Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-04-20
POLITICAL EsOCHS.
REVOLUTIONS IN THE POLITICAL
BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Pendulum Has Made Within
the Past Century.

There have been many changes in the
politics of the executive branch of the
Government in the hundred years which
have passed since the nations existence be
gan under the Constitution. All of then
involved complete revolution in the
policy under which public affairs were
conducted. Each of these changes form 8
conspicuous landmark in the politica.
yista-each constitutes well-defined epoch
in the country's history
The changes referred to are here termed
revolutions. The term is correct, although
used in a different sense from that for
which it stands in European minds. They
involved no change of dynasty, and, ex-
cept in one instance, produced no social OF
political cataclysm. They were merely a
transfer of power from one body of citizens
to another, and were contemplated by the
men who formed The Constitution, as well
as brought about by agencies created by
the nations great charter itself.
ifaSEf VI hEHOl-CIlONS.
How, when and by whom were these
revolutions wrought? The question may
seem to be small one. In reality, how
ever, it is large, and the answer to it in
wolves consideration of the history and
policy of the political parties which have
arisen during the country's existence and
the record of the country's leading states
men and publicists. The answer, in fact,
will be resume Of the political life of the
nation from the beginning.
Party, in the present sense, was unknown
in this country until over dozen years
after the close of the war for independence
During that struggle the Wings were
those who sought separation from Great
Britain, and the Tories were those who
opposed it. These were the designations
sometimes applied to the divisions into
which the people of the colonies were
thrown. Wing then was only another
name for patriot, and Tory simply a
euphemism for traitor.
The debates in the Convention which
framed the Constitution revealed a differ
ence in sentiment as to the strength and
scope of the authority to be granted the
Government Those who favored strong
prerogatives of the States relatively re-
stricted, came to be called Federalists,
while those who took the opposite ground,
and desired decentralization, with the
States relatively strong and independent,
were classed as Anti-Federalists. This
was the germ Of the party divisions into
which the people have aligned themselves
Another advance in party development
was reached when, a year or two after the
formation of the Constitution, the Anti
Federalists, realizing the inappropriate
ness of their party name any longer,
dropped it, and soon after became known
first as Democratic. Republicans, and then
as Republicans.
FEDERALIsTS AND ANTI-FEDERALIsTs.
The leading Federalists were Washing
ton, Hamilton and Adams. The most
conspicuous Republicans were Jefferson,
Madison and George Clinton. A few
words will be necessary right here to pre-
vent misunderstanding. The term Re-
publican, applied to party, as used during
the first quarter of this century, had a
widely different meaning from that which
it has conveyed for the past thirty-fve
years. This fact must be made plain now.
Party names die, but principles are eter-
nal. The Federalists of 17S9-1S16, the
Loose Constructionists of 1926, the Ma
tional Republicans of 1862, the Wings
of 1883 and the Republicans of 1S54-S9
favor strong central government, broad
Interpretation of the Constitution, an ade-
quate protective tariff and liberal internal
improvements. The Republicans of 1896
1923, the Strict Constructionists of 1924
and the Democrats of 1888 opposed all
those. This is the touchstone by which
party identity must be determined. Here
is the line of descent along which party
lineage must be traced
Here is the broad line of demarkation
which has separated the parties from the
beginning of the Government Unless
this distinguishing mark is kept clearly
in mind the nomenclature of political par
ties will be misleading and unsatisfactory
II those men were living and retained the
views which they held during the time in
which they were a power in the country
Washington, the Federslist of 1888; John
Quincy Adams. the Loose Constructions
of 1924; Clay, the National Republican o.
1882 and the Wing of a subsequent per.
iod, would be Republicans now; while
Jefferson, the Republican of 1895; Jack.
son, the Strict Constructionist of 1924 and
the Democrat of later era, would be Dem
ocrats to-day.
THREE FEDERALIsT PRESIDENTS.
The Federalists triumphed in the first
three Presidential elections. There was
no opposition to Washington in either l7S5
or 1892, while that against John Adams
hn 81,
overcome This was the last triumph o.
the Federal party in National canvass.
In 1900 the day of doom came for the
Federalists. President Adams policy to
ward France partially antagonized Hamil
ton and large section ofthe party, and the
alien and sedition laws-the former O
which authorized the President to sent out
of the country all foreigners whose con
spiracies might embroil the Government
in foreign war, and the latter of which
forbade conspiracies against the Govern
ment and all publications designed t
bring it into disrepute, repealed many
Federalists, and correspondingly strength
ened the Jefiersonians. These influence
defeated Adams in his attempt to seeur,
reelection in 1900, and put Jefferson il
the Presidential chair.
FIRST POLITICAL REVOLUTION.
The election of 1900 was the first politi
cal revolution which the country hac
known For twelve years the Federalist
had been in control in the executive brancl
of the Government. In their management
Of public affairs they had been wonderful,
successful. They had put the wheels 0
Government in motion, devised system
of finance which, in its larger features, ha
remained in vogue to the present day, ant
marked out lines along which public busi
ness will undoubtedly be conducted 70
centuries to come. In constructive abilit,
the Federalists have never been equalet
except by the Republicans during the civi
war period of 1S6l-65. The party, how
ever, lacked discipline and coherency
Adams want of tact, Hamilton's imperi
business, and the petty jealousy which eael
felt toward the other, made its defeat b,
the Jefiersonians in 1900 comparativel,
easy task.
II