secession as a remedy, although in guarded language. "To my ears there is no magic in the sound of Union. If the great objects of union are utterly abandoned,—much more, if they are wantonly, corruptly, and treacherously sacrificed by the Southern and Western States,-let the Union be severed. Such a severance presents no terrors to me." 97 The desirability of secession, in the thought of Pickering, lay, however, not so much in the fact that it would rid the East of southern control, as that it would free it from the pernicious connection with the West. It was the democratic West which he abhorred; for the aristocratic Republicanism of the old South he recognized the affinity of Federalism. He inclined to the belief that the southern States, if separated from the North, would seek a reunion, and that "the only permanent severance" would "be of the Western from the Atlantic States." 98 This he thought "would be a real blessing to the 'good old thirteen states,' as John Randolph once called them." " The British attack on New Orleans aroused the hope that such a separation might be the fortunate result of the war. In January, 1815, he wrote: "By taking and holding New Orleans, and consequently commanding the whole Western country, she will break the Union. . . . . The Atlantic States remaining united will in due time acquire a force sufficient to guard them from insult and injury, but short of that which would tempt ambition to involve them in destructive wars with children of our common ancestors. This view of things presents an additional reason to repress solicitude, where it exists, among any Atlantic citizens to recover New Orleans, should it fall into the hands of the British. Domestic or internal motives have excited in many a willingness, and in some a wish, that the Western States might go off and leave the Atlantic States free from their mischievous control,-a control every day becoming more powerful and dangerous." 100 ... in New England, some States would drop off from the Union like fruit, rotten ripe. Virginia, with the other Southern States, and all Louisiana, and the Floridas in her rear, would then be left to govern her black population as she lists." Ibid., 382. 97 To Edward Pennington, July 12, 1812. Ibid., 390. 98 Ibid. "To George Logan, July 4, 1813. Ibid., 391. 100 To Lowell. Ibid., 425-426. Pickering vacillated somewhat in his opinions, but the above quotations seem to represent those which dominated him most of the time. He saw advantages and disadvantages both in union with the West and in separation. He feared separation would leave the old states saddled with the whole of the war debt and deprived of the public lands, which would be seized by the states within which they lay. Ibid., 391. He did not fear the physical might of the West, believing that a single frigate could blockade the Mis At the date of this letter the war was over: the British had been repulsed at New Orleans, and the treaty of peace was a month old. The control of the United States over the Mississippi Valley had been threatened for the last time, and the expansion of the Republic was ensured. An unprecedented westward movement of population followed the return of peace, and a half-dozen states entered the Union within as many years. Such an increment of western power would have destroyed Federalism had it survived the war. But with the election of 1816 it ceased to maintain a national organization. Here and there in the old states groups of men clung to the party name for many years. 101 Occasionally they exerted some influence even in national politics. But even in its old strongholds Federalism was making its last fight against the reflux of the tide of democracy which had swept the West, and the adoption by the northeastern states of new constitutions or amendments granting manhood suffrage drove it from its last entrenchments and left its members no alternative except to join forces with the new party movements of the twenties. The history of parties for a decade following the war might detail the dissolution of the fragments of Federalism in the several states. Such a study would recount the activities in New England, the middle states, and even in the upper South, which resulted in mixed delegations to Congress, and discuss the attitude and influence of Federalists on the measures of Congress during the period. The part played by them in states where the dominant party was divided into factions might be included to show how they sometimes elected a governor or con sissippi and bring the inhabitants to terms by cutting them off from market. Ibid., 890. He also saw the possibilities for the New England carrying trade in connection with the products of the Mississippi Valley. Ibid., 407. The fear that the old Atlantic states would become insignificant politically as new states were multiplied, clung to him, however, and was the weightiest factor in determining his convictions. Ibid., 407. At the least he hoped the demands of the Hartford Convention might result in restricted power in Congress to admit new states. He saw in the severance of the Atlantic coast and Mississippi Valley, which might result from the success of the British campaign, a condition which would force the Atlantic states into the close union which he believed desirable. "Should the severance. ... take place," he wrote to Hillhouse, Dec. 16, 1814, "from that moment the necessity of Union among the Atlantic States will strike every man who thinks, as forcibly as during our Revolution; and the feebleness of the States south of the Potomac will urge them to cling to those of the North, as the Connecticut vine to the tree which supports it. The terms of a new compact will be adapted to this new state of things." Ibid., 418. Can it be that the New England extremists desired to bring about secession through the Hartford Convention, as a means to reunion with the South on better terms, and with the West excluded? 101 E. g., Federalists cast 16,000 of the 40,000 votes in the Maryland state election of 1820. Niles Register, XIX, 111. In New Hampshire a Federalist electoral ticket reecived 1600 votes in that year, the Republican electors polling about 9,000. New Hampshire Patriot, January, 1821. trolled a legislature. The influence of the undying hatred of the Essex Junto toward John Adams upon the fortunes of his son is typical of another class of data which might be collected. Of broader interest would be the story of such contests as that by which the Baptist-Methodist-Episcopalian alliance under the banner of Republicanism overturned the Congregationalist-Federalist regime in Connecticut and established a more liberal constitution in 1818. But to fix attention upon such details would be to follow eddies instead of the main current, since Federalism as the national rival of Republicanism came to an end in 1816. Prior to the election of 1816 it was felt that the outcome of that campaign would decide the fate of the party. "If we cannot make any impression upon the presidential election, this time, I see no hope for the future," wrote T. Dwight to Rufus King in February.102 For such an impression success in New York was a prerequisite, and as the best hope of carrying that state King was nominated for governor and his acceptance urged by the most influential Federalists.103 The efforts in New York had, however, no other effect than to unite the Republicans who easily carried the election. Thereupon King abandoned hope for the party, and wrote to Gore of Massachusetts: "I presume that the failure will, as I think it should, discourage the Federalists from maintaining a fruitless struggle. It has probably become the real interest and policy of the country, that the Democracy should pursue its own natural course. Federalists of our age must be content with the past." 104 To his son Edward he confided his conviction that "so effectually prostrate is Federalism, that I have no kind of Expectation that [it] can be again in Favor." The only remaining course, in his opinion, was to support the "least wicked Section of the Republicans" in case of division among them.105 Already some correspondence had passed among the leaders concerning the most suitable candidate for the presidency. R. Morris believed "that if Howard of Maryland were started against Monroe, he would stand a tolerable chance. . . . . Should James Ross of Pennsylvania be held up also as Vice President, it would 102 King, C. R., Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, V, 502. 103 J. R. Van Rensselaer wrote, Feb. 16: "I most sincerely believe the existence of the federal party in this State depends on the decision you shall make." Others who wrote in similar vein were James Kent, Jacob Morris, W. A. Duer, T. Dwight, T. J. Oakley, D. B. Ogden, S. Rensselaer, et al. Ibid., 506. 104 May 15, 1816. Ibid., 535. 105 May 21. Ibid., 537. conduce to the Union of one Party and contribute to distract the other. Howard has good Sense, Honor, Courage, and Integrity. Ross is a man of the highest order of Talents." 106 King himself seemed inclined to favor Ross.107 In view of the discouraging defeat in New York, however, no formal steps were taken to unite upon a leader or to rally the party; the few Federalist electors cast their votes for King, and we may well accept his words quoted above as a fitting close to the history of the party. So perished Federalism. Its aristocratic temper, its identification with the moneyed and commercial class of the seaboard, were the primary causes of its unfitness for expansion into regions where society was of a primitive agricultural type. But the West and the Northeast were not destined to permanent antagonism. By the midtwenties the older section had felt the influence of the democratic spirit, the Northwest was entering a maturer stage marked by the growth of towns as centers of trade and manufacturing, and improved facilities for communication were drawing the two sections together-all of which revealed a partial harmony of interest which found political expression. How this came about, however, is the story, not of the decline of Federalism, but of the rise of a new party. 106 March 15. Ibid., VI, 15. 107 Nov. 22. Ibid., 35. CHAPTER IV THE DISRUPTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 1. THE ERA OF NATIONALISM The exit of the Federalist party left the Republicans in triumphant possession of the field, but the Republican party of 1815 was far different from that of 1793 or 1798. Once firmly established in power, Jefferson and his friends found their views of the limits of federal authority greatly altered by their new situation. The functions of government might well be reduced to the minimum when performed by "aristocrats" but the raison d'être for restrictions disappeared in large measure with the advent of the party of the people. The Republicans took up the task of administration in 1801 with a boldness which soon made their change of temper evident even to the Federalists. "By downright demonstration," wrote Gouverneur Morris, "it is shown that the republican party were not dissatisfied because the power of the Government was too great, but because it was not in their hands." 1 The party which had been so transformed by possession of power was now to be disrupted by the forces of a new era. The usual characterization of the decade following the War of 1812 as an "era of good feeling" and personal politics but thinly veils the truth that deep-seated forces were working a revolution in the basis of parties. In later periods of party reorganization, the cause of realignment is found in social and economic changes. The rapidity of the nation's growth has brought forward new problems with each generation, and each generation has accordingly seen a reshaping of party lines. The dramatic history of the decade preceding the Civil War is the most striking example of this truth: despite the earnest efforts of all those who foresaw the disruption of the old parties if not of the Union, the slavery question then thrust itself irresistibly into politics, destroying the Whig organization, dividing the Democracy, and giving birth to the Republican party. Again, as the century drew to its close, the readjustment of national life to the scale of the great continent which had been 1 To H. W. Livingston, Nov. 25, 1803. Morris, Morris, III, 443. 81 |