HIS Disccussion 6
CHAPTER 8
Growing Pains: The New Republic,
1790–1820
Figure 8.1 “The happy Effects of the Grand Systom [sic] of shutting Ports against the English!!” appeared in 1808.
Less than a year earlier, Thomas Jefferson had recommended (and Congress had passed) the Embargo Act of 1807,
which barred American ships from leaving their ports.
Chapter Outline
8.1 Competing Visions: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
8.2 The New American Republic
8.3 Partisan Politics
8.4 The United States Goes Back to War
Introduction
The partisan political cartoon above ( Figure 8.1 ) lampoons Thomas Jefferson’s 1807 Embargo Act, a
move that had a devastating effect on American commerce. American farmers and merchants complain to
President Jefferson, while the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte whispers to him, “You shall be King
hereafter.” This image illustrates one of many political struggles in the years after the fight for ratification
of the Constitution. In the nation’s first few years, no organized political parties existed. This began to
change as U.S. citizens argued bitterly about the proper size and scope of the new national government.
As a result, the 1790s witnessed the rise of opposing political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-
Republicans. Federalists saw unchecked democracy as a dire threat to the republic, and they pointed to
the excesses of the French Revolution as proof of what awaited. Democratic-Republicans opposed the
Federalists’ notion that only the wellborn and well educated were able to oversee the republic; they saw it
as a pathway to oppression by an aristocracy.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 217 8.1 Competing Visions: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the competing visions of the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans
• Identify the protections granted to citizens under the Bill of Rights
• Explain Alexander Hamilton’s financial programs as secretary of the treasury
In June 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the federal Constitution, and the new plan
for a strong central government went into effect. Elections for the first U.S. Congress were held in 1788
and 1789, and members took their seats in March 1789. In a reflection of the trust placed in him as the
personification of republican virtue, George Washington became the first president in April 1789. John
Adams served as his vice president; the pairing of a representative from Virginia (Washington) with one
from Massachusetts (Adams) symbolized national unity. Nonetheless, political divisions quickly became
apparent. Washington and Adams represented the Federalist Party, which generated a backlash among
those who resisted the new government’s assertions of federal power.
FEDERALISTS IN POWER
Though the Revolution had overthrown British rule in the United States, supporters of the 1787 federal
constitution, known as Federalists, adhered to a decidedly British notion of social hierarchy. The
Federalists did not, at first, compose a political party. Instead, Federalists held certain shared assumptions.
For them, political participation continued to be linked to property rights, which barred many citizens
from voting or holding office. Federalists did not believe the Revolution had changed the traditional social
roles between women and men, or between whites and other races. They did believe in clear distinctions
in rank and intelligence. To these supporters of the Constitution, the idea that all were equal appeared
ludicrous. Women, blacks, and native peoples, they argued, had to know their place as secondary to white
male citizens. Attempts to impose equality, they feared, would destroy the republic. The United States was
not created to be a democracy.
The architects of the Constitution committed themselves to leading the new republic, and they held a
majority among the members of the new national government. Indeed, as expected, many assumed the
new executive posts the first Congress created. Washington appointed Alexander Hamilton, a leading
Figure 8.2
218 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Federalist, as secretary of the treasury. For secretary of state, he chose Thomas Jefferson. For secretary
of war, he appointed Henry Knox, who had served with him during the Revolutionary War. Edmond
Randolph, a Virginia delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was named attorney general. In July 1789,
Congress also passed the Judiciary Act, creating a Supreme Court of six justices headed by those who were
committed to the new national government.
Congress passed its first major piece of legislation by placing a duty on imports under the 1789 Tariff
Act. Intended to raise revenue to address the country’s economic problems, the act was a victory for
nationalists, who favored a robust, powerful federal government and had worked unsuccessfully for
similar measures during the Confederation Congress in the 1780s. Congress also placed a fifty-cent-per-
ton duty (based on materials transported, not the weight of a ship) on foreign ships coming into American
ports, a move designed to give the commercial advantage to American ships and goods.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Many Americans opposed the 1787 Constitution because it seemed a dangerous concentration of
centralized power that threatened the rights and liberties of ordinary U.S. citizens. These opponents,
known collectively as Anti-Federalists, did not constitute a political party, but they united in demanding
protection for individual rights, and several states made the passing of a bill of rights a condition of their
acceptance of the Constitution. Rhode Island and North Carolina rejected the Constitution because it did
not already have this specific bill of rights.
Federalists followed through on their promise to add such a bill in 1789, when Virginia Representative
James Madison introduced and Congress approved the Bill of Rights (Table 8.1 ). Adopted in 1791, the bill
consisted of the first ten amendments to the Constitution and outlined many of the personal rights state
constitutions already guaranteed.
Table 8.1 Rights Protected by the First Ten Amendments
Amendment 1 Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the
government for redress of grievances
Amendment 2 Right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia
Amendment 3 Right not to house soldiers during time of war
Amendment 4 Right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure
Amendment 5 Rights in criminal cases, including to due process and indictment by grand jury for
capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself
Amendment 6 Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
Amendment 7 Right to a jury trial in civil cases
Amendment 8 Right not to face excessive bail or fines, or cruel and unusual punishment
Amendment 9 Rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the
Constitution
Amendment 10 States’ rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government
The adoption of the Bill of Rights softened the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to the Constitution and gave
the new federal government greater legitimacy among those who otherwise distrusted the new centralized
power created by men of property during the secret 1787 Philadelphia Constitutional Convention.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 219 Visit the National Archives (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/BillRights) to consider the
first ten amendments to the Constitution as an expression of the fears many citizens
harbored about the powers of the new federal government. What were these fears?
How did the Bill of Rights calm them?
ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S PROGRAM
Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s secretary of the treasury, was an ardent nationalist who believed a
strong federal government could solve many of the new country’s financial ills. Born in the West Indies,
Hamilton had worked on a St. Croix plantation as a teenager and was in charge of the accounts at a young
age. He knew the Atlantic trade very well and used that knowledge in setting policy for the United States.
In the early 1790s, he created the foundation for the U.S. financial system. He understood that a robust
federal government would provide a solid financial foundation for the country.
The United States began mired in debt. In 1789, when Hamilton took up his post, the federal debt was
over $53 million. The states had a combined debt of around $25 million, and the United States had been
unable to pay its debts in the 1780s and was therefore considered a credit risk by European countries.
Hamilton wrote three reports offering solutions to the economic crisis brought on by these problems. The
first addressed public credit, the second addressed banking, and the third addressed raising revenue.
The Report on Public Credit
For the national government to be effective, Hamilton deemed it essential to have the support of those to
whom it owed money: the wealthy, domestic creditor class as well as foreign creditors. In January 1790, he
delivered his “Report on Public Credit“ ( Figure 8.3 ), addressing the pressing need of the new republic to
become creditworthy. He recommended that the new federal government honor all its debts, including all
paper money issued by the Confederation and the states during the war, at face value. Hamilton especially
wanted wealthy American creditors who held large amounts of paper money to be invested, literally, in
the future and welfare of the new national government. He also understood the importance of making the
new United States financially stable for creditors abroad. To pay these debts, Hamilton proposed that the
federal government sell bonds—federal interest-bearing notes—to the public. These bonds would have the
backing of the government and yield interest payments. Creditors could exchange their old notes for the
new government bonds. Hamilton wanted to give the paper money that states had issued during the war
the same status as government bonds; these federal notes would begin to yield interest payments in 1792.
Click and Explore
220 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Figure 8.3 As the first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (a), shown here in a 1792 portrait by John
Trumbull, released the “Report on Public Credit” (b) in January 1790.
Hamilton designed his “Report on Public Credit” (later called “First Report on Public Credit”) to ensure
the survival of the new and shaky American republic. He knew the importance of making the United States
financially reliable, secure, and strong, and his plan provided a blueprint to achieve that goal. He argued
that his plan would satisfy creditors, citing the goal of “doing justice to the creditors of the nation.” At
the same time, the plan would work “to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to
answer the calls for justice; to restore landed property to its due value; to furnish new resources both to
agriculture and commerce; to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against
foreign attack; to establish public order on the basis of upright and liberal policy.”
Hamilton’s program ignited a heated debate in Congress. A great many of both Confederation and state
notes had found their way into the hands of speculators, who had bought them from hard-pressed
veterans in the 1780s and paid a fraction of their face value in anticipation of redeeming them at full value
at a later date. Because these speculators held so many notes, many in Congress objected that Hamilton’s
plan would benefit them at the expense of the original note-holders. One of those who opposed Hamilton’s
1790 report was James Madison, who questioned the fairness of a plan that seemed to cheat poor soldiers.
Not surprisingly, states with a large debt, like South Carolina, supported Hamilton’s plan, while states
with less debt, like North Carolina, did not. To gain acceptance of his plan, Hamilton worked out a
compromise with Virginians Madison and Jefferson, whereby in return for their support he would give up
New York City as the nation’s capital and agree on a more southern location, which they preferred. In July
1790, a site along the Potomac River was selected as the new “federal city,” which became the District of
Columbia.
Hamilton’s plan to convert notes to bonds worked extremely well to restore European confidence in the
U.S. economy. It also proved a windfall for creditors, especially those who had bought up state and
Confederation notes at far less than face value. But it immediately generated controversy about the size
and scope of the government. Some saw the plan as an unjust use of federal power, while Hamilton argued
that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution granted the government “implied powers” that gave the green
light to his program.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 221 The Report on a National Bank
As secretary of the treasury, Hamilton hoped to stabilize the American economy further by establishing a
national bank. The United States operated with a flurry of different notes from multiple state banks and
no coherent regulation. By proposing that the new national bank buy up large volumes of state bank notes
and demanding their conversion into gold, Hamilton especially wanted to discipline those state banks that
issued paper money irresponsibly. To that end, he delivered his “Report on a National Bank” in December
1790, proposing a Bank of the United States, an institution modeled on the Bank of England. The bank
would issue loans to American merchants and bills of credit (federal bank notes that would circulate as
money) while serving as a repository of government revenue from the sale of land. Stockholders would
own the bank, along with the federal government.
Like the recommendations in his “Report on Public Credit,” Hamilton’s bank proposal generated
opposition. Jefferson, in particular, argued that the Constitution did not permit the creation of a national
bank. In response, Hamilton again invoked the Constitution’s implied powers. President Washington
backed Hamilton’s position and signed legislation creating the bank in 1791.
The Report on Manufactures
The third report Hamilton delivered to Congress, known as the “Report on Manufactures,” addressed
the need to raise revenue to pay the interest on the national debt. Using the power to tax as provided
under the Constitution, Hamilton put forth a proposal to tax American-made whiskey. He also knew the
importance of promoting domestic manufacturing so the new United States would no longer have to rely
on imported manufactured goods. To break from the old colonial system, Hamilton therefore advocated
tariffs on all foreign imports to stimulate the production of American-made goods. To promote domestic
industry further, he proposed federal subsidies to American industries. Like all of Hamilton’s programs,
the idea of government involvement in the development of American industries was new.
With the support of Washington, the entire Hamiltonian economic program received the necessary
support in Congress to be implemented. In the long run, Hamilton’s financial program helped to rescue the
United States from its state of near-bankruptcy in the late 1780s. His initiatives marked the beginning of an
American capitalism, making the republic creditworthy, promoting commerce, and setting for the nation
a solid financial foundation. His policies also facilitated the growth of the stock market, as U.S. citizens
bought and sold the federal government’s interest-bearing certificates.
THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE FIRST PARTY SYSTEM
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson felt the federal government had overstepped its authority by
adopting the treasury secretary’s plan. Madison found Hamilton’s scheme immoral and offensive. He
argued that it turned the reins of government over to the class of speculators who profited at the expense
of hardworking citizens.
Jefferson, who had returned to the United States in 1790 after serving as a diplomat in France, tried
unsuccessfully to convince Washington to block the creation of a national bank. He also took issue with
what he perceived as favoritism given to commercial classes in the principal American cities. He thought
urban life widened the gap between the wealthy few and an underclass of landless poor workers who,
because of their oppressed condition, could never be good republican property owners. Rural areas, in
contrast, offered far more opportunities for property ownership and virtue. In 1783 Jefferson wrote, “Those
who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people.” Jefferson believed
that self-sufficient, property-owning republican citizens or yeoman farmers held the key to the success and
longevity of the American republic. (As a creature of his times, he did not envision a similar role for either
women or nonwhite men.) To him, Hamilton’s program seemed to encourage economic inequalities and
work against the ordinary American yeoman.
222 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Opposition to Hamilton, who had significant power in the new federal government, including the ear of
President Washington, began in earnest in the early 1790s. Jefferson turned to his friend Philip Freneau to
help organize the effort through the publication of the National Gazette as a counter to the Federalist press,
especially the Gazette of the United States (Figure 8.4 ). From 1791 until 1793, when it ceased publication,
Freneau’s partisan paper attacked Hamilton’s program and Washington’s administration. “Rules for
Changing a Republic into a Monarchy,” written by Freneau, is an example of the type of attack aimed at the
national government, and especially at the elitism of the Federalist Party. Newspapers in the 1790s became
enormously important in American culture as partisans like Freneau attempted to sway public opinion.
These newspapers did not aim to be objective; instead, they served to broadcast the views of a particular
party.
Figure 8.4 Here, the front page of the Federalist Gazette of the United States from September 9, 1789 (a), is shown
beside that of the oppositional National Gazette from November 14, 1791 (b). The Gazette of the United States
featured articles, sometimes written pseudonymously or anonymously, from leading Federalists like Alexander
Hamilton and John Adams. The National Gazette was founded two years later to counter their political influence.
Visit Lexrex.com (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/NatGazette) to read Philip Freneau’s
essay and others from the National Gazette . Can you identify three instances of
persuasive writing against the Federalist Party or the government?
Opposition to the Federalists led to the formation of Democratic-Republican societies, composed of men
who felt the domestic policies of the Washington administration were designed to enrich the few while
ignoring everyone else. Democratic-Republicans championed limited government. Their fear of
Click and Explore
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 223 centralized power originated in the experience of the 1760s and 1770s when the distant, overbearing,
and seemingly corrupt British Parliament attempted to impose its will on the colonies. The 1787 federal
constitution, written in secret by fifty-five wealthy men of property and standing, ignited fears of a similar
menacing plot. To opponents, the Federalists promoted aristocracy and a monarchical government—a
betrayal of what many believed to be the goal of the American Revolution.
While wealthy merchants and planters formed the core of the Federalist leadership, members of the
Democratic-Republican societies in cities like Philadelphia and New York came from the ranks of artisans.
These citizens saw themselves as acting in the spirit of 1776, this time not against the haughty British but
by what they believed to have replaced them—a commercial class with no interest in the public good.
Their political efforts against the Federalists were a battle to preserve republicanism, to promote the public
good against private self-interest. They published their views, held meetings to voice their opposition,
and sponsored festivals and parades. In their strident newspapers attacks, they also worked to undermine
the traditional forms of deference and subordination to aristocrats, in this case the Federalist elites. Some
members of northern Democratic-Republican clubs denounced slavery as well.
DEFINING CITIZENSHIP
While questions regarding the proper size and scope of the new national government created a divide
among Americans and gave rise to political parties, a consensus existed among men on the issue of who
qualified and who did not qualify as a citizen. The 1790 Naturalization Act defined citizenship in stark
racial terms. To be a citizen of the American republic, an immigrant had to be a “free white person” of
“good character.” By excluding slaves, free blacks, Indians, and Asians from citizenship, the act laid the
foundation for the United States as a republic of white men.
Full citizenship that included the right to vote was restricted as well. Many state constitutions directed
that only male property owners or taxpayers could vote. For women, the right to vote remained out of
reach except in the state of New Jersey. In 1776, the fervor of the Revolution led New Jersey revolutionaries
to write a constitution extending the right to vote to unmarried women who owned property worth
£50. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans competed for the votes of New Jersey women who met the
requirements to cast ballots. This radical innovation continued until 1807, when New Jersey restricted
voting to free white males.
8.2 The New American Republic
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify the major foreign and domestic uprisings of the early 1790s
• Explain the effect of these uprisings on the political system of the United States
The colonies’ alliance with France, secured after the victory at Saratoga in 1777, proved crucial in their
victory against the British, and during the 1780s France and the new United States enjoyed a special
relationship. Together they had defeated their common enemy, Great Britain. But despite this shared
experience, American opinions regarding France diverged sharply in the 1790s when France underwent its
own revolution. Democratic-Republicans seized on the French revolutionaries’ struggle against monarchy
as the welcome harbinger of a larger republican movement around the world. To the Federalists, however,
the French Revolution represented pure anarchy, especially after the execution of the French king in 1793.
Along with other foreign and domestic uprisings, the French Revolution helped harden the political divide
in the United States in the early 1790s.
224 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, further split American thinkers into different ideological
camps, deepening the political divide between Federalists and their Democratic-Republican foes. At first,
in 1789 and 1790, the revolution in France appeared to most in the United States as part of a new chapter
in the rejection of corrupt monarchy, a trend inspired by the American Revolution. A constitutional
monarchy replaced the absolute monarchy of Louis XVI in 1791, and in 1792, France was declared a
republic. Republican liberty, the creed of the United States, seemed to be ushering in a new era in France.
Indeed, the American Revolution served as an inspiration for French revolutionaries.
The events of 1793 and 1794 challenged the simple interpretation of the French Revolution as a happy
chapter in the unfolding triumph of republican government over monarchy. The French king was executed
in January 1793 ( Figure 8.5 ), and the next two years became known as the Terror , a period of extreme
violence against perceived enemies of the revolutionary government. Revolutionaries advocated direct
representative democracy, dismantled Catholicism, replaced that religion with a new philosophy known
as the Cult of the Supreme Being, renamed the months of the year, and relentlessly employed the guillotine
against their enemies. Federalists viewed these excesses with growing alarm, fearing that the radicalism
of the French Revolution might infect the minds of citizens at home. Democratic-Republicans interpreted
the same events with greater optimism, seeing them as a necessary evil of eliminating the monarchy and
aristocratic culture that supported the privileges of a hereditary class of rulers.
Figure 8.5 An image from a 1791 Hungarian journal depicts the beheading of Louis XVI during the French
Revolution. The violence of the revolutionary French horrified many in the United States—especially Federalists, who
saw it as an example of what could happen when the mob gained political control and instituted direct democracy.
The controversy in the United States intensified when France declared war on Great Britain and Holland
in February 1793. France requested that the United States make a large repayment of the money it had
borrowed from France to fund the Revolutionary War. However, Great Britain would judge any aid
given to France as a hostile act. Washington declared the United States neutral in 1793, but Democratic-
Republican groups denounced neutrality and declared their support of the French republicans. The
Federalists used the violence of the French revolutionaries as a reason to attack Democratic-Republicanism
in the United States, arguing that Jefferson and Madison would lead the country down a similarly
disastrous path.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 225 Visit Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/revolution) for
images, texts, and songs relating to the French Revolution. This momentous event’s
impact extended far beyond Europe, influencing politics in the United States and
elsewhere in the Atlantic World.
THE CITIZEN GENÊT AFFAIR AND JAY’S TREATY
In 1793, the revolutionary French government sent Edmond-Charles Genêt to the United States to
negotiate an alliance with the U.S. government. France empowered Genêt to issue letters of
marque —documents authorizing ships and their crews to engage in piracy—to allow him to arm captured
British ships in American ports with U.S. soldiers. Genêt arrived in Charleston, South Carolina, amid
great Democratic-Republican fanfare. He immediately began commissioning American privateer ships
and organizing volunteer American militias to attack Spanish holdings in the Americas, then traveled to
Philadelphia, gathering support for the French cause along the way. President Washington and Hamilton
denounced Genêt, knowing his actions threatened to pull the United States into a war with Great Britain.
The Citizen Genêt affair , as it became known, spurred Great Britain to instruct its naval commanders in
the West Indies to seize all ships trading with the French. The British captured hundreds of American ships
and their cargoes, increasing the possibility of war between the two countries.
In this tense situation, Great Britain worked to prevent a wider conflict by ending its seizure of American
ships and offered to pay for captured cargoes. Hamilton saw an opportunity and recommended to
Washington that the United States negotiate. Supreme Court Justice John Jay was sent to Britain, instructed
by Hamilton to secure compensation for captured American ships; ensure the British leave the Northwest
outposts they still occupied despite the 1783 Treaty of Paris; and gain an agreement for American trade
in the West Indies. Even though Jay personally disliked slavery, his mission also required him to seek
compensation from the British for slaves who left with the British at the end of the Revolutionary War.
The resulting 1794 agreement, known as Jay’s Treaty, fulfilled most of his original goals. The British would
turn over the frontier posts in the Northwest, American ships would be allowed to trade freely in the
West Indies, and the United States agreed to assemble a commission charged with settling colonial debts
U.S. citizens owed British merchants. The treaty did not address the important issue of impressment ,
however—the British navy’s practice of forcing or “impressing” American sailors to work and fight on
British warships. Jay’s Treaty led the Spanish, who worried that it signaled an alliance between the United
States and Great Britain, to negotiate a treaty of their own—Pinckney’s Treaty—that allowed American
commerce to flow through the Spanish port of New Orleans. Pinckney’s Treaty allowed American farmers,
who were moving in greater numbers to the Ohio River Valley, to ship their products down the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers to New Orleans, where they could be transported to East Coast markets.
Jay’s Treaty confirmed the fears of Democratic-Republicans, who saw it as a betrayal of republican France,
cementing the idea that the Federalists favored aristocracy and monarchy. Partisan American newspapers
tried to sway public opinion, while the skillful writing of Hamilton, who published a number of essays on
the subject, explained the benefits of commerce with Great Britain.
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION’S CARIBBEAN LEGACY
Unlike the American Revolution, which ultimately strengthened the institution of slavery and the powers
of American slaveholders, the French Revolution inspired slave rebellions in the Caribbean, including
Click and Explore
226 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 a 1791 slave uprising in the French colony of Saint-Domingue (modern-day Haiti). Thousands of slaves
joined together to overthrow the brutal system of slavery. They took control of a large section of the island,
burning sugar plantations and killing the white planters who had forced them to labor under the lash.
In 1794, French revolutionaries abolished slavery in the French empire, and both Spain and England
attacked Saint-Domingue, hoping to add the colony to their own empires. Toussaint L’Ouverture, a former
domestic slave, emerged as the leader in the fight against Spain and England to secure a Haiti free of
slavery and further European colonialism. Because revolutionary France had abolished slavery, Toussaint
aligned himself with France, hoping to keep Spain and England at bay ( Figure 8.6 ).
Figure 8.6 An 1802 portrait shows Toussaint L’Ouverture, “ Chef des Noirs Insurgés de Saint Domingue ” (“Leader of
the Black Insurgents of Saint Domingue”), mounted and armed in an elaborate uniform.
Events in Haiti further complicated the partisan wrangling in the United States. White refugee planters
from Haiti and other French West Indian islands, along with slaves and free people of color, left the
Caribbean for the United States and for Louisiana, which at the time was held by Spain. The presence
of these French migrants raised fears, especially among Federalists, that they would bring the contagion
of French radicalism to the United States. In addition, the idea that the French Revolution could inspire
a successful slave uprising just off the American coastline filled southern whites and slaveholders with
horror.
THE WHISKEY REBELLION
While the wars in France and the Caribbean divided American citizens, a major domestic test of the new
national government came in 1794 over the issue of a tax on whiskey, an important part of Hamilton’s
financial program. In 1791, Congress had authorized a tax of 7.5 cents per gallon of whiskey and rum.
Although most citizens paid without incident, trouble erupted in four western Pennsylvania counties in
an uprising known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
Farmers in the western counties of Pennsylvania produced whiskey from their grain for economic reasons.
Without adequate roads or other means to transport a bulky grain harvest, these farmers distilled their
grains into gin and whiskey, which were more cost-effective to transport. Since these farmers depended on
the sale of whiskey, some citizens in western Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) viewed the new tax as further
proof that the new national government favored the commercial classes on the eastern seaboard at the
expense of farmers in the West. On the other hand, supporters of the tax argued that it helped stabilize
the economy and its cost could easily be passed on to the consumer, not the farmer-distiller. However,
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 227 in the spring and summer months of 1794, angry citizens rebelled against the federal officials in charge
of enforcing the federal excise law. Like the Sons of Liberty before the American Revolution, the whiskey
rebels used violence and intimidation to protest policies they saw as unfair. They tarred and feathered
federal officials, intercepted the federal mail, and intimidated wealthy citizens ( Figure 8.7 ). The extent
of their discontent found expression in their plan to form an independent western commonwealth, and
they even began negotiations with British and Spanish representatives, hoping to secure their support for
independence from the United States. The rebels also contacted their backcountry neighbors in Kentucky
and South Carolina, circulating the idea of secession.
Figure 8.7 This painting, attributed to Frederick Kemmelmeyer ca. 1795, depicts the massive force George
Washington led to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of the previous year. Federalists made clear they would not
tolerate mob action.
With their emphasis on personal freedoms, the whiskey rebels aligned themselves with the Democratic-
Republican Party. They saw the tax as part of a larger Federalist plot to destroy their republican liberty
and, in its most extreme interpretation, turn the United States into a monarchy. The federal government
lowered the tax, but when federal officials tried to subpoena those distillers who remained intractable,
trouble escalated. Washington responded by creating a thirteen-thousand-man militia, drawn from several
states, to put down the rebellion. This force made it known, both domestically and to the European powers
that looked on in anticipation of the new republic’s collapse, that the national government would do
everything in its power to ensure the survival of the United States.
228 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 DEFINING "AMERICAN"
Alexander Hamilton: “Shall the majority govern or be
governed?”
Alexander Hamilton frequently wrote persuasive essays under pseudonyms, like “Tully,” as he does here.
In this 1794 essay, Hamilton denounces the whiskey rebels and majority rule.
It has been observed that the means most likely to be employed to turn the insurrection in the
western country to the detriment of the government, would be artfully calculated among other
things ‘to divert your attention from the true question to be decided.’
Let us see then what is this question. It is plainly this—shall the majority govern or be
governed? shall the nation rule, or be ruled? shall the general will prevail, or the will of a
faction? shall there be government, or no government? . . .
The Constitution you have ordained for yourselves and your posterity contains this express
clause, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and Excises ,
to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United
States.’ You have then, by a solemn and deliberate act, the most important and sacred that
a nation can perform, pronounced and decreed, that your Representatives in Congress shall
have power to lay Excises. You have done nothing since to reverse or impair that decree. . . .
But the four western counties of Pennsylvania, undertake to rejudge and reverse your
decrees, you have said, ‘The Congress shall have power to lay Excises .’ They say, ‘The
Congress shall not have this power.’ . . .
There is no road to despotism more sure or more to be dreaded than that which begins at
anarchy .”
—Alexander Hamilton’s “Tully No. II” for the American Daily Advertiser , Philadelphia, August
26, 1794
What are the major arguments put forward by Hamilton in this document? Who do you think his audience
is?
WASHINGTON’S INDIAN POLICY
Relationships with Indians were a significant problem for Washington’s administration, but one on which
white citizens agreed: Indians stood in the way of white settlement and, as the 1790 Naturalization Act
made clear, were not citizens. After the War of Independence, white settlers poured into lands west of the
Appalachian Mountains. As a result, from 1785 to 1795, a state of war existed on the frontier between these
settlers and the Indians who lived in the Ohio territory. In both 1790 and 1791, the Shawnee and Miami
had defended their lands against the whites who arrived in greater and greater numbers from the East.
In response, Washington appointed General Anthony Wayne to bring the Western Confederacy—a loose
alliance of tribes—to heel. In 1794, at the Battle of Fallen Timbers, Wayne was victorious. With the 1795
Treaty of Greenville ( Figure 8.8 ), the Western Confederacy gave up their claims to Ohio.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 229 Figure 8.8 Notice the contrasts between the depictions of federal and native representatives in this painting of the
signing of the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. What message or messages did the artist intend to convey?
8.3 Partisan Politics
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Identify key examples of partisan wrangling between the Federalists and Democratic-
Republicans
• Describe how foreign relations affected American politics
• Assess the importance of the Louisiana Purchase
George Washington, who had been reelected in 1792 by an overwhelming majority, refused to run for
a third term, thus setting a precedent for future presidents. In the presidential election of 1796, the
two parties—Federalist and Democratic-Republican—competed for the first time. Partisan rancor over
the French Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion fueled the divide between them, and Federalist John
Adams defeated his Democratic-Republican rival Thomas Jefferson by a narrow margin of only three
electoral votes. In 1800, another close election swung the other way, and Jefferson began a long period of
Democratic-Republican government.
THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS
The war between Great Britain and France in the 1790s shaped U.S. foreign policy. As a new and, in
comparison to the European powers, extremely weak nation, the American republic had no control over
European events, and no real leverage to obtain its goals of trading freely in the Atlantic. To Federalist
president John Adams, relations with France posed the biggest problem. After the Terror, the French
Directory ruled France from 1795 to 1799. During this time, Napoleon rose to power.
230 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 AMERICANA
The Art of Ralph Earl
Ralph Earl was an eighteenth-century American artist, born in Massachusetts, who remained loyal to the
British during the Revolutionary War. He fled to England in 1778, but he returned to New England in the
mid-1780s and began painting portraits of leading Federalists.
His portrait of Connecticut Federalist Oliver Ellsworth and his wife Abigail conveys the world as
Federalists liked to view it: an orderly landscape administered by men of property and learning. His
portrait of dry goods merchant Elijah Boardman shows Boardman as well-to-do and highly cultivated; his
books include the works of Shakespeare and Milton ( Figure 8.9 ).
Figure 8.9 Ralph Earl’s portraits are known for placing their subjects in an orderly world, as seen here
in the 1801 portrait of Oliver and Abigail Wolcott Ellsworth (a) and the 1789 portrait of Elijah Boardman
(b).
What similarities do you see in the two portraits by Ralph Earl? What do the details of each portrait reveal
about the sitters? About the artist and the 1790s?
Because France and Great Britain were at war, the French Directory issued decrees stating that any ship
carrying British goods could be seized on the high seas. In practice, this meant the French would target
American ships, especially those in the West Indies, where the United States conducted a brisk trade with
the British. France declared its 1778 treaty with the United States null and void, and as a result, France and
the United States waged an undeclared war—or what historians refer to as the Quasi-War—from 1796 to
1800. Between 1797 and 1799, the French seized 834 American ships, and Adams urged the buildup of the
U.S. Navy, which consisted of only a single vessel at the time of his election in 1796 ( Figure 8.10 ).
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 231 Figure 8.10 This 1799 print, entitled “Preparation for WAR to defend Commerce,” shows the construction of a naval
ship, part of the effort to ensure the United States had access to free trade in the Atlantic world.
In 1797, Adams sought a diplomatic solution to the conflict with France and dispatched envoys to
negotiate terms. The French foreign minister, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, sent emissaries who told the
American envoys that the United States must repay all outstanding debts owed to France, lend France 32
million guilders (Dutch currency), and pay a £50,000 bribe before any negotiations could take place. News
of the attempt to extract a bribe, known as the XYZ affair because the French emissaries were referred to as
X, Y, and Z in letters that President Adams released to Congress, outraged the American public and turned
public opinion decidedly against France ( Figure 8.11 ). In the court of public opinion, Federalists appeared
to have been correct in their interpretation of France, while the pro-French Democratic-Republicans had
been misled.
Figure 8.11 This anonymous 1798 cartoon, Property Protected à la Françoise , satirizes the XYZ affair. Five
Frenchmen are shown plundering the treasures of a woman representing the United States. One man holds a sword
labeled “French Argument” and a sack of gold and riches labeled “National Sack and Diplomatic Perquisites,” while
the others collect her valuables. A group of other Europeans look on and commiserate that France treated them the
same way.
232 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Read the “transcript” of the above cartoon in the America in Caricature, 1765–1865
(http://openstaxcollege.org/l/cartoon) collection at Indiana University’s Lilly Library.
The complicated situation in Haiti, which remained a French colony in the late 1790s, also came to the
attention of President Adams. The president, with the support of Congress, had created a U.S. Navy that
now included scores of vessels. Most of the American ships cruised the Caribbean, giving the United States
the edge over France in the region. In Haiti, the rebellion leader Toussaint, who had to contend with
various domestic rivals seeking to displace him, looked to end an U.S. embargo on France and its colonies,
put in place in 1798, so that his forces would receive help to deal with the civil unrest. In early 1799, in
order to capitalize upon trade in the lucrative West Indies and undermine France’s hold on the island,
Congress ended the ban on trade with Haiti—a move that acknowledged Toussaint’s leadership, to the
horror of American slaveholders. Toussaint was able to secure an independent black republic in Haiti by
1804.
THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS
The surge of animosity against France during the Quasi-War led Congress to pass several measures that
in time undermined Federalist power. These 1798 war measures, known as the Alien and Sedition Acts,
aimed to increase national security against what most had come to regard as the French menace. The Alien
Act and the Alien Enemies Act took particular aim at French immigrants fleeing the West Indies by giving
the president the power to deport new arrivals who appeared to be a threat to national security. The act
expired in 1800 with no immigrants having been deported. The Sedition Act imposed harsh penalties—up
to five years’ imprisonment and a massive fine of $5,000 in 1790 dollars—on those convicted of speaking
or writing “in a scandalous or malicious” manner against the government of the United States. Twenty-
five men, all Democratic-Republicans, were indicted under the act, and ten were convicted. One of these
was Congressman Matthew Lyon ( Figure 8.12 ), representative from Vermont, who had launched his own
newspaper, The Scourge Of Aristocracy and Repository of Important Political Truth .
Click and Explore
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 233 Figure 8.12 This 1798 cartoon, “Congressional Pugilists,” shows partisan chaos in the U.S. House of
Representatives as Matthew Lyon, a Democratic-Republican from Vermont, holds forth against his opponent,
Federalist Roger Griswold.
The Alien and Sedition Acts raised constitutional questions about the freedom of the press provided under
the First Amendment. Democratic-Republicans argued that the acts were evidence of the Federalists’ intent
to squash individual liberties and, by enlarging the powers of the national government, crush states’
rights. Jefferson and Madison mobilized the response to the acts in the form of statements known as the
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which argued that the acts were illegal and unconstitutional. The
resolutions introduced the idea of nullification, the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, and advanced
the argument of states’ rights. The resolutions failed to rally support in other states, however. Indeed, most
other states rejected them, citing the necessity of a strong national government.
The Quasi-War with France came to an end in 1800, when President Adams was able to secure the Treaty
of Mortefontaine. His willingness to open talks with France divided the Federalist Party, but the treaty
reopened trade between the two countries and ended the French practice of taking American ships on the
high seas.
THE REVOLUTION OF 1800 AND THE PRESIDENCY OF THOMAS JEFFERSON
The Revolution of 1800 refers to the first transfer of power from one party to another in American
history, when the presidency passed to Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson ( Figure 8.13 ) in the
1800 election. The peaceful transition calmed contemporary fears about possible violent reactions to a new
party’s taking the reins of government. The passing of political power from one political party to another
without bloodshed also set an important precedent.
234 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Figure 8.13 Thomas Jefferson’s victory in 1800 signaled the ascendency of the Democratic-Republicans and the
decline of Federalist power.
The election did prove even more divisive than the 1796 election, however, as both the Federalist and
Democratic-Republican Parties waged a mudslinging campaign unlike any seen before. Because the
Federalists were badly divided, the Democratic-Republicans gained political ground. Alexander Hamilton,
who disagreed with President Adams’s approach to France, wrote a lengthy letter, meant for people within
his party, attacking his fellow Federalist’s character and judgment and ridiculing his handling of foreign
affairs. Democratic-Republicans got hold of and happily reprinted the letter.
Jefferson viewed participatory democracy as a positive force for the republic, a direct departure from
Federalist views. His version of participatory democracy only extended, however, to the white yeoman
farmers in whom Jefferson placed great trust. While Federalist statesmen, like the architects of the 1787
federal constitution, feared a pure democracy, Jefferson was far more optimistic that the common
American farmer could be trusted to make good decisions. He believed in majority rule, that is, that
the majority of yeoman should have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole. Jefferson
had cheered the French Revolution, even when the French republic instituted the Terror to ensure the
monarchy would not return. By 1799, however, he had rejected the cause of France because of his
opposition to Napoleon’s seizure of power and creation of a dictatorship.
Over the course of his two terms as president—he was reelected in 1804—Jefferson reversed the policies
of the Federalist Party by turning away from urban commercial development. Instead, he promoted
agriculture through the sale of western public lands in small and affordable lots. Perhaps Jefferson’s most
lasting legacy is his vision of an “empire of liberty.” He distrusted cities and instead envisioned a rural
republic of land-owning white men, or yeoman republican farmers. He wanted the United States to be the
breadbasket of the world, exporting its agricultural commodities without suffering the ills of urbanization
and industrialization. Since American yeomen would own their own land, they could stand up against
those who might try to buy their votes with promises of property. Jefferson championed the rights of states
and insisted on limited federal government as well as limited taxes. This stood in stark contrast to the
Federalists’ insistence on a strong, active federal government. Jefferson also believed in fiscal austerity. He
pushed for—and Congress approved—the end of all internal taxes, such as those on whiskey and rum.
The most significant trimming of the federal budget came at the expense of the military; Jefferson did not
believe in maintaining a costly military, and he slashed the size of the navy Adams had worked to build
up. Nonetheless, Jefferson responded to the capture of American ships and sailors by pirates off the coast
of North Africa by leading the United States into war against the Muslim Barbary States in 1801, the first
conflict fought by Americans overseas.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 235 The slow decline of the Federalists, which began under Jefferson, led to a period of one-party rule in
national politics. Historians call the years between 1815 and 1828 the “Era of Good Feelings” and highlight
the “Virginia dynasty” of the time, since the two presidents who followed Jefferson—James Madison
and James Monroe—both hailed from his home state. Like him, they owned slaves and represented
the Democratic-Republican Party. Though Federalists continued to enjoy popularity, especially in the
Northeast, their days of prominence in setting foreign and domestic policy had ended.
PARTISAN ACRIMONY
The earliest years of the nineteenth century were hardly free of problems between the two political parties.
Early in Jefferson’s term, controversy swirled over President Adams’s judicial appointments of many
Federalists during his final days in office. When Jefferson took the oath of office, he refused to have the
commissions for these Federalist justices delivered to the appointed officials.
One of Adams’s appointees, William Marbury, had been selected to be a justice of the peace in the District
of Columbia, and when his commission did not arrive, he petitioned the Supreme Court for an explanation
from Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison. In deciding the case, Marbury v. Madison , in 1803, Chief
Justice John Marshall agreed that Marbury had the right to a legal remedy, establishing that individuals
had rights even the president of the United States could not abridge. However, Marshall also found that
Congress’s Judicial Act of 1789, which would have given the Supreme Court the power to grant Marbury
remedy, was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not allow for cases like Marbury’s to come
directly before the Supreme Court. Thus, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, which
strengthened the court by asserting its power to review (and possibly nullify) the actions of Congress and
the president. Jefferson was not pleased, but neither did Marbury get his commission.
The animosity between the political parties exploded into open violence in 1804, when Aaron Burr,
Jefferson’s first vice president, and Alexander Hamilton engaged in a duel. When Democratic-Republican
Burr lost his bid for the office of governor of New York, he was quick to blame Hamilton, who had long
hated him and had done everything in his power to discredit him. On July 11, the two antagonists met
in Weehawken, New Jersey, to exchange bullets in a duel in which Burr shot and mortally wounded
Hamilton.
THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE
Jefferson, who wanted to expand the United States to bring about his “empire of liberty,” realized his
greatest triumph in 1803 when the United States bought the Louisiana territory from France. For $15
million—a bargain price, considering the amount of land involved—the United States doubled in size.
Perhaps the greatest real estate deal in American history, the Louisiana Purchase greatly enhanced the
Jeffersonian vision of the United States as an agrarian republic in which yeomen farmers worked the land.
Jefferson also wanted to bolster trade in the West, seeing the port of New Orleans and the Mississippi
River (then the western boundary of the United States) as crucial to American agricultural commerce. In
his mind, farmers would send their produce down the Mississippi River to New Orleans, where it would
be sold to European traders.
The purchase of Louisiana came about largely because of circumstances beyond Jefferson’s control, though
he certainly recognized the implications of the transaction. Until 1801, Spain had controlled New Orleans
and had given the United States the right to traffic goods in the port without paying customs duties. That
year, however, the Spanish had ceded Louisiana (and New Orleans) to France. In 1802, the United States
lost its right to deposit goods free in the port, causing outrage among many, some of whom called for war
with France.
Jefferson instructed Robert Livingston, the American envoy to France, to secure access to New Orleans,
sending James Monroe to France to add additional pressure. The timing proved advantageous. Because
black slaves in the French colony of Haiti had successfully overthrown the brutal plantation regime,
Napoleon could no longer hope to restore the empire lost with France’s defeat in the French and Indian
236 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 War (1754–1763). His vision of Louisiana and the Mississippi Valley as the source for food for Haiti, the
most profitable sugar island in the world, had failed. The emperor therefore agreed to the sale in early
1803.
Explore the collected maps and documents relating to the Louisiana Purchase and its
history at the Library of Congress (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/LaPurchase) site.
The true extent of the United States’ new territory remained unknown ( Figure 8.14 ). Would it provide the
long-sought quick access to Asian markets? Geographical knowledge was limited; indeed, no one knew
precisely what lay to the west or how long it took to travel from the Mississippi to the Pacific. Jefferson
selected two fellow Virginians, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, to lead an expedition to the new
western lands. Their purpose was to discover the commercial possibilities of the new land and, most
importantly, potential trade routes. From 1804 to 1806, Lewis and Clark traversed the West.
Figure 8.14 This 1804 map (a) shows the territory added to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
Compare this depiction to the contemporary map (b). How does the 1804 version differ from what you know of the
geography of the United States?
The Louisiana Purchase helped Jefferson win reelection in 1804 by a landslide. Of 176 electoral votes
cast, all but 14 were in his favor. The great expansion of the United States did have its critics, however,
especially northerners who feared the addition of more slave states and a corresponding lack of
representation of their interests in the North. And under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it
Click and Explore
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 237 remained unclear whether the president had the power to add territory in this fashion. But the vast
majority of citizens cheered the increase in the size of the republic. For slaveholders, new western lands
would be a boon; for slaves, the Louisiana Purchase threatened to entrench their suffering further.
8.4 The United States Goes Back to War
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
• Describe the causes and consequences of the War of 1812
• Identify the important events of the War of 1812 and explain their significance
The origins of the War of 1812, often called the Second War of American Independence, are found in the
unresolved issues between the United States and Great Britain. One major cause was the British practice
of impressment, whereby American sailors were taken at sea and forced to fight on British warships; this
issue was left unresolved by Jay’s Treaty in 1794. In addition, the British in Canada supported Indians
in their fight against further U.S. expansion in the Great Lakes region. Though Jefferson wanted to avoid
what he called “entangling alliances,” staying neutral proved impossible.
THE EMBARGO OF 1807
France and England, engaged in the Napoleonic Wars, which raged between 1803 and 1815, both declared
open season on American ships, which they seized on the high seas. England was the major offender, since
the Royal Navy, following a time-honored practice, “impressed” American sailors by forcing them into its
service. The issue came to a head in 1807 when the HMS Leopard , a British warship, fired on a U.S. naval
ship, the Chesapeake , off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia. The British then boarded the ship and took four
sailors. Jefferson chose what he thought was the best of his limited options and responded to the crisis
through the economic means of a sweeping ban on trade, the Embargo Act of 1807. This law prohibited
American ships from leaving their ports until Britain and France stopped seizing them on the high seas.
As a result of the embargo, American commerce came to a near-total halt.
The logic behind the embargo was that cutting off all trade would so severely hurt Britain and France that
the seizures at sea would end. However, while the embargo did have some effect on the British economy,
it was American commerce that actually felt the brunt of the impact ( Figure 8.15 ). The embargo hurt
American farmers, who could no longer sell their goods overseas, and seaport cities experienced a huge
increase in unemployment and an uptick in bankruptcies. All told, American business activity declined by
75 percent from 1808 to 1809.
238 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Figure 8.15 In this political cartoon from 1807, a snapping turtle (holding a shipping license) grabs a smuggler in the
act of sneaking a barrel of sugar to a British ship. The smuggler cries, “Oh, this cursed Ograbme!” (“Ograbme” is
“embargo” spelled backwards.)
Enforcement of the embargo proved very difficult, especially in the states bordering British Canada.
Smuggling was widespread; Smugglers’ Notch in Vermont, for example, earned its name from illegal trade
with British Canada. Jefferson attributed the problems with the embargo to lax enforcement.
At the very end of his second term, Jefferson signed the Non-Intercourse Act of 1808, lifting the unpopular
embargoes on trade except with Britain and France. In the election of 1808, American voters elected
another Democratic-Republican, James Madison. Madison inherited Jefferson’s foreign policy issues
involving Britain and France. Most people in the United States, especially those in the West, saw Great
Britain as the major problem.
TECUMSEH AND THE WESTERN CONFEDERACY
Another underlying cause of the War of 1812 was British support for native resistance to U.S. western
expansion. For many years, white settlers in the American western territories had besieged the Indians
living there. Under Jefferson, two Indian policies existed: forcing Indians to adopt American ways of
agricultural life, or aggressively driving Indians into debt in order to force them to sell their lands.
In 1809, Tecumseh, a Shawnee war chief, rejuvenated the Western Confederacy. His brother,
Tenskwatawa, was a prophet among the Shawnee who urged a revival of native ways and rejection of
Anglo-American culture, including alcohol. In 1811, William Henry Harrison, the governor of the Indiana
Territory, attempted to eliminate the native presence by attacking Prophetstown, a Shawnee settlement
named in honor of Tenskwatawa. In the ensuing Battle of Tippecanoe, U.S. forces led by Harrison
destroyed the settlement ( Figure 8.16 ). They also found ample evidence that the British had supplied the
Western Confederacy with weapons, despite the stipulations of earlier treaties.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 239 Figure 8.16 Portrait (a), painted by Charles Bird King in 1820, is a depiction of Shawnee prophet Tenskwatawa.
Portrait (b) is Rembrandt Peele’s 1813 depiction of William Henry Harrison. What are the significant similarities and
differences between the portraits? What was each artist trying to convey?
THE WAR OF 1812
The seizure of American ships and sailors, combined with the British support of Indian resistance, led
to strident calls for war against Great Britain. The loudest came from the “war hawks,” led by Henry
Clay from Kentucky and John C. Calhoun from South Carolina, who would not tolerate British insults
to American honor. Opposition to the war came from Federalists, especially those in the Northeast,
who knew war would disrupt the maritime trade on which they depended. In a narrow vote, Congress
authorized the president to declare war against Britain in June 1812.
The war went very badly for the United States at first. In August 1812, the United States lost Detroit to
the British and their Indian allies, including a force of one thousand men led by Tecumseh. By the end of
the year, the British controlled half the Northwest. The following year, however, U.S. forces scored several
victories. Captain Oliver Hazard Perry and his naval force defeated the British on Lake Erie. At the Battle
of the Thames in Ontario, the United States defeated the British and their native allies, and Tecumseh was
counted among the dead. Indian resistance began to ebb, opening the Indiana and Michigan territories for
white settlement.
These victories could not turn the tide of the war, however. With the British gaining the upper hand during
the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon’s French army on the run, Great Britain now could divert skilled
combat troops from Europe to fight in the United States. In July 1814, forty-five hundred hardened British
soldiers sailed up the Chesapeake Bay and burned Washington, DC, to the ground, forcing President
Madison and his wife to run for their lives ( Figure 8.17 ). According to one report, they left behind a dinner
the British officers ate. That summer, the British shelled Baltimore, hoping for another victory. However,
they failed to dislodge the U.S. forces, whose survival of the bombardment inspired Francis Scott Key to
write “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
240 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Figure 8.17 George Munger painted The President’s House shortly after the War of 1812, ca. 1814–1815. The
painting shows the result of the British burning of Washington, DC.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 241 AMERICANA
Francis Scott Key’s “In Defense of Fort McHenry”
After the British bombed Baltimore’s Fort McHenry in 1814 but failed to overcome the U.S. forces there,
Francis Scott Key was inspired by the sight of the American flag, which remained hanging proudly in
the aftermath. He wrote the poem “In Defense of Fort McHenry,” which was later set to the tune of a
British song called “The Anacreontic Song” and eventually became the U.S. national anthem, “The Star-
Spangled Banner.”
Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
—Francis Scott Key, “In Defense of Fort McHenry,” 1814
What images does Key use to describe the American spirit? Most people are familiar with only the first
verse of the song; what do you think the last three verses add?
242 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Visit the Smithsonian Institute (http://openstaxcollege.org/l/flag) to explore an
interactive feature on the flag that inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner,” where
clickable “hot spots” on the flag reveal elements of its history.
With the end of the war in Europe, Britain was eager to end the conflict in the Americas as well. In 1814,
British and U.S. diplomats met in Flanders, in northern Belgium, to negotiate the Treaty of Ghent, signed
in December. The boundaries between the United States and British Canada remained as they were before
the war, an outcome welcome to those in the United States who feared a rupture in the country’s otherwise
steady expansion into the West.
The War of 1812 was very unpopular in New England because it inflicted further economic harm on a
region dependent on maritime commerce. This unpopularity caused a resurgence of the Federalist Party
in New England. Many Federalists deeply resented the power of the slaveholding Virginians (Jefferson
and then Madison), who appeared indifferent to their region. The depth of the Federalists’ discontent
is illustrated by the proceedings of the December 1814 Hartford Convention, a meeting of twenty-six
Federalists in Connecticut, where some attendees issued calls for New England to secede from the United
States. These arguments for disunion during wartime, combined with the convention’s condemnation of
the government, made Federalists appear unpatriotic. The convention forever discredited the Federalist
Party and led to its downfall.
EPILOGUE: THE BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS
Due to slow communication, the last battle in the War of 1812 happened after the Treaty of Ghent had
been signed ending the war. Andrew Jackson had distinguished himself in the war by defeating the Creek
Indians in March 1814 before invading Florida in May of that year. After taking Pensacola, he moved his
force of Tennessee fighters to New Orleans to defend the strategic port against British attack.
On January 8, 1815 (despite the official end of the war), a force of battle-tested British veterans of the
Napoleonic Wars attempted to take the port. Jackson’s forces devastated the British, killing over two
thousand. New Orleans and the vast Mississippi River Valley had been successfully defended, ensuring
the future of American settlement and commerce. The Battle of New Orleans immediately catapulted
Jackson to national prominence as a war hero, and in the 1820s, he emerged as the head of the new
Democratic Party.
Click and Explore
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 243 Bill of Rights
Citizen Genêt affair
Democratic-Republicans
impressment
Louisiana Purchase
letters of marque
Marbury v. Madison
Revolution of 1800
the Terror
XYZ affair
Key Terms
the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which guarantee individual
rights
the controversy over the French representative who tried to involve the United
States in France’s war against Great Britain
advocates of limited government who were troubled by the expansive
domestic policies of Washington’s administration and opposed the Federalists
the practice of capturing sailors and forcing them into military service
the U.S. purchase of the large territory of Louisiana from France in 1803
French warrants allowing ships and their crews to engage in piracy
the landmark 1803 case establishing the Supreme Court’s powers of judicial review,
specifically the power to review and possibly nullify actions of Congress and the president
the peaceful transfer of power from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans
with the election of 1800
a period during the French Revolution characterized by extreme violence and the execution of
numerous enemies of the revolutionary government, from 1793 through 1794
the French attempt to extract a bribe from the United States during the Quasi-War of
1798–1800
Summary
8.1 Competing Visions: Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
While they did not yet constitute distinct political parties, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, shortly after
the Revolution, found themselves at odds over the Constitution and the power that it concentrated in the
federal government. While many of the Anti-Federalists’ fears were assuaged by the adoption of the Bill of
Rights in 1791, the early 1790s nevertheless witnessed the rise of two political parties: the Federalists and
the Democratic-Republicans. These rival political factions began by defining themselves in relationship
to Hamilton’s financial program, a debate that exposed contrasting views of the proper role of the
federal government. By championing Hamilton’s bold financial program, Federalists, including President
Washington, made clear their intent to use the federal government to stabilize the national economy
and overcome the financial problems that had plagued it since the 1780s. Members of the Democratic-
Republican opposition, however, deplored the expanded role of the new national government. They
argued that the Constitution did not permit the treasury secretary’s expansive program and worried that
the new national government had assumed powers it did not rightfully possess. Only on the question of
citizenship was there broad agreement: only free, white males who met taxpayer or property qualifications
could cast ballots as full citizens of the republic.
8.2 The New American Republic
Federalists and Democratic-Republicans interpreted the execution of the French monarch and the violent
establishment of a French republic in very different ways. Revolutionaries’ excesses in France and the
slaves’ revolt in the French colony of Haiti raised fears among Federalists of similar radicalism and slave
uprisings on American shores. They looked to better relationships with Great Britain through Jay’s Treaty.
244 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3 Pinckney’s Treaty, which came about as a result of Jay’s Treaty, improved U.S. relations with the Spanish
and opened the Spanish port of New Orleans to American commerce. Democratic-Republicans took a
more positive view of the French Revolution and grew suspicious of the Federalists when they brokered
Jay’s Treaty. Domestically, the partisan divide came to a dramatic head in western Pennsylvania when
distillers of whiskey, many aligned with the Democratic-Republicans, took action against the federal tax
on their product. Washington led a massive force to put down the uprising, demonstrating Federalist
intolerance of mob action. Though divided on many issues, the majority of white citizens agreed on the
necessity of eradicating the Indian presence on the frontier.
8.3 Partisan Politics
Partisan politics dominated the American political scene at the close of the eighteenth century. The
Federalists’ and Democratic-Republicans’ views of the role of government were in direct opposition to
each other, and the close elections of 1796 and 1801 show how the nation grappled with these opposing
visions. The high tide of the Federalist Party came after the election of 1796, when the United States
engaged in the Quasi-War with France. The issues arising from the Quasi-War gave Adams and the
Federalists license to expand the powers of the federal government. However, the tide turned with the
close election of 1800, when Jefferson began an administration based on Democratic-Republican ideals. A
major success of Jefferson’s administration was the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which helped to fulfill his
vision of the United States as an agrarian republic.
8.4 The United States Goes Back to War
The United States was drawn into its “Second War of Independence” against Great Britain when the
British, engaged in the Napoleonic Wars against France, took liberties with the fledgling nation by
impressing (capturing) its sailors on the high seas and arming its Indian enemies. The War of 1812 ended
with the boundaries of the United Stated remaining as they were before the war. The Indians in the
Western Confederacy suffered a significant defeat, losing both their leader Tecumseh and their fight for
contested land in the Northwest. The War of 1812 proved to be of great importance because it generated a
surge of national pride, with expressions of American identity such as the poem by Francis Scott Key. The
United States was unequivocally separate from Britain and could now turn as never before to expansion
in the West.
Review Questions
1. Which of the following is not one of the rights
the Bill of Rights guarantees?
A. the right to freedom of speech
B. the right to an education
C. the right to bear arms
D. the right to a trial by jury
2. Which of Alexander Hamilton’s financial
policies and programs seemed to benefit
speculators at the expense of poor soldiers?
A. the creation of a national bank
B. the public credit plan
C. the tax on whiskey
D. the “Report on Manufactures”
3. What were the fundamental differences
between the Federalist and Democratic-Republican
visions?
4. Which of the following was not true of Jay’s
Treaty of 1794?
A. It gave the United States land rights in the
West Indies.
B. It gave American ships the right to trade in
the West Indies.
C. It hardened differences between the political
parties of the United States.
D. It stipulated that U.S. citizens would repay
their debts from the Revolutionary War.
Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820 245 5. What was the primary complaint of the rebels in
the Whiskey Rebellion?
A. the ban on alcohol
B. the lack of political representation for
farmers
C. the need to fight Indians for more land
D. the tax on whiskey and rum
6. How did the French Revolution in the early
1790s influence the evolution of the American
political system?
7. What was the primary issue of Adams’s
presidency?
A. war with Spain
B. relations with the native population
C. infighting within the Federalist Party
D. relations with France
8. Which of the following events is not an example
of partisan acrimony?
A. the jailing of Matthew Lyon
B. the XYZ affair
C. the Marbury v. Madison case
D. the Hamilton-Burr duel
9. What was the importance of the Louisiana
Purchase?
A. It gave the United States control of the port
of New Orleans for trade.
B. It opened up the possibility of quick trade
routes to Asia.
C. It gave the United States political leverage
against the Spanish.
D. It provided Napoleon with an impetus to
restore France’s empire.
10. How did U.S. relations with France influence
events at the end of the eighteenth century?
11. Why do historians refer to the election of
Thomas Jefferson as the Revolution of 1800?
12. What prompted the Embargo of 1807?
A. British soldiers burned the U.S. capitol.
B. The British supplied arms to Indian
insurgents.
C. The British navy captured American ships
on the high seas and impressed their sailors
into service for the British.
D. The British hadn’t abandoned their posts in
the Northwest Territory as required by Jay’s
Treaty.
13. What event inspired “The Star-Spangled
Banner”?
A. Betsy Ross sewing the first American flag
raised during a time of war
B. the British bombardment of Baltimore
C. the British burning of Washington, DC
D. the naval battle between the Leopard and the
Chesapeake
Critical Thinking Questions
14. Describe Alexander Hamilton’s plans to address the nation’s financial woes. Which aspects proved
most controversial, and why? What elements of the foundation Hamilton laid can still be found in the
system today?
15. Describe the growth of the first party system in the United States. How did these parties come to
develop? How did they define themselves, both independently and in opposition to one another? Where
did they find themselves in agreement?
16. What led to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts? What made them so controversial?
17. What was the most significant impact of the War of 1812?
18. In what ways did the events of this era pose challenges to the U.S. Constitution? What constitutional
issues were raised, and how were they addressed?
246 Chapter 8 Growing Pains: The New Republic, 1790–1820
This content is available for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col11740/1.3
