Antonietta Kies
October 18, 2000
History 331

During the 1790's, the principles of the Revolution were indeed at stake. Although the independence from England was achieved and enjoyed during these same years, the main 'principles' of the Revolution remained that all Americans should be equal and be given equal rights (to a reasonable extent), and that there would be no factions of aristocracy ruling over the lower classes. Also, the constitution promised a relatively undemanding relationship with the national government These were the principles of the Revolution that were not being completely fulfilled, and because of this, many Americans had good reason to feel betrayed by those in political power.
In 1791, although the Bill of Rights- a strong attempt to ensure natural rights- had just been written, the principle of Hamilton's program was a direct contradiction to the "lack of aristocracy" principle of the Revolution. Alexander Hamilton, secratary of the treasury, was the father of the financial program to reduce national debt, increase revenue and provide credit. On the topic of his program, he went so far as to say "Men will naturally go to those who pay them best". Branching off of this idea, Hamilton's financial program depended on appealing to the wealthy class in order to, for example, pay off the national debt. It was this dependence, some Republicans argued, that made the plan look suspiciously like an aristocratic takeover of the government. Another action of Hamilton's was the huge, 25% levy tax on whisky. Meanwhile, in the rural areas, the semisubsistence economy was popular and successful among a large number of people. One aspect of this economy was the fact that getting goods for one's self often consisted of merely trading. As it was less convenient for these semisubsistence farmers to go all the way to the sites where items they needed were sold, they often got them directly from their sources, and this often occured via a simple barter. Whisky was a major source of success for many rural Americans, who home-made it. So it was no surprise that a tremendous uproar arose from this class. The law was created to take 25% of the revenue made from whiskey and use it for the government, when the farmers before were happily undisturbed, making a 100% profit from their whiskey.
For those reasons, the Hamilton's program and the financial changes of the government produced a lot of contraversy. For many, it was the corrupt English system all over again! It was clear that the commercial aspect of American life was benefitting from all this, while the rural American's lost out. However, the bank of the United States successfully reduced the national debt by millions, and therefore proved a positive addition to the American government. However, although Hamilton's program reduced the national debt, Republicans and some Federalists who had begun to abandon their party because of this seemingly aristocratic system still argued that it was unconstitutional.
The conflict between Federalists and Republicans remained. Although the "rule" of the Federalists ran basically smoothly under the president George Washington and the influential Hamilton, George Washington, after two terms of presidency, tired of his role. He left his countrymen with a farewell address encouraging that they follow some of his good advice, and the stage was set for the first major partisan election. The Republicans continued to fear and resent what had become of the constitutional government. In 1798 their feelings were once more re-justified in the passing of the Alien and Sedition acts. The Naturalization act, as well, subtly took Republicans in its grasp. Most immigrant voters were Republicans, and therefore, since it increased the years of residency required to achieve natural citizenship from 5 to 14 years, their say in the government's acts was limited. On top of that, the Sedition act proved the government, in control of the federalists, capable of depleting Republican groups' propaganda and voices. As a result of the act, fines were now legally imposed on anyone producing written or spoken harassments of the government in any way. Proof of the government's "justified" suppression of the Republicans lies in the arrests of 25 Republican figures. A faction of some sort had clearly formed. However this contraversy was doubly bad, in that not only did it reveal the partisan, anti-Republican intents of the Federalists' power in congress, but I think it violated rights written in the first amendment, namely: "Congress shall make no law [...] or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble [...]".
Although by the end of John Adams' time in office, the Alien and Sedition acts had expired, the tension was set between the Republicans and the Federalists. By the year 1800, the two parties had developed fairly general characteristics. (LIST=)...
One characteristic the two parties shared was their common belief that the opposing party was a faction, and their common tendency to look to their own partisan members for support in hopes of gaining enough strength to overcome the likes of the other. I think that although the Federalist Papers contained the argument "We do not propose a democracy, and we do not believe in a nation which contains people with only one kind of belief. On the contrary, we support diversity, religious and political". The Federalist Papers also went on to insist that as a result of the proposed religious and other opinionatic diversities, if a large group of people aggreed on one issue, on other issues, the same group of original aggreers would be completely split up in their opinions. This would be an environment impossible for factions to survive in. Of course, the Republicans surely supported the diversity and lack of government-regulated beliefs. Therefore I think Thomas Jefferson once made a statement which shed light upon the struggle between the parties of the decade passed and for once showed them for what they really were. He said "We have called by different names brethen of the same principles. We are all Republicans - we are all Federalists." I think that America would not become sucessful without accepting this belief. There cannot be a Democratic (modern defenition) nation ruled by one political party constantly trying to suppress and, if possible pretend the members of the other don't exist. According to the beliefs of the Republicans said above and the statements made in the Federalist Papers (Federalist #10, specifically) it is obvious the two parties were looking towards some of the same goals. Had a notion similar to Jefferson's sunken in earlier, the word 'faction' might not have been applied to anyone. However, since that which happened DID happen, I believe that the Republicans were at a defenite political disadvantage during the 1790's and therefore, since it was an aristocratic grip on the national bank etc. that created this political inequality among Americans, the Republicans were MORE than justified in beliving that the principles of the Revolution were at stake. Contraversy is inevitable upon the reduction (in ANY way) of universal equality.