“A Candid State of Parties” is another essay written by Madison for the National Gazette. Here, Madison writes from what seems to be a clearly partisan point of view, declaring that the Federalists, “from natural temper, or from habits of life, are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society; and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force.” A government of private interest in the place of public duty that depended upon bribes, privileges and selfishness was a false government. Clearly, Madison had in mind the British government and warned that Hamilton and the Federalists were taking the country in that direction.
Having accused the Federalists of preferring the interests of the few to the many and of failing to trust in the ruling wisdom of the people, Madison finds his way clear to applaud his own Democratic-Republican Party. In contrast to the perfidy of the Federalists, Madison frames the Democratic-Republican Party as a friend to the people and the true guardian of republican government. The alternative was regression into monarchy and a return to the type of British rule that the Americans had so valiantly cast off.
Source: “For the National Gazette, 22 September 1792,” Founders Online, National Archives, accessed April 11, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0334.
As it is the business of the contemplative statesman to trace the history of parties in a free country, so it is the duty of the citizen at all times to understand the actual state of them. Whenever this duty is omitted, an opportunity is given to designing men, by the use of artificial or nominal distinctions, to oppose and balance against each other those who never differed as to the end to be pursued, and may no longer differ as to the means of attaining it. The most interesting state of parties in the United States may be referred to three periods: Those who espoused the cause of independence and those who adhered to the British claims, formed the parties of the first period; if, indeed, the disaffected class were considerable enough to deserve the name of a party. This state of things was superseded by the treaty of peace in 1783. From 1783 to 1787 there were parties in abundance, but being rather local than general, they are not within the present review.
The Federal Constitution, proposed in the latter year, gave birth to a second and most interesting division of the people. Every one remembers it, because every one was involved in it.
Among those who embraced the constitution, the great body were unquestionably friends to republican liberty; tho’ there were, no doubt, some who were openly or secretly attached to monarchy and aristocracy; and hoped to make the constitution a cradle for these hereditary establishments.
Among those who opposed the constitution, the great body were certainly well affected to the union and to good government, tho’ there might be a few who had a leaning unfavorable to both. This state of parties was terminated by the regular and effectual establishment of the federal government in 1788; out of the administration of which, however, has arisen a third division, which being natural to most political studies, is likely to be of some duration in ours.
One of the divisions consists of those, who from particular interest, from natural temper, or from the habits of life, are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society; and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that a government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force. Men of those sentiments must naturally wish to point the measures of government less to the interest of the many than of a few, and less to the reason of the many than to their weaknesses; hoping perhaps in proportion to the ardor of their zeal, that by giving such a turn to the administration, the government itself may by degrees be narrowed into fewer hands, and approximated to a hereditary form.
The other division consists of those who believing in the doctrine that mankind are [sic] capable of governing themselves, and hating hereditary power as an insult to the reason and an outrage to the rights of man, are naturally offended at every public measure that does not appeal to the understanding and to the general interest of the community, or that is not strictly conformable to the principles, and conducive to the preservation of republican government.
This being the real state of parties among us, an experienced and dispassionate observer will be at no loss to decide on the probable conduct of each.
The antirepublican party, as it may be called, being the weaker in point of numbers, will be induced by the most obvious motives to strengthen themselves with the men of influence, particularly of moneyed, which is the most active and insinuating influence. It will be equally their true policy to weaken their opponents by reviving exploded parties, and taking advantage of all prejudices, local, political, and occupational, that may prevent or disturb a general coalition of sentiments.
The Republican party, as it may be termed, conscious that the mass of people in every part of the union, in every state, and of every occupation must at bottom be with them, both in interest and sentiment, will naturally find their account in burying all antecedent questions, in banishing every other distinction than that between enemies and friends to republican government, and in promoting a general harmony among the latter, wherever residing, or however employed.
Whether the republican or the rival party will ultimately establish its ascendance, is a problem which may be contemplated now; but which time alone can solve. On one hand experience shows that in politics as in war, stratagem is often an overmatch for numbers: and among more happy characteristics of our political situation, it is now well understood that there are peculiarities, some temporary, others more durable, which may favor that side in the contest. On the republican side, again, the superiority of numbers is so great, their sentiments are so decided, and the practice of making a common cause, where there is a common sentiment and common interest, in spite of circumstantial and artificial distinctions, is so well understood, that no temperate observer of human affairs will be surprised if the issue in the present instance should be reversed, and the government be administered in the spirit and form approved by the great body of the people.
- How does Madison describe the difference between the parties in his essay? Is this a fair comparison?
- Is Madison’s view on parties analogous to Van Buren’s (Letter to Thomas Ritchie)?
- Madison believed that Washington’s association with the Federalist Party gave it an artificial boost in public opinion, but that Washington’s influence could not last forever and when his time past the people would return to their natural home in the Republican Party.