Why Parties Emerged In Early America

Why did a Constitution that never mentions parties give birth to them almost immediately? We trace the story from ratification battles to cabinet showdowns, connecting the dots between Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the shockwaves of the French Revolution, and the intellectual scaffolding laid by Montesquieu and Madison. Along the way, we unpack how foreign revolutions reframed domestic loyalties, why the idea of a loyal opposition became a safeguard for liberty, and how institutions invited passionate disagreement without inviting collapse.

We take a careful look at Federalist 10, where Madison avoids the word “party” but squarely confronts faction. His solution—an extended republic that multiplies interests—sits beside the older, classical fear that factions are a republic’s genetic defect. That tension sets the stage for George Washington’s Farewell Address, where he embraces debate yet warns that partisan heat can outrun reason. His fireplace metaphor anchors the conversation: political fire can warm a free people or burn down the house, and the difference is civic virtue, respect for the Constitution, and a willingness to compromise when the voting ends.

Bringing the story forward, we contrast weak formal parties with strong partisanship today. Open primaries and personality-driven campaigns mean looser party control, yet the tone is harsher, the gridlock deeper, and shutdowns longer. Washington’s counsel feels fresh: keep the arguments, keep the energy, but keep the commitment to govern. If you’re drawn to the mechanics of democracy, the origins of party competition, and the guardrails that keep freedom from devouring itself, this conversation offers both historical clarity and practical guidance.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with someone who loves American history, and leave a quick review to help others find us.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Transcript

Setting The Puzzle Of Parties

SPEAKER_00 0:46

Welcome back, everyone. So we are in our kind of political party era. And if you listen to yesterday's episode with Dr. Beyenberg, he talked about the main differences between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans. And today we have Dr. Careys on. And Dr. Harris is going to kind of talk about why political parties formed in the early years of the United States, because it's not something that's in the Constitution. So, Dr. Haris, why did these parties form in the early years of the United States?

Ratification Fights Shape Early Alignments

The French Revolution Shakes U.S. Politics

Montesquieu’s Theory Of Parties

SPEAKER_01 1:19

Thank you, Liz. And you're right. This is a bit of a conundrum or puzzle about American politics. The parties are so important in our entire political history, and they start in the early decade, the first decade under the new Constitution, but the term is not in the Constitution. So this is a sort of extra-constitutional but important structural dimension of our political life. So, yes, they first form in Washington's what we call his first term, in his first cabinet, in fact. And then they grow in potency in the 1790s. So I would say there are some immediate reasons why the parties arise, and then there are some deeper ones. The immediate reasons, if you think about it, one immediate reason is that a significant difference of view arose in the ratification debate over the Constitution, what we would call the Federalist versus the Anti-Federalist views about the scope and the authority of any new federal government and how to really best implement the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And those are reflecting the Federalist versus anti-federalist views, those are reflecting some deep disagreements about the purposes of a free government, what is the best way to preserve liberty and preserve equality versus what are the real threats to liberty and equality. So this is happening within a framework of agreement about a larger set of principles, certainly about the principles in the Declaration. But that ratification debate, Federalists versus Antifederalists, revealed some important differences. So that's one reason why it's not, it shouldn't be a surprise that parties arose in the first presidential administration. Then the second immediate cause is the French Revolution in 1989. So entirely outside of the American context, but immediately and deeply affects American political life. So the French revolutionary program ends up claiming that this is a revolution for all of mankind and to change all of American politics and beyond, in effect, that all monarchies are illegitimate per se. This is not something that the American revolutionary spirit ever argued. We sought an alliance with France and then effect with Spain, and that was crucial to succeeding in winning the Revolutionary War. So the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence were phrased in a different way than the French Revolution's Declaration, Declaration of the Rights of the Man and Citizen. And that that kind of universal utopian revolutionary claim of the French revolutionaries that all monarchies are illegitimate, and the only legitimate form of government is republics, and we should sweep away all monarchies. That ended up shaping American politics by by animating the differences between those who were friendlier to England within the American political culture, anglophilic, we might say, and the Anglophobes. And Jefferson in 1989 makes a pretty sharp turn to criticize England and monarchy, and a very sharp turn in favor of the revolutionary utopian ideals of the French Revolution. So though that ends up having effects in the American political sense, and we'll talk more about that. So those are two immediate causes. There were differences shown in American political culture and political life between the Federalist and Antifederalists and the Ramification Debate, and then the French Revolution and its effects in America. But now for a deeper cause, why did parties arise in the early years of the United States? Well, the deeper cause is actually diagnosed and explained by Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws, his great work of political philosophy, published in 1748. We've talked about that before. Single most important influence on the founding of the American Republic as an independent republic as a whole from the 1770s through the 1790s. And clearly the single most important influence on our constitutional form of government, separation of powers and federalism. But in there, in the Spirit of Law, it's a big, huge book, Montesquieu talks about parties in England. And he talks about them arising naturally in this kind of government, especially if there's a separation of powers, parties will form around the different branches of government, we would say. And Montesquieu's way of approaching this is this is natural. Liberty is going to give space for differences to arise. The differences will sort of coalesce into parties, and this is nothing to be terribly alarmed about. And the if you think about it, if you know a little bit about English politics, there are these phrases that are used in English politics, which Monteshu doesn't mention specifically, but he's sort of dealing with them. That there's a loyal opposition, right? If the prime minister comes out of the majority party in the House of Commons and forms the government, well, the minority party or other parties are the opposition, but they're the loyal opposition. And then there's a shadow government, right? The prime minister forms a kind of executive cabinet from the parliament to form the government, but there's a shadow government, right? The minority party or multiple parties, they have their own kind of cabinet offices that are the shadow government. So Montesquieu says this is a reality. He's not emphatically endorsing it because he says that differences in parties form around passions and kind of, you know, prejudices and just opposition, for the sake of opposition, not entirely forming, the parties are not entirely forming on the basis of reasons or or high principles. So it's not a ringing endorsement for Mopskew about the reality of parties, but he says they're reality and they can have some good effect. And he particularly mentions that the oppositional character prevents tyranny from arising, right? It sort of keeps a constitutional order of liberty that the the whatever whoever the governing or dominant party is has to be kept honest by the fact that there's an opposition party and people can move across party lines. They can vote differently in in different elections or serve in different governments. And it also keeps citizens kind of animated and interested and engaged in political life, rather than just sort of sitting on the sidelines and saying, oh, the people in elected office, they take care of politics, and I have my private affairs to take care of. So the Modescu says it's a good thing that there's a little bit of passion and energy and activity and animation, even again, it's not a ringing endorsement, that that it is passions and it can be stupid. It can be just, you know, opposition for the sake of opposition. So though those are both immediate reasons and some deeper reasons why, even though parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, they become a reality right away.

SPEAKER_00 8:47

This reminds me of a Federalist paper. So isn't this essentially Madison's argument in Federalist 10 that factions threaten the common good, but in a large federal republic, it reduces that danger by making it unlikely that any single faction can dominate?

Loyal Opposition And Shadow Government

Passions, Liberty, And Anti-Tyranny Checks

SPEAKER_01 9:06

Yes, this is very similar to Madison's argument in Federalist No. 10 at writing as publius. And in fact, Madison is drawing on Montesquieu, among other sources, when he's thinking about this problem of faction. And of course, it's in the Federalists, so the larger object here is to get their Constitution ratified. So Madison is arguing that this Constitution, which you have a choice to ratify, is a good thing because it implicitly deals with this reality of faction. The reality, as Montesquieu says, that parties and factions will arise in free politics, free forms of government. But again, note here Madison does not use the word parties. So uh this is for the same reason that the Constitution doesn't use the word parties. Montesquieu and anyone else like Hume talking about factions and parties and interests in this way, is they're making a kind of modern argument and a modern diagnosis in the middle of the 18th century that parties and factions are a kind of tolerable reality. And this is breaking from a more classical or traditional review about republics and free governments, that parties and factions are a real problem, you know, danger, red flashing warning signs. To use our modern 21st century language, the older view, the classical, traditional view is that parties are a kind of genetic defect of republics, not what they said in the 18th century. But right, it's kind of endemic, but it's like an endemic disease of republics. Yes, factions can form and parties can form, but this is danger. This is a sign of the imminent self-destruction of the republic, because parties are the first stage of the movement toward civil war and literally war, violence breaking out. If you allow parties to be sort of solidified and recognized and legitimate, it's a path toward d doom and disaster. So in this larger argument and warning about parties, this the classical traditional view says this is what destroyed the Roman Republic. That you know, a sort of senatorial aristocratic faction in party forms, and then there's a plebeian commoners uh faction, and it's the beginning of the end for the Roman Republic. So this is why the reality of factions and parties is discussed by Madison and others, but you don't use the word party at the time because it was the sort of predominant view in a public sense among leading American founders, leading thinkers in the 1780s that parties are bad. Even though, on the other hand, we need to deal with this reality of factions and Madison's argument in Federalist number 10. So the the predominant view is that uh this is a republic, and the lesson we learned from the Roman Republic and other republics is that Republicans need to strive to build a common culture, a common civic culture, a common sense of civic duty and common civic purpose. Yes, there's freedom, there's liberty, there's gonna be disagreement, and of course, we know as we're ratifying the Constitution, the proposal here is to have separate branches of government. And the state constitutions all have separate branches of government already. And they're now gonna be two levels of government. So there are gonna be institutional kind of platforms and spaces from which to have perpetual disagreements. But we shouldn't have you know the sort of official line unspoken by everybody. This is the official line, is parties are not a good thing. So we're not gonna talk about that, and we're not gonna put the word in the Constitution. And yet, for all these reasons, as I've been talking, you can see how parties are a reality and factions are a reality and they're and they're likely to rise. So it's no real shock that they do, but it's still something of a problem. It's seen as a problem in the 1780s and early 1790s.

SPEAKER_00 13:20

So what about George Washington and his view on parties? I know that in his farewell address, which he wrote in 1796, he talks about the dangers of parties, you know, going to an extreme and being self-destructive. Can you tell us a little bit more about Washington's kind of overall view on this?

SPEAKER_01 13:42

Yes, Washington really captures this complexity that I tried to sketch out. That on the one hand, parties may be a reality of these forms of government free republics, but on the other hand, we need to be careful about them going too far, and they can be a real danger. And yes, he is emphatic in the Farewell Address in 1796 on this particular point. But and I recommend everybody in general read the farewell address, read it once a year carefully. You know, American politics would be much better off, I think, if we all read the farewell address.

SPEAKER_00 14:17

You know what's interesting is Samantha Snyder, who is the research librarian from Mount Vernon, said that we should be reading Washington's Farewell Address every President's Day to honor him. So you are now the second person unprompted who has made this suggestion. I think it's a great idea.

Linking To Madison’s Federalist 10

Classical Fears Versus Modern Tolerance

SPEAKER_01 14:34

Yes. Well, actually, there is a ceremonial reading of the farewell address in the Senate. The version I know of it, the custom begins around the time of the First World War, after the First World War. I think it's Henry Cabot Lodge. And we can talk about that in a separate episode because of a view that Washington's Farewell Address particularly warns about in the section at the end on foreign policy, he warns about entanglement with European politics. But that's for a separate episode. It would be good for us to have the, you know, to do what the Senate does, read the whole thing once a year, as the Vernon librarian said, because of this issue on parties in particular. But it's a complicated argument. So his counsel is balanced, we would say nuanced, that on the one hand, he accepts the kind of Montesquieu view, Madison's view in Federalist No. 10, and by the way, Madison, uh Hamilton and and Madison and Jay as the authors of The Federalist, Washington knew that very well because he helped to reprint the Federalist in 1788 in the ratification debate in Virginia. So Washington knew the argument from Federalist No. 10, but while he accepts it, and accepts the Montesquieu view, there will be p factions or parties they will arise, there are reality. On the other hand, he's really more classical or traditional in this sense, he's kind of blending the classical and the and the modern views about parties. He's more disapproving of party as a concept than Montesquieu was, and really than Madison is in Federalists No. 10. And he and he really doesn't think that structural argument that Madison makes in Federalist No. 10, just the scope and scale of the Federal Republic will prevent the development of a single majority faction just because of pluralism and the size and scope and scale. So Washington is more skeptical about parties in the Farewell Address. He's announcing that he himself won't be a candidate for a third term as president. He's had to deal with the nasty reality of party conflict in his own cabinet, arising during his first term as president and definitely, in effect, dominating his second term as president between Jefferson and Hamilton, and we'll we'll talk about that in a later episode. But the council in particular is that while parties may be reality, they're going to exist, they have to be guided, moderated, governed by this idea of a common commitment to civic virtue, an American commitment to the common good, to the Republic as a whole, especially in the Farewell Address, Washington emphasizes a commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law. And he uses a metaphor, and I'll finish on this, that the metaphor of a fireplace. So if you accept the reality of parties, factions, that's like a fire. But we have to be careful that this doesn't become a raging fire that burns down the whole house. So I think that this would be an important lesson to think about in 21st Century America. We don't have strong parties. We could do a separate episode on this. We don't really have strong parties. Just about anybody can put themselves forward as the as a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat for the presidency for governor, right? Because of this primary round of elections that we have. But we have a lot of partisanship. And we have just what Montesquieu kind of warned about, and certainly what Washington warned about, a lot of stupid passions and anger in partisanship. So Washington accepted diversity of opinions and debate. He wanted to keep both Hamilton and Jefferson in his cabinet. Imagine that, right? He wanted them to stay while they're increasingly open about their disagreements. Because Washington's view was he, the president, would be smarter, everybody would be better off if we air the best arguments on both sides, and then he he arrives at a decision, or Congress that arrives at a decision. But again, it could go too far. So the challenge is following Washington's farewell address to say we're going to keep this within the fireplace. We have disagreements that can get somewhat heated in political campaigns, and we identify ours with one party or another party, but then we're more committed to the whole constitutional order. We're more committed to governing. We're more committed to doing the things that governments actually have to do, pass laws about big problems. You never pass laws about good things, they're always about problems, right? And we have to pass budgets. You know, you have to actually run governments. So you think about it, in the past 40 years, we've had this pattern of government shutdowns. And in the past decade, they've gotten longer. And we just had the longest one ever for 40 plus days. The federal government is still functioning in lots of ways. But we don't we don't we couldn't, you know, adults in the room, we couldn't arrive at a compromise to pass a budget and say, we'll live to fight another day at the next election. That's what Washington is worrying about. That there's less of a commitment to the common good of the entire republic, to the Constitution, to the rules of processes and procedures. You know, you win an election, you lose an election, you accept that you're the minority party, you accept some responsibilities of being the majority party, you live to fight another day with another election. And while you're fighting and disagreeing, you know, the metaphor of fighting is not really to the point of refusing to talk to each other and using violent language, and the government shuts down and you can't pass a budget and things like that. So that is a major reason to take the recommendation of our friend from the from Mount Vernon, the Mount Vernon Library, that we should read Washington's Farewell Address once a year.

SPEAKER_00 20:35

I love that. And we're going to get into in our next episode talking about key leaders. You know, we're really taking the history of political parties and digging into it. So, Dr. Careese, thank you so much.

SPEAKER_01 20:46

Thank you, Liz.