The first and most fundamental difference between the Democratic party (when it was known as the Republican party, afterward as the Democratic-Republican party and to-day as the Democratic party) and the party which has opposed it (first known as the Federal party, then as the Whig party and more recently as the Republican party) was upon the construc tion of the Constitution. The former party has insisted upon a strict construction, while the latter has leaned toward a liberal construction of the Federal Constitution. This difference is a natural one for the Democratic party, be lieving in the right of the people to, and in the capacity of the people for, self-government, has insisted upon giving them as large a part as possible in the control of their own affairs.
It follows, therefore, that the Democratic party favors local self-government and opposes the centralization of power in remote centres. It believes that the nearer the people are to their government the more effective will be their control over it. The various parties that have opposed the Democratic party have given more or less emphasis to the Hamiltonian view and have increased the power of the repre sentative at the expense of the constituents.
While this distinction has not at all times been clearly marked, and while these views have not been held by all the individual mem bers, the general tendency has existed.
In the very beginning this tendency was illustrated in the Alien and Sedition laws en acted by the Federalists and in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions supported by the Demo crats. (See ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS; also KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS and VIRGINIA RESOLU TIONS). Both parties in this instance went to the extreme, the Federalists attempting to confer dangerous power upon the Federal gov ernment, the Democrats asserting views which were afterward so misconstrued as to weaken the Federal Union. The preservation of the balance between the Federal government and the State governments has always been a deli cate matter, and as the line cannot be drawn with mathematical accuracy there has always been room for dispute; the public sentiment having gone to the one side or the other as it was necessary to maintain the equilibrium. It is likely that this discussion will continue, but the efforts to carry the government to an ex treme in either direction will be thwarted by the conservative middle class, which rallies to the support of the side that is attacked.
Beginning with Jefferson's administration in 1801, and continuing to the end of Monroe's administration in 1825, the Democratic party held undisputed sway in the nation. Jefferson, like Washington, refused to consider a third term, and his Secretary of State, James Madison (q.v.), succeeded him. Madison, following the example set by his predecessor, retired at the end of his second term, and James Monroe (q.v.), who had been his Secretary of State, succeeded him.
The War of 1812 was conducted by the Madison administration, and it was during this period that the Hartford resolutions were adopted by a convention of Federalists which met at Hartford, Conn., in December 1814. These resolutions went further in the direction of States rights than either the Kentucky reso lutions or the Virginia resolutions. They began by recommending "to the legislatures of the several States represented in this convention, to adopt all such measures as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said States from the operation and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States, which shall contain provi sions subjecting the militia or other citizens to forcible drafts, conscriptions, or impressments not authorized by the Constitution of the United States? While the Hartford resolutions announced a political policy, they had their origin in the commercial interests which were affected by the War of 1812 and by the embargo act (see EMBARGO) which was enacted as a war measure.
The Federal party which supported Clinton's candidacy in 1812 laid great stress upon the commercial interests. The platform adopted by the New York Federalists urged the election of Clinton as the surest method of guaranteeing the protection of those commercial interests which were flagging °under the weakness and imbecility of the administration? The Federal ists attacked what they called the Virginia regency, and the Hartford resolutions recom mended a constitutional amendment making the President ineligible for renomination, and an other prohibiting the selection of two Presidents in succession from the same State.
It was during the administration of James Monroe that the doctrine, afterward known by his name, and followed ever since, was pro mulgated. The doctrine was set forth in a message sent to Congress by James Monroe on 2 Dec. 1823. (See MONROE DOCTRINE). The following is the text covering this subject: In the wars of European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part. nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense. With the movements on this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by Causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers (the Holy Alliance) is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This dif ference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or depend encies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their dependence and maintained it we have on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents, circumstances are emi nently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; not can any one believe that our southern brethern. not to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference.