The Failure of the Federalists
A Case Study in Political Party Death
In our daily political discourse, predictions regarding the death of a political party emerge from time to time, and the 2020 election cycle has been no exception. While it is difficult, and almost certainly premature, to predict the likelihood of such a scenario or its aftermath, party failure in American politics is not without precedent. During the nineteenth century, the United States witnesses a number of disintegrations of major political parties. These few examples from the past can provide insight into current trends, albeit with limitations. Still, in order to explore the possible demise of current parties, it is wise to first look at the historical precedents.
This examination will focus primarily on the death of the Federalists, the first political party to fail in the United States. Rooted in their advocacy for a federal Constitution in the late 1780s, the Federalists formed as a political faction during the Washington administration. It was first led by his Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, and were united by support for increased federal power, a national bank, and the Jay Treaty establishing closer ties with Britain. These measures were bitterly opposed by Thomas Jefferson and his newly-formed Republican faction, which often suspected an affinity for monarchism or British-style governance among the Federalists. The seeds for the eventual end of the Federalist Party were planted soon after its formation. Fierce intra-party divisions quickly emerged, complicating the ability to sustain a lasting presence in American politics. The death of its most prominent leader, Alexander Hamilton, in 1804 further destabilized the party. Still, the Federalists persisted for more than a decade after his death, at which point it finally began to fade away. The causes for this ultimate demise are numerous, but in large part can be attributed to their opposition to the War of 1812, as well as the dominance of the Jeffersonian party under three successive two-term presidents.
Dysfunction within the Federalist Party can be seen as early as the late 1790s, evidenced by the growing enmity between the party’s two major leaders, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Prior to his 1796 election as president, Adams wrote that Hamilton and John Jay might plot to elect federalist Charles Pinckney as president with Jefferson as vice president, stating: “one of them might believe [Jefferson] should have more Influence with Pinckney than with me - - Both of them might think, that if I was out of the Way, one or other of them might have a better Chance to come in at next Election into one or the other Office.” While this scenario never came to fruition, Hamilton went further to oppose Adams four years later, writing that “I will never more be responsible for him by my direct support—even though the consequence should be the election of Jefferson.”
Adams held a great deal of contempt for Hamilton, feelings that were shared by his son John Quincy. Following Hamilton’s death in 1804, the younger Adams refused to participate in the funeral procession for his fellow Federalist, explaining that he “had no respect for the man.”
Infighting, compounded by the loss of Hamilton as a party leader, did the Federalists no favors in their hopes of defeating Jefferson that year, and they would again suffer defeat at the hands of James Madison in 1808. Fed up with continual losses, some Federalists began to abandon their party and joined their former rivals. This included John Quincy Adams, who left the party and joined the Madison administration. In spite of their gradual reduction as a major political force, Federalists continued to exist in a diminished capacity for another decade until their final disintegration.
It was the entry into war with Britain in 1812 that ultimately sealed their fate. Opposition to the war on behalf of Federalists was especially strong in the New England states. Accusations from their rivals went so far as to suggest that they actively supported the British. An example of one such accusation comes from Christopher Ellery, a former senator from Rhode Island, in a letter to President Madison describing the situation in Providence following an engagement offshore:
“I wish it were not true that many of our citizens are anxious to hear of the success of the British flag on this occasion. But such have been the acts of the leading federalists that love of country seems to have vanished from among their deluded followers.”
This perceived Federalist allegiance to Great Britain was almost certainly an exaggeration, given that Ellery was a member of the Jeffersonian party and would have had an active interest in opposing them. In fact, it was the Federalist governor of Rhode Island, William Jones, who requested arms from the federal government to help defend his state from British attacks.
In neighboring Massachusetts, John Adams broke with his party to voice his support for the war effort, writing to Benjamin Rush:
“With you, I think the present War with Great Britain just and necessary; and with you I am determined to Stand or fall with the National Government. The War will be as ruinous to me as to you. I could easily Shew you in what manner. But as I have Sacrificed every Thing to the Union, through my whole Life, I Shall not depart from that Principle at present.”
These sentiments were not widely shared across Massachusetts, and the Burning of Washington in August of 1814 only helped to increase anti-war sentiment. The mid-term elections that year witnessed heavy gains for war opponents within the Federalist Party. Adams’ feelings are quite apparent in a letter from the fall of 1814: “The Massachusetts Election has gone entirely in favour of the Enemies of the national Administration. Banish all hopes of Aid from me or my Connections. You may depend upon it, that I and my sons are as unpopular in Massachusetts as Mr Madison or Mr Jefferson: and that even in the Village where We were born and where our Ancestors have lived for almost two hundred Years.”
The consequence of the 1814 elections, along with an unpopular conscription bill in Congress, motivated Federalists across New England to convene at the end of the year in Hartford to discuss these matters. Their primary goal was to express their disapproval in the Madison administration by proposing a number of amendments to the Constitution. Adams’ considered the idea of this convention to be “neither wise, honorable, or virtuous,” which is not entirely surprising given that his own son, John Quincy, was simultaneously in Ghent negotiating a peace settlement with Britain on behalf of the Madison administration.
The proposals made by Federalists at the Hartford Convention were completely overshadowed by the desire by some of the delegates to secede from the United States. Even though this secession measure was ultimately rejected by the convention, the mere talk of separation was enough to do lasting damage. Benjamin Waterhouse, in a letter to John Adams, gives the colorful assessment that “[t]he termination of the far-famed Hartford Convention was as vapid as the last dro[p]pings of the worm in a Distillery of New England Spirit,” and writing to Thomas Jefferson, he also states that the convention had “fallen flat before the unceasing streams of ridicule, which swelled, at last, into a torrent.”
The grievances voiced at this convention were rendered moot when news arrived of a peace settlement with Britain, which had been signed in Ghent a few weeks before. Federalist support rapidly declined into near oblivion in its former stronghold of New England. As the presidential election of 1816 approached, Thomas Jefferson reported how “there will not be the smallest opposition to the election of Monroe and Tompkins; the republicans being undivided, & the federalists desperate. [T]he Hartford convention, and peace of Ghent, have nearly annihilated them.” Four years later, the complete absence of a Federalist Party made it possible for James Monroe to be re-elected as president with the distinction of being the first and only individual since Washington to do so with electoral unanimity.
And yet, while the Federalist Party died as an organization, the individuals who previously called themselves federalists continued to be involved in politics. Jefferson, reflecting on the party’s demise in 1823, noted how the former federalists took shelter within his Republican party. The policies of Federalists did not altogether die with their party, and Jefferson voiced skepticism at this newly-formed Republican monopoly, describing it as “an amalgamation of name, but not of principle. [T]ories are tories still, by whatever name they may be called.” Not surprisingly, the hegemony of the Republicans did not last long. With the retirement of President Monroe in 1824, the Republicans could not agree on a successor, and were thus divided between the candidacies of William H. Crawford, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams.
Even though Adams had left the Federalist party nearly two decades prior, his former party affiliation continued to stick with him during the election. In Kentucky, Thomas Watkins complained that “[t]he federalists, presbyterian preachers and their confidants are secretly moving for Adams—the people are for Jackson.”
All four candidates failed to secure an electoral majority that year, and the duty of selecting a president was passed to the House of Representatives. Adams prevailed, thanks in part to his alliance with Henry Clay, the speaker of that body. Infuriated Jackson supporters vowed to defeat Adams in the 1828 election, and his faction soon developed into the Democratic Party. The coalition formed by Adams and Clay also evolved into a party of its own, eventually became the Whigs. No less than a decade after the death of the Federalists, the party of Jefferson joined its old rival in the political graveyard.
But the split among the Jeffersonian Republicans in 1824 would not have been possible without the earlier dissolution of the Federalist Party. The willingness of Federalists to join the ranks of their former rivals greatly expanded that party, and led directly to a scenario in which division was inevitable.
The complete demise of a major political party in the United States has not occurred since the nineteenth century. It most recently was experienced in the 1850s when the Whig Party fell apart. Yet, the idea that it could happen again is somwtimes entertained by political observers.
True, it is no difficult task to find similarities between political developments today and those of dying parties in the past. A statement by Alexander Hamilton that his fellow Federalist John Adams “does not possess the talents adapted to the Administration of Government” could well bear some resemblance to statements made by current political figures. But there have been many times in American history when party infighting has not resulted in party demise. Indeed, the infighting among Federalists did not alone kill the party, as it persisted well beyond the disputes between men like Hamilton and Adams.
Modern comparisons may also be made with the migration of Federalists to their rival party as their popularity waned. For example, the latter half of the twentieth century saw the movement of many Southern Democrats to the modern Republican Party, which gradually developed a dominant presence in that region. One important difference to note is that this trend only affected certain states, whereas the Federalist demise was broadly felt across the nation. Additionally, as Jefferson noted in the 1820s, many of the Federalists joining his party did not alter their political principles. The realignment among Southern Democrats, on the other hand, was into a party better suited to their brand of conservatism.
Another factor hampering the fortunes of Federalists was their failure to win a presidential election or Congressional majority after 1800. Three consecutive two-term presidents from the rival party while simultaneously controlling Congress is a feat that has yet to be repeated, bringing about the “Era of Good Feelings” and a sense of political harmony. Again, this does not seem to resemble our current political divisiveness, and the suggestion of impending party failure resulting from the hegemony of another seems rather implausible at the moment.
Finally, there is the Hartford Convention in 1814 which did much to damage the reputation of Federalists opposing the War of 1812. This was essentially a case of extremely poor timing. Immediately after the convention came news of a surprising American victory in New Orleans, followed by that of the war’s end via a peace treaty successfully negotiated in Europe a month prior. This caused Federalists to become an easy target for ridicule. Political parties today, like the Federalists, also experience derision resulting from unfortunate timing on their part. The phenomenon of an embarrassing “October surprise” preceding an election might lead to similar ridicule, even damaging electoral prospects, but without causing that party’s death.
It may be tempting to predict such an end of a political party in the modern day, yet the reality is that the United States has not experienced this in well over a century and a half. The case of the Federalists highlights how a succession of certain factors over time created a maelstrom culminating in their demise. These factors, while not foreign to an observer of modern politics, existed in a time with different circumstances which elicited different results. Our current era of omnipresent media engagement, brand recognition and loyalty to long-established parties does not afford the same conditions which dealt mortal damage to the Federalists at the beginning of the nineteenth century. This is not to suggest that modern parties are guaranteed an extended lifespan, but that such imminent demise is less likely. Still, the Federalists provide us a clear reminder that parties do not last forever, and that the safeguard of a swinging political pendulum assuring eventual success should not be entirely taken for granted.
Letters Referenced
Adams, John. 1796. "Letter to Abigail Adams." Founders Online. National Archives, December 18. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-11-02-0230.
—. 1812. "Letter to Benjamin Rush." Founders Online. National Archives, July 18. Accessed August 13, 2016. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5832.
—. 1814. "Letter to Richard Rush." Founders Online. National Archives, November 24. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6353.
—. 1814. "Letter to William Stephens Smith." Founders Online. National Archives, November 20. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-2673.
Adams, John Quincy. 1804. "Letter to Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams." Founders Online. National Archives, September 2. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-03-02-1315.
Ellery, Christopher. 1812. "Letter to James Madison." Founders Online. National Archives, June 24. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-04-02-0535.
Hamilton, Alexander. 1800. "Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States." Founders Online. National Archives, October 24.
—. 1800. "Letter to Theodore Sedgwick." Founders Online, National Archives. May 10. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-24-02-0387.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1816. "Letter to Albert Gallatin." Founders Online. National Archives, September 8. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0263.
—. 1824. "Letter to Martin van Buren." Founders Online. National Archives, June 29. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4356.
—. 1823. "Letter to Samuel Harrison Smith." Founders Online. National Archives, August 2. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-3670.
Jones, William. 1812. "Letter to James Madison." Founders Online. National Archives, July 22. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/03-05-02-0053.
Monroe, James. 1814. "Letter to Thomas Jefferson." Founders Online. National Archives, December 21. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-08-02-0134.
Waterhouse, Benjamin. 1815. "Letter to John Adams." Founders Online. National Archives, June 2. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6473.
—. 1815. "Letter to Thomas Jefferson." Founders Online. National Archives, December 14. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-09-02-0159.
Watkins, Thomas G. 1824. "Letter to Thomas Jefferson." Founders Online. National Archives, September 27. http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-4572.