American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis

by James Roger Sharp

During the years from 1789 to 1801, the republican political institutions forged by the American Constitution were put to the test. A new nation―born in revolution, divided over the nature of republicanism, undermined by deep-seated sectional allegiances, and mired in foreign policy entanglements―faced the challenge of creating a stable, enduring national authority and union.

In this engagingly written book, James Roger Sharp offers a penetrating new assessment disputing the conventional wisdom that the birth of the country was a relatively painless and unexceptional one. Instead, he tells the dramatic story of how the euphoria surrounding the inauguration of George Washington as the country's first president quickly soured. Soon, the Federalist defenders of the administration and their Republican critics regarded each other as bitter political enemies. The intense partisanship prevented the acceptance of the idea that an opposition could both oppose and be loyal to the government. As a result, the nation teetered on the brink of disintegration as fear, insurrection, and threats of secession abounded. Many even envisioned armed civil conflict as a possible outcome.

Despite the polarization, the nation did manage to survive its first trial. The election of Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and the nonviolent transfer of power from one political group to another ended the immediate crisis. But sectionally based politics continued to plague the nation and eventually led to the Civil War.

Genres: History, American History, Politics

365 pages, Paperback

First published October 27, 1993

About the author

James Roger Sharp is professor of history emeritus at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. A specialist in the politics of the early American republic, he earned his doctorate at the University of California, Berkeley in 1966.

Reviews

[Jonathan]

A very good explication of the party strife of the 1790s. Sharp argues that the American republic was in real danger of dissolution under the strain of partisan struggle. The "parties" of the 1790s, Sharp explains, were not permanent and stable modern parties, but rather factions vying for control of the new federal government. Each of these "proto-parties" took for granted the classic republican view that faction was an evil, a threat to the unitary public good; each therefore aimed for the total defeat of the other. The United States, Sharp argues, came close to civil war more than once during the 1790s, particularly after 1798, when the Republicans, responding to what they saw as a Federalist threat of military despotism, adopted a states-rights and sectional strategy that threatened to split the Union. At the height of the electoral crisis of 1800-1, governor James Monroe of Virginia planned to use the state militia to take over the federal arsenal in his state; likewise, governor James McKean of Pennsylvania was preparing to send militiamen and artillery into the field to secure Thomas Jefferson's presidency. It was almost by accident, or more precisely, thanks to the scruples of a handful of members of Congress and leaders of the Federalist party, that war was averted in 1801.

[Mark]

A well-written study of how sectionalism drove the formation of what we call the 1st Party System due to differing views of the American future and different views of the public good. At the same time both groupings (which Sharp refers to as proto-parties) maintained the classical republican belief in a unitary public good and the abhorrence of political parties. He also discusses how the politicization of the people as the leaders of the New England-dominated Federalists and the Virginia Republicans fought for control of the federal government eventually led to a new less than deferential conception of representation and a new style of politics that was more democratic. Both of these developments laid the groundwork for the democratization of politics (for white men) on the 19th century, even though Federalist and Republican *leaders* retained the older deferential view of politics.

However, with the importance Sharp gives to the sectional split between Federalists and Republicans, it seems he ought to have offered an explanation of significant exceptions to the pattern, like the strength of New York Republicans or South Carolina Federalists.

[Jack]

This book is by far one of the worst histories I've read recently. This is the most recent study of the development of the party system in the early Republic, but it could just as easily have been written in the 1880s. Historians for the last thirty years have paid great attention to political culture and cultural ideologies; Sharp ignores that trend. Historians for the last eighty years have given attention to social division and contestation; Sharp ignores that as well. Sharp relies exclusively on elite political sources, focusing his narrative on the activities of Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton under the two Washington administrations and the Adams administration. The narrative pertains only to the political maneuvering of these men, and uses the most obvious reference points- the Jay Treaty, the Genet affair, the elections of 1792, 1796, and 1800. This book may be useful for looking up facts, but offers very little in the way of fresh insights or interesting interpretations.

[Karen]

A well-written overview of the period, and very useful/informative. Author lacks in analysis and argumentation, so there's not too much to pick apart.

If I had been Washington, I would have killed my cabinet!