The Division of Early American Politics with H.W. Brands | BRI Scholar Talks

0:04 For this episode of Scholar Talks, the guiding question is why were American politics so divided in the early Republic? We’re very honored to have on with us H.W. Brands, who is a professor of history and the Jack S. Blanton Senior Chair in history at the University of Texas. He is the author of more than 30

0:25 books, many of them near times best selling books, and he is twice a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. Today we discuss his latest book, Founding Partisans: Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and the Brawling Birth of American Politics. I am Tony Williams, senior fellow at the Bill of Rights Institute, and I want to

0:47 welcome you to another episode of Scholar Talks for our series Topics in American History. H.W., I want to thank you very much for joining us. My pleasure, Tony. I’m looking forward to it. Yeah, and and And I just I I I I can’t say enough superlatives about this book. I absolutely loved it, but I

1:07 also have to say it’s a great H.W. Brands book, meaning there’s some great history. Uh it’s a great topic. Um very, very well written. Uh and if I may add, a rollicking good story as well. Well, thank you. Thank you. So, my first question is, you know, the Founding Fathers all despised parties as what

1:31 they called factions, uh these self-interested groups in politics. And yet, as you point out, the politics of the early Republic were deeply divided. So, I guess the question is, maybe why? Or did they have unrealistic expectations that parties, factions wouldn’t form? Well, that very question is one of the reasons I decided to write

1:52 this book. Because I’ve known enough about the period and the writing of the Constitution, the emergence of the federal government under the new Constitution. To know that there was this well, um broken expectation. Or at least they all spoke as though parties are this thing, they’re an artifact of the bad old government that Britain had. And now

2:13 we’ve created this republic and therefore we’re going to start with a clean slate and we’re not going to have political parties. The term they commonly used was faction. And they didn’t want factional politics. They believed, well, here’s what they said. They said that this new republic will rest on civic virtue. And they thought

2:34 that they could appeal to the virtue of citizens because unlike the British system, this was a government of the people’s own making. And if it’s yours, you feel a proprietary interest in it. You feel that okay, you’re going to do the best you can for it. So, that was part of it. Now, some of

2:56 that distinction between the way things were in Britain and the way things things going to the way things are going to be in America, I think was a consequence of justifying the American Revolution. Because if you read Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, it’s really all about saying the horrible things that King George in particular had done.

3:17 He points the finger of blame at King George again and again. He did this, he did this, he did this. Now, anybody familiar with the politics of the time knew that that was way overblown. It was a piece of propaganda. Now, there’s pretty good lines in there that have stuck with us, but it really was to distinguish what those bad British had been doing with what we virtuous Americans are going to do. So, there’s

3:38 that aspect. There is this sort of putting the best face on things. And especially since the politics of America hadn’t emerged yet, they could imagine the best for them. And then, in addition, for the first several years of the American Republic, there was this war going on that would tend to unite Americans and bring out the best in them. And

3:59 although in an earlier book that I wrote about this period called Our First Civil War, it really didn’t unite Americans anywhere near as much as they like to contend. So, there’s that. But, there’s there was something just unrealistic. If if we take their If we take their claims of civic virtue

4:21 in America at face value, there’s something unrealistic about that because in many respects they understood that human nature is human nature. And they had read all of the political treatises and they’d seen a lot of stuff. And anybody could tell that not everybody agreed. Now, the thing that I think did surprise was that the difference of opinions became they became congealed in

4:43 these permanent factions. I think they would have recognized and you know, they write the Constitution and the Constitution isn’t ratifying the Constitution is up or down decision, okay? So, of course, there going to be people with different views but who are generally in favor of the Constitution will go less on one side and those people who are opposed for whatever different views will be on the other

5:04 side. So, you’ll have this binary situation the fours and against the federalists and the anti-federalists. I think what surprised them was that these coalitions, they became more or less permanent. Now, there’s one wild card they didn’t see and that was really crucial in the emergence of political parties in

5:24 America. And that was the war in Europe. Because they Americans had our own revolution and it was finished by the early to mid-1780s. Um but then the French Revolution breaks out and this was of course after the 1789, after they’d written the Constitution, after they’d done all this other stuff. And it throws this new

5:48 element of division into American politics. Now, you might have thought, wait a minute, that’s a European affair. But, there was this holdover alliance from the American Revolution that tied America to France, at least nominally. And And then there was this fundamental difference of opinion among people in America, but not just America, in Europe

6:09 and around the world, over what the French Revolution meant. Was it a step forward for human affairs, or was it a descent into anarchy? And so, there would have been this difference of opinion. But, when it played out in American politics, when the British, on their side, and the French, on their side, began to prey on American commerce and

6:30 eventually kidnap American sailors and the like, then it became an aspect of American politics. So, I’m not going to say that had there not been this war in Europe that affected the United States, there wouldn’t have been political parties. No, political parties probably would have come about because in in a system of majority rule, everybody’s trying to get 51%, whether

6:52 you’re passing a bill, whether you’re trying to elect a candidate. And so, you form these coalitions. But again, the fact that the coalitions stuck together so firmly as they did, I think this surprised and dismayed some of them. Right. Uh and so, yeah, I mean, that lays it out really nicely, the scope of your book. And so, digging in maybe a little deeper, um you know, you you mentioned the divisions over the

7:13 declaration during the war, some unity, but also some divisions. But then you really dig in at the beginning of the book on on on the Constitutional Convention and ratification debates. So, how is that fierce division shown in the Constitutional Convention, in the ratification debate that that you mentioned briefly? Well, so it all comes down to what kind of government do you

7:34 want? It’s complicated by the fact that there are 14 existing governments that have to be dealt with. There’s the government of the Articles of Confederation. So, that’s a national or federal government. And then there are the 13 existing state governments. Again, one can do a thought experiment. What would have happened had they been starting with an entirely clean slate,

7:55 okay? They’re just these bunch of people who used to belong to the British Empire and they reside on the western shore of the Atlantic and they want to get together and form a government. So, there still would have been the question, how powerful do we want that government to be? Do we want it to build a powerful nation that can fend for

8:16 itself in the world of nations, that can project American trade, American values and interests across the world? Or do we want it to be something that maybe keeps the peace at home and otherwise lets people flourish on their own. So, there is that fundamental philosophical difference and it remains with us today. And one of the one of the reasons I

8:36 wrote the book is that we’re still grappling with these issues. What kind of government do we want? Do we want a government that tells us what to do in response to an overseas threat and a pandemic at home, you know, all this stuff. There are basically different views on this and they come out at the Constitutional Convention and they play out on this underlay of well, there was

8:58 this war that went on for a while and the war showed that the the national government was adequate for certain things but inadequate for other things. In precisely because the existing government of the Articles of Confederation was really just a an alliance. It was it was a government of

9:18 nations. I mean, this we call them states, but they were independent. And Pennsylvania owed nothing to New York and and all this the other thing. And so, it was more like the government of NATO, you know, or something like that, this wartime alliance. And it it was barely up to the task of winning American independence. And so, there was this big debt that was run up and it was

9:39 really difficult. Who’s going to pay the debt? And who’s going to protect American commerce now that the war is over? So, there’s that question. And so, that’s that’s a fundamental question. But then, as I say, it’s complicated by the fact that there are these existing states. And the states are all jealous of their own rights. So, they

10:00 they came up with this federal system. Now, putting the best face on things, they, that is, the proponents of this new constitution say, "Yeah, we’ve got this perfect system because for national interests, we have this national government. And then for local interests, people can look to their state governments." But the There was always going to be a problem. And there

10:21 still is exactly this problem. What appropriately rests with the states? What appropriately rests with the national government? And when there is, and there certainly will be, tension between these two levels of government, who takes precedence? And they did write

10:42 into the Constitution that federal law trumps state law. And that certainly gives the advantage to the federal government. But there are lots of things on which the federal government actually doesn’t speak. And then, what do we do there? And but then, but then the bigger question, the one that turns out to be the real breaking point for all this, is

11:02 what do the states do if the federal government oversteps its bounds? So, they’ve got this nice system of checks and balances, and this is the idea it’s built within the federal government itself with the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. And they talk about it as this the states will check the federal government, the federal government check the states. But realistically, but realistically, who is going to rein in the federal government

11:22 if the federal government oversteps its own authority? Now, we have figured out, that is, we collectively, we Americans, over time, that well, we’ll look to the Supreme Court. And we pretty well agreed that when the Supreme Court decides an issue, that’s it. Now, you can always amend the Constitution. You can go over the head of the Supreme Court and amend

11:44 the Constitution. That’s a rather extreme thing that hasn’t been done very often. But it took us over a century to basically come to agreement on that. And it took a Civil War to get us to that agreement. So, these are questions that they had to deal with. And the philosophies, not only the philosophies, so what kind of government

12:04 do we want? But then there’s a whole question of So, if we know what we want, how do we make that happen? I should add one thing here, too. And they were engaged in experiment that before the 1770s hadn’t been done. Creating a government from whole cloth. So, they get into Philadelphia in 1787, basically got a blank sheet of paper. Okay, now make a government on this

12:25 blank sheet of paper. That overstates it a little bit because they did have the experience of the 13 states and the constitutions they all had. And then there was the the first try, the Articles Confederation. They’re going to have a do-over there. But of course it gets more complicated still because James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the ringleaders of this, they presented it to the world as though all we’re

12:45 doing is proposing amendments to the articles, which lulled the defenders of the articles into uh perhaps a a less vigilant position than they would be. And because they realized, you know, if we don’t like what happens in Philadelphia, all we have to do is veto it. You could change You could prevent any amendments to the Articles Confederation with a one state voting against. Well,

13:08 as soon as they close the doors in Philadelphia, they say, "No, no, no. We’re not just amending the Articles Confederation. We’re writing a brand new constitution. But don’t tell anybody until we get done with it." These divisions emerge a great deal uh and especially over domestic policy in the Washington and then Adams administration. I mean, we have the controversial Hamilton’s financial plans, you have the

13:29 Whiskey Rebellion, later on the Alien Sedition Acts, not to mention that fierce newspaper partisan war you talk about. Uh just to name a few of the divisions. So, so how do these divisions emerge in the 1790s after the government’s established? George Washington gets elected president, and everybody breathes a great sigh of relief. Because

13:51 Washington is seen as above these petty differences. Now, in part in part because for Washington, being president of the United States is a victory lap for what he’s done before. He is beyond basically, he’s beyond the reach of ambition. There’s no place higher he can aim for. But he’s surrounded by all

14:12 these ambitious people who still have yet to make their reputation. Now, he wisely brings some of them into his own cabinet. And the key figures are Alexander Hamilton, who’s secretary of the treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, who’s secretary of state. And they are polite. They’ve known each other.

14:34 Jefferson is more accomplished in the world. He’s older. He is He has a reputation beyond politics. And Hamilton is this young gun who’s really still trying to climb that ladder of politics. And Hamilton One by the way, one of the things that amazed me as I studied this and again,

14:54 I’ve been teaching American history for a long time. So, it wasn’t new to me, but just to it was impressed upon me again how young these guys that basically overthrew the government of the United States were. Hamilton Hamilton was in his 20s, and Madison was in his early 30s. And And I I so I proposed this question to my students and audiences, "So, if you ever get upset with the

15:14 government and do you Are they all resentful?" Yeah, yeah. "So, does it occur to you that you ought to overthrow the government and start a new one?" I said, "Well, you know, the audacity of these guys in doing it." But, it’s a reminder that at the beginning, when everything was in flux, then everything seemed possible. So, anyway, they do it. And they do have this fundamental difference of what is the government

15:35 supposed to do? Is government supposed to assist people or simply stay out of their way? Is government supposed to look toward the cities and merchants and bankers and financiers, the people with the money, or is it supposed to look out for the people who don’t have the money, the who have the numbers, but they don’t

15:56 have the influence? Is it supposed to look out for the interest of the states because the states have been around? Now, the states as states have only been around since the 1770s, but they’ve been around they’ve been colonial governments and they’re organized and circumscribed geographically just the way they are. So, people who lived in Pennsylvania, people who lived in Massachusetts, they’re used to governing their own

16:17 affairs, within limits, of course, set by what the crown would allow or what parliament would allow. But, still, there was a coherence to their view. And and people there weren’t very many people in the 1790s who said, "I’m an American first and foremost." No, "I’m a Virginian. I’m a New Yorker. I’m a Massachusetts man." And so, there’s that whole question of how do people identify and and what does

16:38 it mean for their governance? And it really sort of came down to those people who favored a stronger central government and who favored a government that liked business and would help business and banks and the wealthy and the people who lived in cities, well, they coalesced around Alexander Hamilton. I mentioned earlier that this war broke out between the British and

16:58 the French and add into that, this group is pro-British, in part because even though the United States fought this war against Britain, everybody knew that America’s natural trading partner was Britain. And so, if you were a merchant, if you were somebody who’s trying to get financing for various things, you would look to Britain. So, the pro-British pro-city pro-business pro-strong government, Those folks line

17:19 up with Alexander Hamilton. And then everybody who’s on the opposite side lines up with Thomas Jefferson. And so this philosophical difference emerges in discussions of various policies proposed. Because Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury and because he was a pushy guy with lots of ideas, he was the one who would propose these matters and some of

17:40 the matters had almost nothing to do with his his described role as Secretary of the Treasury. There’s just he would he defined his his responsibilities very broadly. And Jefferson actually Jefferson had a broader role in domestic politics than we normally think of today as being in the purview of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did a lot of

18:01 domestic stuff. Uh nowadays he’s mostly a diplomat. And so they they would talk about this stuff. And as long as Washington remained president, then it was sort of kept within the family. They argued and went back and forth. And when Washington’s first term ended, Washington really wanted to retire. He’d had enough of politics. He was saying,

18:22 you know, this this is not what he liked to do. This is not what he was really good at. But Hamilton pleads with him, you got to stay you got to stick around for another term. And Jefferson says the same thing because both of them realize as long as long as Washington is there, he sort of puts a cap on this emergent partisanship. Now,

18:42 I should add something here that both Hamilton and Jefferson saw factionalism in the other side. They didn’t acknowledge factionalism on their own side. And we still see this today. You know, when the Democrats do something the Republicans don’t like, the Republicans blame it on divisiveness and faction, you know,

19:03 and partisanship. Whereas, you know, when your own side does it, well, it’s just the right thing to do. And so But one of the striking moments when Madison Madison is a key figure here because he was an arch Federalist at first. He was one of the guys who put together the Constitutional Convention who promotes the ratification of the

19:23 Constitution. But he starts to have second thoughts about this when he’s talked into writing a Bill of Rights which he opposed at first but a Bill of Rights cuz a Bill of Rights really hand cut it says what the government cannot do. And Madison wasn’t thinking that way. But once Hamilton gets in to Washington’s cabinet starts you know taking the ball and running away with it

19:44 and assuming the state debts and proposing a national bank and doing all this other stuff then Madison starts to think gosh what have we created here? You know and so he flips sides and he joins Jefferson on the other side and it’s really key with Madison because in the debate over the Constitution he writes the famous Federalist number 10 which is all about how this new system

20:05 will restrain factions. And the underlying premise here is that these factions parties are a bad thing and they need to be restrained. But by the time about four or five years have passed and and he’s part of one of these factions then he says you know not only are factions inevitable but they can be a good thing of course as long as as

20:25 long as they do what we want them to do. Right and and so as you mentioned early on in your first answer foreign policy really divided Americans too into parties fed this partisan war especially with these wars between Britain and France. I won’t enumerate all the different events but so so how does foreign policy stir this problem as

20:47 well? Well one of the surprising things to many Americans at the time was that foreign policy was going to be an issue at all. Because one of the conceits of American political culture is that we are very far from Europe and so Europe is very far from us. And we don’t have to pay attention what’s going on there that our our ancestors were insightful enough to

21:07 leave Europe and leave Europe’s troubles behind. But from the beginning, Americans wanted to engage in trade with other countries. Now, this is one of the things that makes this seem sort of asymmetric in that by no means is every American a merchant, and by no means is every American really dependent on international trade. But the traders have a big interest in this,

21:29 and they’re very concerned. And but but beyond this as well, even even someone who was I’m not going to say uh subsistence farmers because there weren’t that many subsistence farmers. Most Americans had some connection with imports of some kind. And so, if there was a blockade of the American coast, then prices would go up. And uh certainly commercial farmers and people

21:51 who were growing crops and producing commodities for an international market, this was a serious problem. And it’s it was in the nature of politics then as it is in the nature of politics today, that people who have a lot of material interest at stake in politics tend to shout louder. They have a louder voice in decisions. If it’d been left

22:14 entirely up to If Americans had all been equally represented in the 1790s, then the there would have been a much greater aversion to getting involved in in foreign affairs. It’s also worth reminding that America was not a democracy by any means in the 1790s. There were property requirements, there

22:34 were restrictions on residency and all this other stuff. So that a majority even of adult white males didn’t vote. And so, the political class is the ones making the decisions were a much smaller group. And and and so wealth and material interests, merchants, bankers, and like, they tended to be overrepresented in that group, which is one of the reasons that Jefferson and

22:55 his Republican Party as it came to be called, um felt particularly righteous because they could say that we represent the people of America, the common people of America. And yeah, they probably did up to a certain point, but people Nobody’s doing public opinion polling, and most of these common people really didn’t have a chance to register their

23:16 voices. But it served it would it suited Jefferson’s philosophy. And Jefferson is a fascinating figure in all this because he is he affects to be the sort of philosopher who prints. And if anybody’s going to be above parties, it’s Jefferson. But when it came to the down and dirty of party organizing and

23:38 mobilizing, Jefferson was just really good at this. And this is one of the things that so annoyed Hamilton and John Adams, another leader of the Federalists that that Jefferson could pretend that he was above all this, but he was just a better politician. He was a better partisan fighter than they were. And they kept

23:58 losing. So, I you know, in a nutshell, uh why were American poli- politics so divided during the early republic? American politics was very divided in the 1790s because Americans, generally, were divided on important issues of politics. And because they had created this government that was designed to

24:20 give them their voice. When you live in a monarchy, your opinions don’t really matter. They’re not consulted. But in a republic, your opinions are consulted. They’re solicited. Your your votes are solicited. So, first of all, Americans had different views of what their government should be doing. Also because Americans, from the beginning,

24:42 have tended to moralize what we do in politics. I spoke earlier about civic virtue. And you know, the Declaration of Independence is all about you know, laws of nature and of nature’s God. You know, if if they would have just looked at this as a business transaction. Okay, you want this, we want that and neither

25:03 one of us is morally more legitimate than the other. We can work something out. But, I think it’s it’s in the nature of Republican politics. This is your government. This is the thing you created. This is your baby. And you want to think, you certainly want to present it to the world as we’re doing the right thing, which means that the people who oppose us they’re doing the wrong thing. They’re bad people.

25:23 And it has been a struggle in American politics from then until now to get people to take a more transactional view about politics. Okay, I’ve got my opinion, I’m entitled it. You have your opinion and you’re entitled to it. And so we will thrash something out. It’s fairly rare that Americans have been able to say, "If you differ from me,

25:44 well, your opinion is just as legitimate as mine is." No, no, "I’m right, you’re wrong." Right. Uh yeah, I think that that sums that up well and then founders certainly uh viewed it that way. Uh H. W. Brands, I want to thank you very much for joining us and congratulations on your magnificent new book, Founding Partisans. Thanks, Donnie. It was great to talk to you.

26:04 And thank you all for joining us on this episode of Scholar Talks. Please check out our other interviews in the Topics in American History series on our channel.