The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-10
SOME VIEW BOOKS.
American Political Parties.

book on democracy and the Organization
Of Political Parties The latest book OF
the same subject IL entitled Political Par
lies and Party Problems in the United States
(Putmans). by Prof j AWoo RN. antho
of "The American Republic and It's Gov
eminent This, ~ it's title indicates, II
sketch Of American party history and o
the development and operations OF part !
machinery, together with consider atior
of certain party problems in their relations
to political morality. The volume Is pub
lished in the hope that II may aid In pro-
noting, in school and home, the study of
American politics Tho author is one OF
those who hold thar history Is past politics
and that politics is present history. Start
ing from this premise, he must needs main
tain that to study politics in any serious
way Is but to make large use of history.
With this assumption in mind, he has de-
voted nearly half of the volume to an out.
line of the evolution and operation of
American parties under the Constitution.
II is in the latter half of the book that the
close and vital relation Of politics 10 ethics
and the direct dependence Of national char
acter on political conduct are considered.
We pass over what the author has to say
about the existence of Wings and Tories in
the thirteen colonies during pre-Rcvolu-
tionary and Revolutionary times When
the Independence Of the colonies was ac-
knowledged by the mother country, the
Tory party became extinct. Those Of its
members who had not gon. 10 Halifax or
to other English settlements accepted the
results of tho wal. All the people we're not
Wings Strictly speaking, therefore. Amer
leans at this epoch had no political parties,
but they were, Of course. ready to divide
into opposing parties so soon as a separa-
tive issue should arise. Ii was with the
division that was witnessed In the Consi-
tutiona Convention OF 1857 thai the real
history of parties in the United States be-
gins. The one constant line of cleavage
which ran through a large part Of the de-
bates disclosed the difference between the
large State party and the small state party,
between those who wished TO form national
government, and those who wished 70 retain
what the Articles of Confederation had
established 10 wit, a purely federal govern
ment. The National party, composed, for
the most part. OF the delegates from the
large States, led by Madison OF Virginia,
Wilson of Pennsylvania, and King 81 Massa-
chusetts. wished 10 form government in
which representation according 10 popu-
lation should be provided for in both houses
of Congress, and in which the controlling
power should he vested in the National
Government, Their opponents. who ex-
pressed the wishes and supposed interests
Of the small States. insisted that all the
States should be equally represented in
Congress without reference to their pcpu-
lation; this. it will be remembered, was
Distinguishing feature of Congress under
the Articles of Confederation. II IL OBJ
vious that If the National party had been
entirely successful, power would have
clevolved not upon the States as such,
but upon the people Of the States in pro-
portion to their number. The outcome of
the dispute was, as we know. that COM
promise was accepted. 80 that the con-
v,ention formed neither a purely national
nlor a purely federal government. The
Government was federal no far as the
Senate was concerned, for In that body
the States were equally represented; and
it was national with regard to the House OF
Representatives, wherein the States had
representation according to their popua-
ton. Properly speaking. the advocates
of the Constitution in the State conventions
to which the instrument WAS submitted,
ought to have been called Nationalists.
But they shrewdly described themselves
as Federalists, on the ground that they
favored union under the new Constitution.
wherein they emphasized the federal
features by defining it III Federal. Their
opponents, though they claimed TO be. and
were, the true Federalsts, were forced to
take the name Of Anti Federalists. in order
to make clear their opposition 10 the adop-
ton of the new Constitution. The parties
named survived the adoption of the Con-
sttution by the States. but they no longer
indicated precisely the same thing. The
Anti-Federalists thenceforth comprised not
only the extreme State Rights men, who
had opposed the adoption Of the Constitu-
ton, but also many who. while willing to
accept the organic law framed at Phila-
delphia. favored paper money In the States:
believed in leniency. If not discrimination.
in favor Of debtors. and thought that their
personal ambition and interests could be
furthered better in the arena OF State than
of Federal affairs, 1t is well known that,
soon after the first inauguration of Washing
ton. the Anti-Federalist party came to be
known as the Republican. Inasmuch. how
ever, as the Federalists sometimes stig-
matized their opponents as Democrats,
the hyphenated word Democratic Repub-
lican was also used to designate them.
Within two years after the Constitution
became operative, Madison. who had been
as vigorous an advocate of it as had Hamil-
ton, became an Anti-Federalist or Repub-
Lcan. To be a Federallst in 1901 was to
favor the adoption Of Hainilton's financial
measures and broad construction Of the
Constitution. On these issues not only
Madison, but Jefferson both Of whom had
been Federalists in 1887. were Anti-Federal-
lists. and organized the Republican party.
They did not carry with them. however, all
OF the former Anti -Federaists Patrick
Henry, for instance. who in the Virginia
Convention had opposed the adoption Of
the Constitution, now supported Hamilton
and his policy.
The difference between the Federalist
and Republican parties as regards the
construction OF the Constitution was brought
out with especial clearness in the Federalist
legislation Of 1908, in the Alien and Sedi-
ton acts and, on the other hand, in the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions by
which the Republicans opposed those meas
ures. In resisting those Federalist laws,
Jefferson and Madison fell back upon a
strict construction of the Constitution,
Cenying that the Federal Government