cabinet.—In forming his cabinet Washington had paid attention to the opposing elements which had united for the temporary purpose of ratifying the Constitution. The national element was represented by Hamilton, secretary of the Treasury, and Henry Knox, secretary of War; the particularist element (using the term to indicate support of the States, not of a State) by Jefferson, secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attorney General. At the end of 1792 matters were in train for the general recognition of the existence of two parties, whose struggles were to decide the course of the Constitution's development. The occasion came in the opening of 1793, when the new nation was first brought into contact with the French Revolution.

Jefferson.—The controlling tendency of Jefferson and his school was to the maintenance of individual rights at the highest possible point, as the Hamilton school was always ready to assert the national power to restrict individual rights for the general good. The Jefferson school supported the States, in the belief that they were the best bulwarks for individual rights. When the French Revolution began its course in America by agitation for the "rights of man," it met a sympathetic audience in the Jeffer son party and a cold and unsympathetic hearing from the Hamil ton school of Federalists, who were far more interested in secur ing the full recognition of the power and rights of the nation than in securing the individual against imaginary dangers, as they thought them. For ten years the _surface marks of distinction between the two parties were to be connected with the course of events in Europe.

Hamilton.—The new Government was not yet four years old ; it was not familiar, nor of assured permanency. The only national governments of which Americans had had previous experience were the British Government and the Confederation : in the Brit ish they had had no share, and the Confederation had had no power. The only places in which they had had long-continued, full and familiar experience of self-government were their State Governments. The governing principle of the Hamilton school,

that the construction or interpretation of the terms of the Con stitution was to be such as to broaden the powers of the Federal Government, necessarily involved a corresponding trenching on the powers of the States. It was natural, then, that the Jefferson school should look on every feature of the Hamilton programme as "anti-republican." The disposition of the Jefferson school to claim for themselves a certain peculiar title to the position of "republicans" developed into the appearance of the first Repub lican, or the Democratic-Republican, Party, about 1793.

Parties.

Many of the Federalists were shrewd and active business men, who naturally took prompt advantage of the oppor tunities which the new system offered. The Republicans there fore believed and asserted that the whole Hamilton programme was dictated by selfish or class interest ; and they added this to the accusation of monarchical tendencies. These charges, with the fundamental differences of mental constitution, exasperated by the passion which differences as to the French Revolution seemed to carry with them everywhere, made the political history of this decade a very unpleasant record. The provision for establishing the national capital on the Potomac (1790) was declared to have been carried by a corrupt bargain ; and accusations of corruption were renewed at every opportunity. In 1793 a French agent, Edmond Charles Edouard Genet (1765-1834), appeared to claim the assistance of the United States for the French republic, and went to the length of commissioning privateers, and endeavour ing to secure recruits. Washington decided to issue a proclama tion of neutrality, the first act of the kind in American history. It was the first indication, also, of the policy which has made the course of every President, with the exception of Polk, a deter mined leaning to peace, even when the other branches of the Gov ernment have been intent on war. Genet, however, continued his activities, and made outrageous demands upon the Government, so that finally Washington demanded and secured (1794) his recall. The proclamation of 1793 brought about the first distinctly party feeling ; and it was intensified by Washington's charge that popu lar opposition in western Pennsylvania (1794) to the new excise law (see WHISKY INSURRECTION) had been fomented by the extreme French party. Their name, Democrat, was applied by the Federalists to the whole Republican Party as a term of contempt, but it was not accepted by the party for some 20 years; then the compound title "Democratic-Republican" became, as it long re mained. the official title of the party. There was no party oppo sition, however, to the re-election of Washington in 1792, or to the admission of Vermont (1791), Kentucky (1792) and Tennessee (1796) as new States.