Belington progressive. [volume] (Belington, W. Va.) 1912-1927, 1913-06-12
The History of Ameri-
can Parties.
Selected by R. L. Tallman. J

nave lIOiIl IlIllS w tllIlt WIlllClA
exhaustively Of the development
of our political parties but for the
ordinary reader these treatises
are too long and heavy to be of
much interest or value. The
phenomenon of party develop
ment takes virtually the same
lines all countries. Human be-
ings are not constituted so that
they will all agree even under the
most favorable conditions. No
matter what is proposed, or how
desirable it may be, there will al
ways be people who will object.
Thus there is always a tendency
to divide into two hostile camps.
Action causes reaction and every
thing has its opposite. Thus in
the case of political parties we
find there is in a general way al
ways one side that tends to be
radical while the other tends to
be conservative.
Even before the Revolutionary
war the colonists were divided
into factions. The struggle for
independence drove them all to-
gether for the time-belng and
united them as against the COM
mon enemy, but just as soon as
peace was declared the process
Of cleavage began. In the con-
vention of 1887 which framed the
constitution the division was very
clearly marked from the first.
There were the "centripetal and
the centrifugal tendencies" as
Bryce calls it in his American
Common wealth." One element,
under such leaders as Hamilton,
favored a strong central govern
Hment, while the other element,
under Jefferson and his circle,
favored states rights and large
freedom to the individual.
Washington was selected presi-
dent as the representative Of all
the people and in his cabinet he
had men of both factions. Ham
ilton, has secretary Of the trea-
sury, believed so fully in a strong
central government that he was
branded as a 'monarchist. jeff
erson, hissecretary of state, stood
for strict construction of the con-
stitution and was opposed to
Hamilton on almost every point.
Open hostility resulted and the
people, who up to this time had
belonged to no parties there be-
ing none in fact began to align
themselves definitely. Those who
believed in Hamilton's principles
became Federalists, and those
who thought Jefferson's ideals
were the proper ones enlisted UNI
der his banner as Republicans or
Democratic Republicans. These
latter were the lineal ancestors
of the Democratic party of the
present day.
AS Bryce says, the Federalists
in general terms were the party
of order. while the Democrats
were the party of liberty. Dur
ing the French revolution the fol-
lowers Of Jefferson sympathized
with the people Of France; in fact
from the first this party showed
more faith in the masses than the
Federalists did. Politics became
very bitter and the Democrats of
that day condemned even Wash
ington himself for his conserva-
tism and contemptuously spoke
of him as the 'stepfather of his
country"
The unpopularity of some of
the Federalists policies greatly in
jured that party among the peo-
pie, and their unpatriotic attitude
during the war of 1872 practical
ly caused their finish. In 1914
some of the New England FEEDER
alists held what was called the
Hartford convention" to protest
against the war. Though as Fed
eralists they were opposed to
states rights, they declared
that the states had a right to
II 10 II