The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers Plot Summary

Introduction

In the sweltering summer of 1787, a remarkable group of men gathered in Philadelphia to address a looming crisis. The young American nation, having won its independence from Britain, was faltering under the weak Articles of Confederation. States printed their own money, erected trade barriers against each other, and foreign powers questioned whether this fragile experiment in self-government would survive. From this crisis emerged one of history's most influential political documents: the United States Constitution. But the creation of this document was not merely a practical response to immediate problems—it represented a profound theoretical innovation in how power could be organized and constrained in a republic. The story of America's constitutional founding reveals how the framers wrestled with fundamental questions that continue to challenge democracies today: How can a government be strong enough to function effectively while remaining limited enough to protect liberty? How can majority rule be reconciled with minority rights? What balance should exist between national unity and local autonomy? Through examining the revolutionary crisis that preceded the Constitution, the competing visions at the Constitutional Convention, the theoretical foundations articulated in the Federalist Papers, and the early challenges faced by the new government, readers gain insight into both the principles and compromises that shaped American democracy. This exploration offers valuable perspective for anyone interested in the nature of constitutional government, the tensions inherent in federalism, and the ongoing challenge of maintaining a balanced political system.

Chapter 1: Revolutionary Crisis and the Articles of Confederation (1776-1787)

The American Revolution began not as a quest for independence but as a struggle for the rights of Englishmen. Throughout the early 1770s, tensions mounted between Great Britain and its American colonies over issues of taxation without representation, restrictions on western expansion, and limitations on colonial self-governance. The colonists, who had developed their own political traditions over 150 years of relative autonomy, increasingly found themselves at odds with a mother country that viewed them primarily as a source of revenue and raw materials. The pivotal year 1776 marked the culmination of this growing divide. In January, Thomas Paine published "Common Sense," a pamphlet that electrified colonial society by making the case for complete independence in clear, accessible language. By July, the Continental Congress had adopted the Declaration of Independence, drafted primarily by Thomas Jefferson. This revolutionary document not only announced the colonies' separation from Great Britain but articulated a profound political philosophy: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The Declaration further asserted that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed"—a radical departure from the divine right of kings. After winning independence through a grueling eight-year war, the thirteen former colonies faced the daunting task of creating a functioning government. Their first attempt, the Articles of Confederation, reflected their deep suspicion of centralized authority. Ratified in 1781, this document created a loose association of sovereign states rather than a true national government. Under the Articles, Congress could declare war and conduct foreign relations but could not levy taxes, regulate commerce between states, or enforce its decisions. Each state retained "sovereignty, freedom, and independence," with one vote in Congress regardless of population size. This decentralized system quickly revealed critical weaknesses. The national government, unable to collect revenue directly, had to request funds from states, which often ignored these appeals. By 1786, the new nation faced a severe economic crisis. The currency was nearly worthless, foreign trade was hampered by inconsistent state regulations, and the government struggled to pay its war debts. The crisis came to a head with Shays' Rebellion in 1786-87, when Daniel Shays, a former Revolutionary War captain, led approximately 1,500 farmers in an uprising against Massachusetts courts to prevent foreclosure of their farms. Though eventually suppressed, this rebellion sent shockwaves through the political establishment. The weakness of the Articles became increasingly apparent as states engaged in economic warfare against one another. States with good ports taxed imports destined for neighboring states, while others printed worthless paper money, causing financial chaos. James Madison observed that the Articles had created "a system of imbecility in the Union" that threatened the very survival of the young republic. George Washington lamented, "We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion," while Alexander Hamilton warned that without reform, the Union would dissolve, leading either to multiple confederacies or a return to monarchy. The crisis under the Articles demonstrated a fundamental tension in American political thought: the need to balance liberty with order, local autonomy with national effectiveness. The failure of this first system of government would profoundly shape the thinking of those who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, pushing them toward a stronger federal structure while still preserving essential liberties. The lesson was clear: a nation could not survive on idealistic principles alone—it required practical institutions capable of governing effectively.

Chapter 2: The Constitutional Convention: Competing Visions of Government

The Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, in what was then known as the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall). Fifty-five delegates from twelve states (Rhode Island refused to participate) gathered in extraordinary secrecy, with windows shut despite the summer heat. Though officially authorized only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the delegates quickly exceeded their mandate. Within days, they had decided to create an entirely new system of government—a bold and potentially revolutionary act. Two competing visions of government immediately emerged. Virginia's Edmund Randolph presented what became known as the Virginia Plan, drafted largely by James Madison. This proposal called for a strong national government with three branches and a bicameral legislature where representation would be based on population. This approach favored the larger states and represented a dramatic shift toward centralized authority. In response, William Paterson of New Jersey countered with the New Jersey Plan, which maintained equal representation for all states regardless of size. This plan essentially proposed a revised version of the Articles, preserving state sovereignty while modestly strengthening the central government. The convention nearly collapsed over this fundamental disagreement until the Connecticut Compromise (or Great Compromise) was reached. This solution created a bicameral legislature with a House of Representatives based on population and a Senate with equal representation for each state. This compromise exemplified the pragmatic spirit that would characterize the entire convention, as delegates repeatedly set aside ideological purity in favor of workable solutions. As Benjamin Franklin observed, "When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint." Beyond the structure of Congress, delegates debated numerous other contentious issues. The Three-Fifths Compromise determined how slaves would be counted for representation and taxation, a morally problematic solution that reflected the convention's prioritization of union over addressing slavery's fundamental injustice. The delegates also wrestled with the method of selecting the president, the scope of executive power, the role of the judiciary, and the relationship between state and federal authority. Throughout these debates, theoretical principles were constantly balanced against practical concerns and regional interests. The framers were deeply influenced by Enlightenment thinking, particularly the works of John Locke on natural rights and popular sovereignty, Baron de Montesquieu on separation of powers, and David Hume on the dangers of faction. James Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution," was especially well-versed in political theory and historical examples of republics. The delegates drew lessons from classical republics, British constitutional history, and their own experiences under colonial governance and the Articles of Confederation. They were not creating government from abstract principles alone, but from a rich understanding of historical successes and failures. What emerged from the convention was a document that balanced competing interests and philosophies. The Constitution established a federal system dividing power between national and state governments, separated powers among three branches of government, and created checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. It represented neither pure democracy nor aristocracy but sought a middle ground—a republic where the people's voice would be filtered through elected representatives. As the convention concluded on September 17, 1787, Benjamin Franklin looked at the president's chair, which featured a half-sun painted on its back, and remarked: "I have often... looked at that behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."

Chapter 3: Federalist Papers: Theoretical Foundations of the Republic

When the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification in 1787, it faced significant opposition. Many Americans feared the proposed government was too powerful and might threaten the very liberties for which they had fought. The battle over ratification became particularly intense in New York, a crucial state whose rejection might doom the entire constitutional project. To persuade New Yorkers to support ratification, three remarkable men—Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—collaborated to write a series of essays published in New York newspapers under the pseudonym "Publius." These essays, later collected as The Federalist Papers, represent one of the most profound explorations of political theory ever produced in America. The Federalist Papers addressed fundamental questions about human nature and government. In Federalist No. 10, Madison tackled the problem of "factions"—groups pursuing narrow self-interest contrary to the common good. Previous democratic theorists had suggested that republics could only work in small territories where citizens shared common interests. Madison brilliantly inverted this logic, arguing that a large, diverse republic would actually better control faction. In a large republic, he reasoned, so many different interests would exist that no single faction could easily dominate. This "pluralist" vision saw competing interests checking each other, preventing tyranny of the majority. The authors held a nuanced view of human nature—neither entirely pessimistic nor optimistic. As Madison famously wrote in Federalist No. 51: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." This realistic assessment led to their ingenious solution: a mechanistic system where "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and power would check power. Rather than relying on virtuous leaders, the Constitution would harness self-interest and ambition to maintain equilibrium between competing centers of power. In Federalist No. 39, Madison explained the hybrid nature of the proposed government—"partly federal and partly national." The Constitution would establish a government that acted directly on citizens (a national characteristic) while preserving state sovereignty in many areas (a federal characteristic). This complex arrangement reflected the framers' recognition that different levels of government had different strengths and weaknesses. Local governments understood local needs, while a national government was necessary for defense, foreign relations, and creating a unified economic space. Hamilton, in Federalist No. 70, made the case for "energy in the executive"—a strong presidency that could act with "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Yet this energy would be constrained by limited terms, checks from other branches, and ultimate accountability to the people. This balance between effective governance and limited power runs throughout The Federalist Papers. The authors recognized that a government too weak to act effectively would ultimately fail to secure liberty, while one too powerful might threaten it directly. Though often cited as foundational texts of American democracy, The Federalist Papers actually defended a republican form of government, not direct democracy. The authors feared pure democracy as "incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." Instead, they advocated a system where representatives would refine and filter public passions, allowing reason to prevail over immediate impulses. This tension between democratic principles and republican structures continues to shape American politics to this day, reflecting the framers' attempt to balance popular sovereignty with constitutional constraints.

Chapter 4: Separation of Powers: Checks and Balances in Practice

The framers of the Constitution, deeply concerned about the concentration of power, designed a government structure with multiple safeguards against tyranny. Their primary mechanisms were separation of powers and checks and balances—related but distinct concepts that work together to prevent any single institution from dominating the government. This system, revolutionary in its time, has profoundly shaped American governance for over two centuries. Separation of powers divided governmental authority among three branches: legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court and federal courts). This tripartite division, inspired by Montesquieu's political philosophy, prevented any single institution from exercising all governmental powers. As Madison explained in Federalist No. 47, the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." Each branch was given distinct primary functions: Congress would make laws, the President would execute them, and the courts would interpret them. However, the framers recognized that merely separating powers on paper would be insufficient. As Madison noted in Federalist No. 48, "parchment barriers" could not prevent one branch from encroaching on another's authority. The solution was a system of checks and balances, where each branch was given means to limit and control the others. The President could veto legislation; Congress could override vetoes and control funding; the judiciary could review the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. This system created what Hamilton called "a policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives." The framers also established a complex appointment process that further entangled the branches. The President would nominate judges and executive officials, but the Senate would confirm them. Treaties negotiated by the President required Senate approval. The House could impeach officials, but the Senate would try them. These interlocking powers forced cooperation and compromise, preventing any branch from acting unilaterally in important matters. This system was deliberately designed to make government action difficult without broad consensus. The framers preferred gridlock to tyranny, believing that government that acted too easily might threaten liberty. As a result, the Constitution has a status quo bias—it's easier to block change than to implement it. This conservative tendency has frustrated reformers throughout American history but has also provided stability and prevented hasty, potentially dangerous actions. The separation of powers system has proven remarkably durable, though not without evolution. In the early republic, Congress was generally the dominant branch, with presidents like Washington and Jefferson largely deferring to legislative authority. The Civil War marked a significant expansion of executive power under Abraham Lincoln, while the Progressive Era and New Deal saw the growth of administrative agencies that complicated the traditional three-branch model. The modern presidency has accumulated substantial power, particularly in foreign affairs and national security, raising questions about whether the original balance has been maintained. Despite these changes, the fundamental principle that power should be fragmented and checked remains central to American governance. When President Harry Truman attempted to seize steel mills during the Korean War, the Supreme Court ruled against him in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), reaffirming limits on executive authority. Similarly, Congress has reasserted its power through legislation like the War Powers Resolution and impeachment proceedings against presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump. The system continues to evolve, but its essential character—power checking power—endures as a defining feature of American constitutionalism.

Chapter 5: Federalism: Dividing Authority Between Nation and States

Federalism—the division of power between national and state governments—represents another crucial mechanism the framers designed to protect liberty and ensure effective governance. This vertical separation of authority complements the horizontal separation among branches of the federal government, creating what Madison called a "double security" for the rights of the people. The federal structure established by the Constitution has evolved dramatically over time, but continues to shape American governance in profound ways. Under the Constitution, the federal government received specific enumerated powers, while states retained a broad "residuary sovereignty" over local matters. As Madison explained in Federalist No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Federal authority would focus primarily on national defense, foreign relations, interstate commerce, and creating a uniform currency, while states would handle most matters affecting citizens' daily lives, including education, criminal law, and local governance. This division served several purposes. First, it prevented dangerous concentration of power by dispersing authority across multiple levels of government. Second, it allowed for local variation and experimentation, with states serving as "laboratories of democracy" where different policies could be tested. Third, it kept government closer to the people, enhancing accountability and responsiveness. Fourth, it acknowledged the diverse regional interests and cultures within the United States, allowing for policies tailored to local conditions rather than one-size-fits-all national solutions. The precise boundary between federal and state authority was left deliberately ambiguous, leading to ongoing tension throughout American history. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause established that federal law would be "the supreme Law of the Land," but only when acting within its constitutional authority. The Tenth Amendment, added as part of the Bill of Rights, emphasized that powers not delegated to the federal government were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." These provisions created a framework for federalism without resolving exactly where the line between national and state power should be drawn. This ambiguity has led to recurring conflicts over federalism. The early republic saw fierce debates between Federalists who favored broad national authority and Democratic-Republicans who championed state sovereignty. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall established important precedents expanding federal power in cases like McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States and established the doctrine of implied powers. The most dramatic federalism crisis came with the Civil War, when southern states' claims of sovereignty and the right to secede were ultimately rejected through military force. The twentieth century witnessed a significant expansion of federal authority, particularly during the New Deal era when economic crisis prompted national solutions to national problems. The Supreme Court initially resisted this expansion but eventually accepted broader interpretations of federal power, particularly under the Commerce Clause. Civil rights legislation in the 1960s further extended federal authority, using national power to protect individual rights against state discrimination. More recently, the Court has shown renewed interest in federalism, striking down some federal laws as exceeding congressional authority in cases like United States v. Lopez (1995) and portions of the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). Despite these shifts, federalism remains a defining feature of American governance. States continue to exercise primary authority in many areas, from education to criminal justice, while the federal government addresses national challenges like environmental protection and healthcare. This complex, sometimes contentious division of authority reflects the framers' recognition that different levels of government have different strengths and weaknesses. Effective governance requires both centralized authority for certain functions and decentralized authority for others, creating a system that can balance unity with diversity, national standards with local autonomy.

Chapter 6: The Bill of Rights: Securing Individual Liberties

When the Constitution was first proposed, it faced significant opposition from those who feared it created too powerful a central government without adequate protections for individual rights. These critics, known as Anti-Federalists, included prominent revolutionary figures like Patrick Henry, who warned that the Constitution "squints toward monarchy," and George Mason, who had refused to sign the document at the Constitutional Convention. Their primary concern was the absence of a bill of rights—a written guarantee of fundamental liberties that the government could not violate. Federalists initially resisted adding a bill of rights, arguing that it was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Alexander Hamilton contended in Federalist No. 84 that since the Constitution established a government of limited, enumerated powers, it could not threaten rights outside its authority. Furthermore, he warned that listing specific rights might imply that unlisted rights were unprotected. James Madison initially shared these concerns but eventually recognized that a bill of rights would build public confidence in the new government and provide an additional safeguard for liberty. The ratification debate reached a crucial compromise when several states approved the Constitution while recommending amendments to protect individual rights. Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York all ratified with the understanding that a bill of rights would be added once the new government was established. True to this promise, James Madison, now serving in the First Congress, proposed a series of amendments in June 1789. After debate and revision, Congress approved twelve amendments in September 1789, and ten of these were ratified by the states by December 1791. These first ten amendments became collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights protected a range of fundamental liberties. The First Amendment guaranteed freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition—rights considered essential to democratic governance and individual autonomy. The Second Amendment addressed the right to bear arms, while the Third prohibited the quartering of soldiers in private homes during peacetime. The Fourth through Eighth Amendments established crucial protections for those accused of crimes, including freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, trial by jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Amendment addressed Hamilton's concern by clarifying that the enumeration of certain rights should not be construed to deny others retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment emphasized the federal system by reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. These amendments reflected both Enlightenment principles and the colonists' experiences under British rule. Many provisions directly responded to specific grievances against the Crown, such as arbitrary searches, denial of jury trials, and religious establishment. Others embodied philosophical commitments to natural rights and limited government that had animated the Revolution itself. Together, they created a framework for protecting individual liberty against governmental encroachment. Initially, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to state governments. This limitation was explicitly confirmed in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), when the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to state actions. However, following the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) prohibited states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Over time, the Supreme Court interpreted this provision to "incorporate" most Bill of Rights protections against state governments, dramatically expanding their scope and impact. The Bill of Rights has proven remarkably adaptable to changing circumstances. Rights like freedom of speech have been extended to new forms of communication unimaginable to the framers. Fourth Amendment protections have been applied to electronic surveillance and digital privacy. The broad principles established in 1791 continue to guide courts in addressing modern challenges to liberty, demonstrating how constitutional text can maintain relevance across centuries of social and technological change. While interpretations have evolved, the fundamental commitment to protecting individual rights against governmental power remains a defining feature of American constitutionalism.

Chapter 7: Early Challenges to Constitutional Government (1789-1800)

The first decade under the Constitution presented numerous challenges that tested the new government's design and resilience. As George Washington took office as the first president in April 1789, the constitutional framework existed only on paper. Translating its principles into functioning institutions required practical decisions that would establish precedents for generations to follow. This formative period revealed both the strengths and weaknesses of the constitutional system as it confronted unforeseen challenges. The Washington administration faced immediate tasks of establishing the executive branch. With no precedent to follow, Washington's decisions—from the creation of a cabinet to his consultative relationship with the Senate—shaped the presidency in lasting ways. He established important norms of executive behavior, including the two-term tradition he created by voluntarily stepping down in 1797. His Farewell Address warned against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" and "permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world"—principles that would guide American governance for generations. Financial challenges presented an early test for the new government. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed an ambitious program to address Revolutionary War debts, establish national credit, and create a sound financial system. His plans included federal assumption of state debts, a national bank, and excise taxes—all controversial measures that stretched constitutional boundaries. The debate over the First Bank of the United States in 1791 prompted the first major constitutional dispute, with Hamilton arguing for a broad interpretation of federal powers while Jefferson and Madison advocated stricter construction. Washington ultimately sided with Hamilton, establishing an important precedent for implied powers that would later be formalized in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Foreign affairs created additional challenges as the French Revolution sparked a global conflict between Britain and France. Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793 asserted presidential authority in foreign policy while attempting to keep America out of European wars. The controversial Jay Treaty with Britain in 1794 provoked intense partisan opposition and raised questions about the Senate's role in foreign affairs. These events demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining neutrality in a world of competing powers and established important precedents for executive authority in international relations. Perhaps the most significant development during this period was the emergence of political parties, despite the framers' hopes that the new system would control faction. By the mid-1790s, two distinct parties had formed: Federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, who favored a strong central government, close ties with Britain, and commercial development; and Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, who advocated limited government, sympathized with revolutionary France, and championed agricultural interests. This partisan division was not merely political but reflected fundamentally different visions of America's future. The partisan conflict reached its peak during John Adams's presidency (1797-1801) with the Quasi-War with France and the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. These laws, which criminalized criticism of the government and made it easier to deport foreigners, represented a serious threat to civil liberties. Jefferson and Madison responded with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which advanced the controversial doctrine that states could judge the constitutionality of federal laws. This crisis revealed the fragility of constitutional norms and the potential for partisan conflict to undermine fundamental liberties. The peaceful transfer of power from Federalists to Democratic-Republicans following the bitterly contested election of 1800 represented a crucial turning point. Despite deep partisan animosity, the constitutional process prevailed. As Jefferson noted in his inaugural address, "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists," emphasizing that partisan transitions could occur within the constitutional framework. This transition demonstrated the resilience of the system the framers had created, even as it evolved in ways they had not fully anticipated. The constitutional experiment had survived its first major test, establishing a precedent for peaceful transitions that would become a hallmark of American democracy.

Summary

The American constitutional experiment represents one of history's most profound attempts to reconcile the competing demands of liberty and order, democracy and stability, unity and diversity. The framers, working in the shadow of failed confederations throughout history, crafted a system that distributed power across multiple levels and branches of government, creating a complex web of checks and balances. They rejected both pure democracy and monarchy in favor of a constitutional republic where popular sovereignty would be exercised through representatives and filtered through deliberative institutions. This design reflected a nuanced understanding of human nature—recognizing both the capacity for self-government and the dangers of unchecked power, whether wielded by the many or the few. The enduring genius of the American system lies not in its perfection but in its adaptability. The Constitution established a framework flexible enough to accommodate dramatic changes in society, technology, and America's role in the world. Its ambiguities—particularly regarding the precise boundaries between federal and state authority, and among the three branches—have allowed for evolution without revolution. This adaptability offers crucial lessons for modern governance in any context: effective systems must acknowledge human nature rather than depend on virtuous behavior alone; sustainable governance requires balancing competing values rather than maximizing any single principle; and constitutional systems must combine firmness in fundamental principles with flexibility in their application. As we continue to face challenges of polarization, technological change, and global interdependence, the federalist experiment reminds us that governance is always a work in progress—requiring both fidelity to founding principles and willingness to adapt them to changing circumstances. The framers' greatest legacy may be not the specific institutions they created, but their demonstration that deliberate constitutional design, informed by historical experience and theoretical insight, can create systems of government capable of enduring across centuries while remaining true to their founding values.

About Author

Loading...

Alexander Hamilton

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information. American politician Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the treasury of United States from 1789 to 1795, established the national bank and public credit system; a duel with Aaron Burr, his rival, mortally wounded him. One of the Founding Fathers, this economist and philosopher led calls for the convention at Philadelphia and as first Constitutional lawyer co-wrote the Federalist Papers , a primary source for Constitutional interpretation. During the Revolutionary War, he, born in the West Indies but educated in the north, joined the militia, which chose him artillery captain. Hamilton, senior aide-de-camp and confidant to George Washington, general, led three battalions at the siege of Yorktown. People elected him to the Continental congress, but he resigned to practice law and to found in New York. He served in the legislature of New York and later returned to Congress; at the convention in Philadelphia, only he signed the Constitution for New York. Under Washington, then president, he influenced formative government policy widely. Hamilton, an admirer of British, emphasized strong central government and implied powers, under which the new Congress funded and assumed the debts and created an import tariff and whiskey tax. A coalition, the formative Federalist Party, arose around Hamilton, and another coalition, the formative Democratic-Republican Party, arose around Thomas Jefferson and James Madison before 1792; these coalitions differed strongly over domestic fiscal goals and Hamiltonian foreign policy of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain. Exposed in an affair with Maria Reynolds, Hamilton resigned to return to Constitutional law and advocacy of strong federalism. In 1798, the quasi-war with France led him to argue for an army, which he organized and commanded de facto. Opposition of Hamilton to John Adams, fellow Federalist, contributed to the success of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, in the uniquely deadlocked election of 1800. With defeat of his party, his industrializing ideas lost their former prominence. In 1801, Hamilton founded the Federalist broadsheet New-York Evening Post, now known as the New York Post. His intensity with the vice-president eventually resulted in his death. After the war of 1812, Madison, Albert Gallatin, and other former opponents of the late Hamilton revived some of his federalizing programs, such as infrastructure, tariffs, and a standing Army and Navy. His Federalist and business-oriented economic visions for the country continue to influence party platforms to this day.

Read more