The Founding Fathers Despised Political Parties

 

In spite of the dangers that political parties could pose to our nascent Republic, and the protests that were lodged by many of our Founders to having those parties, no mention of banning political parties appeared in our Constitution:

The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or ‘factions,’ as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

George Washington warned against political parties when he left the Presidency in 1796. The divisions first emerged over whether to have a strong central government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton representing the Federalists; Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who feared putting too much power in the hands of the federal government, ended up forming the Democratic-Republican party. The animosity became so great that Adams tried to stop anything that would interfere with his own goals as President and approved making the criticizing of the president and his policies a federal crime. Jefferson took revenge when he became President by firing half of all federal employees at the top, essentially wiping out the administrative state.

We could say that outcomes of the Constitution not addressing political parties was a grave error:

The Constitution itself omits any mention of political parties. Though it is not as simple as the founders not having considered it, since Madison, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton had all written about the subject at some point in their lives. Specifically, they all had negative views on the matter, with Washington having used precious space in his Farewell Address to discuss the negative aspect of political parties, and Madison dedicating Federalist No. 10 to the issue. In fact, the paper was written in part as a safeguard against political parties, since they were explicitly recognized as inevitable by Madison. The irony is that the constitutional omission of political factions exacerbated the problem. While not mentioning something can serve as a barrier against it, in a legal environment, there is no room for chance; things as malicious as to be recognized as ‘enemies’ of free states are best explicitly prohibited by law.

Today we can observe the consequences of the Constitution not dealing with the issue of partisan politics. Are there alternatives to accomplishing the business of government without political parties? Do you think leaving political parties out of the Constitution was an appropriate decision, or do you think we are paying the price in our political environment for our Founders not addressing this divisive and dysfunctional issue?

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 72 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Yes and then they ran right out and formed them. 

    Snark aside, the formation of political parties was inevitable. The party creation centered on the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration. So yeah, political parties were sort of baked into the cake.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Last night on “The Five,” one of the panelists said that we actually had four political parties: the progressive Left, the moderate Democrats, the MAGA Republicans and the moderate Republicans (who may be Democrats in disguise). These divisions are interesting to contemplate . . . 

    • #2
  3. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    • #3
  4. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    It’s possible, but I think that is a hair too simplistic. First off, there are no moderate Democrats. They are all on the Left, it’s just that the members of the Uniparty have interests that lay outside of the ideological principles of the Left. Ditto the Republicans. Look I think Mitch McConnell is against killing children in the womb, but when it comes down to choosing to vote on a bill based on those principles or voting against it if that bill also interferes with his making money in shady ways from China, he is voting grift every damned time. That is the same for Malig-Nancy Pelosi and John Cornyn and all the rest of the Uniparty.

    I would actually argue that we have three parties in DC: the Leftwing Populists (very small in proportion to the Dem Party); Rightwing populists (very large in proportion to the GOP); and the Uniparty (the leaderships of both parties and rank and file members who take grift through the machinations of the Deep State).

    • #4
  5. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    Corporation of a national bank: there is no power of Congress to incorporate anything. This is where that Scots Bastard knee capped the Constitution with “implied powers” which you can’t find anywhere in the document. <Cue the moron Conservatives to tell me how wrong I am and that a strict reading of the constitution would render it unworkable, blah blah blah.>

    illegally raising an army and invading a state in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (this is the Whiskey Rebellion)

    Those are the two biggest affronts to the constitution as it was sold to us by the very people who violated it (I;m looking at you, Alex you Scots Bastard). I also believe there were some shanannigans with foreign policy toward the end of his second term that bled into Adams’s term, but one can’t really make a case here since the Executive is the sole branch in charge of foreign policy.

    • #5
  6. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    Corporation of a national bank: there is no power of Congress to incorporate anything. This is where that Scots Bastard knee capped the Constitution with “implied powers” which you can’t find anywhere in the document. <Cue the moron Conservatives to tell me how wrong I am and that a strict reading of the constitution would render it unworkable, blah blah blah.>

    illegally raising an army and invading a state in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (this is the Whiskey Rebellion)

    Those are the two biggest affronts to the constitution as it was sold to us by the very people who violated it (I;m looking at you, Alex you Scots Bastard). I also believe there were some shanannigans with foreign policy toward the end of his second term that bled into Adams’s term, but one can’t really make a case here since the Executive is the sole branch in charge of foreign policy.

    Thanks for elaborating. We’ve done so much over the years to the Constitution that it’s hard to know where to start laying blame and who to hold responsible!

    • #6
  7. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    Corporation of a national bank: there is no power of Congress to incorporate anything. This is where that Scots Bastard knee capped the Constitution with “implied powers” which you can’t find anywhere in the document. <Cue the moron Conservatives to tell me how wrong I am and that a strict reading of the constitution would render it unworkable, blah blah blah.>

    illegally raising an army and invading a state in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (this is the Whiskey Rebellion)

    Those are the two biggest affronts to the constitution as it was sold to us by the very people who violated it (I;m looking at you, Alex you Scots Bastard). I also believe there were some shanannigans with foreign policy toward the end of his second term that bled into Adams’s term, but one can’t really make a case here since the Executive is the sole branch in charge of foreign policy.

    Thanks for elaborating. We’ve done so much over the years to the Constitution that it’s hard to know where to start laying blame and who to hold responsible!

    I would start with Jemmy Madison seeking Washington’s support to hold another convention after the failure of the Maryland Convention in 1785/6. That’s where the downfall of this country started. With hindsight I am very confident in saying that that damned piece of paper should have been thrown in the fireplace of Independence Hall.

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    I would start with Jemmy Madison seeking Washington’s support to hold another convention after the failure of the Maryland Convention in 1785/6. That’s where the downfall of this country started. With hindsight I am very confident in saying that that damned piece of paper should have been thrown in the fireplace of Independence Hall.

    I am far from being an expert on the Constitution, but are you saying that the Articles of Confederation should have been sufficient?

    • #8
  9. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    I would start with Jemmy Madison seeking Washington’s support to hold another convention after the failure of the Maryland Convention in 1785/6. That’s where the downfall of this country started. With hindsight I am very confident in saying that that damned piece of paper should have been thrown in the fireplace of Independence Hall.

    I am far from being an expert on the Constitution, but are you saying that the Articles of Confederation should have been sufficient?

    Sufficient. There’s a word.

    I have read several sources that point out that our comic book version of history about the Constitution is a fraud. Depending on what STate you lived in, the AoC (the real AoC mind you) was good for some and not good for others. If you were in a Southern State, the AoC was fine for you because you were able to freely trade with the rest of the world without the incumbrances of the Norther States who needed–thirsted for–the protectionist tariffs that they wouldn’t get until after the Constitution. The tariffs against other States that people like to point to as a reason for the constitution were tariffs levied by Northern States against Northern States.  Because the raw materials needed by the North were imported by those States, the costs of manufacturing were either even with or slightly higher than the costs of imported finished goods in the South, which had a tremendous sum of wealth per capita. If the North wanted the South to be its only market, it needed a mechanism to lock them in that forced them to buy Northern goods as opposed to European or Asian goods. Hence the commerce clause of the US Constitution and the provision in Art. I, Sec. 9:

    “No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws…”

    When people tell you that the economy in the “country” after the REv War was in shambles, know that they are only talking about the Northern States who required a protectionist tariff to survive.  From this, begot the debates over internal improvements in the North (canals, railroads, etc.) and eventually the American System debates featuring Danny Webster, Hank Clay, and John C. Calhoun (it is always a good idea to go full Calhoun by the way).

    EDIT: Also note that yes, all States had debt after the REv War, but only the Northern States had trouble making any payments on those debts. The Southern States were doing just fine handling their debts and a couple of the States actually paid off the debt by the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    • #9
  10. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Susan, I recommend these two books:

    1. Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard
    2. Empire of Liberty, by Gordon Woods (Here all you really need to read is the introduction.)
    • #10
  11. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Susan, here is one more that I recommend if for nothing else the examination of protectionist tariffs:

    Tyranny Unmasked, by John Taylor of Caroline

    • #11
  12. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    What is the alternative to political parties? The Uniparty?

    • #12
  13. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Hang On (View Comment):

    What is the alternative to political parties? The Uniparty?

    Holding hands and singing Kumbayah (spelling).

    • #13
  14. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    What is the alternative to political parties? The Uniparty?

    Holding hands and singing Kumbayah (spelling).

    Even East Germany had more than one registered party.

    • #14
  15. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Parties will arise absent a prohibition in any democratic system. Its how you obtain and wield power. If you outlaw them you will get secret syndicates for the same reason parties are formed. If you prosecute the first syndicator you will be voted out of office by the second syndicate. The best thing is to be a moral people, vote always, and punish politicians who grift and buy office. 

    • #15
  16. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Parties are a natural outgrowth of people getting together to get stuff done. 

    We don’t have parties in the Parliamentary sense. They are not nearly as controlled from the top. 

    • #16
  17. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Today we can observe the consequences of the Constitution not dealing with the issue of partisan politics. Are there alternatives to accomplishing the business of government without political parties? Do you think leaving political parties out of the Constitution was an appropriate decision, or do you think we are paying the price in our political environment for our Founders not addressing this divisive and dysfunctional issue?

    It really wasn’t possible to not have political parties. After all the 1st amendment grants the right of free association and to petition government.  It wasn’t going to be long before both things naturally led to political parties it is sort of surprising that we don’t have more than two.   Although there are institutional reasons for that I suppose.   I think it was wise not to put anything about it in the Constitution.  Partisan politics is a fact of life in a republic.  All codifying it in a constitution would have done would have been to entrench the politics of the time into the system.  Part of the genius of the constitution is how well it has been able to continue to function throughout the history of the country.  I think it would have performed less well if it had tried to address partisanship. 

    • #17
  18. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Last night on “The Five,” one of the panelists said that we actually had four political parties: the progressive Left, the moderate Democrats, the MAGA Republicans and the moderate Republicans (who may be Democrats in disguise). These divisions are interesting to contemplate . . . 

    That seems about right.  The skew is in the composition of congress:

    1. There are very few MAGA Republicans in congress at the moment, although MAGA represents the bulk of the republican party
    2. The vast majority of the Republicans in congress are moderates, although they a represent a minority view in the republican party at the moment.
    3. The progressive left dominates the democratic party and congress, although they probably represent of actual democratic voters.
    4. Moderate Democrats probably make up the majority of democratic voters, but have virtually no representation in congress.

    It is therefore clear that both parties right now are represented in congress by a group that represents a minority view in their own parties.   That may change in the midterms.  As the republican conference will likely become more MAGA.  It is difficult to tell what will happen with the democrats.  Typically they elect “moderate” candidates that wind up voting in lockstep with the Progressive left, so while in theory there are elected moderates functionally they don’t really exist.  

    • #18
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):
    Today we can observe the consequences of the Constitution not dealing with the issue of partisan politics. Are there alternatives to accomplishing the business of government without political parties? Do you think leaving political parties out of the Constitution was an appropriate decision, or do you think we are paying the price in our political environment for our Founders not addressing this divisive and dysfunctional issue?

    It really wasn’t possible to not have political parties. After all the 1st amendment grants the right of free association and to petition government. It wasn’t going to be long before both things naturally led to political parties it is sort of surprising that we don’t have more than two. Although there are institutional reasons for that I suppose. I think it was wise not to put anything about it in the Constitution. Partisan politics is a fact of life in a republic. All codifying it in a constitution would have done would have been to entrench the politics of the time into the system. Part of the genius of the constitution is how well it has been able to continue to function throughout the history of the country. I think it would have performed less well if it had tried to address partisanship.

    I agree with your points. It’s difficult enough to get things done with just two parties! I wonder early on if those who protested parties did so from principle, rather than reality. After all, Madison knew they would probably emerge and tried to ensure they did minimal damage.

    • #19
  20. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Parties are a natural outgrowth of people getting together to get stuff done. 

    It really is that basic, isn’t it, Bryan?

    • #20
  21. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Rodin (View Comment):
    The best thing is to be a moral people, vote always, and punish politicians who grift and buy office. 

    I agree. Of late, however, we’ve been sadly disappointed. It’s nearly impossible to keep track of all the questionable, if not illegal actions, are taking place. And those are the things we know about. . . 

    • #21
  22. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):
    Parties are a natural outgrowth of people getting together to get stuff done.

    It really is that basic, isn’t it, Bryan?

    Yep! 

    • #22
  23. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    Corporation of a national bank: there is no power of Congress to incorporate anything. This is where that Scots Bastard knee capped the Constitution with “implied powers” which you can’t find anywhere in the document. <Cue the moron Conservatives to tell me how wrong I am and that a strict reading of the constitution would render it unworkable, blah blah blah.>

    illegally raising an army and invading a state in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (this is the Whiskey Rebellion)

    Those are the two biggest affronts to the constitution as it was sold to us by the very people who violated it (I;m looking at you, Alex you Scots Bastard). I also believe there were some shanannigans with foreign policy toward the end of his second term that bled into Adams’s term, but one can’t really make a case here since the Executive is the sole branch in charge of foreign policy.

    You can find implied powers in the Constitution.  Look up the Necessary and Proper Clause.  It’s right there, in black and white.

    • #23
  24. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Susan, how do you think that the Constitution should have addressed political parties?

    I don’t think that there’s a way to do so, at least not in anything like a free society.  It might be possible to mandate that there be one party, but in practice, factions would probably emerge within that single party anyway.

    In my view, if there is no way to solve a problem, it is not a “grave error” to fail to address it.

    You are absolutely correct about the Founders concerns about factions.  As I recall the Federalist Papers, their intended solution was the separation of powers, which they hoped would cause factions to cancel each other out, and enable the pursuit of the common good.  Of course, part of the problem is that people don’t necessarily agree about the outcomes that would constitute the common good.

    I just don’t think that you can take the politics out of politics.  Well, not until the Lord returns, and not all of us believe in such a return.

    • #24
  25. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):
    Let us recall that almost before the ink on the sheep skin was dried, there were direct violations of the Constitution carried out by the Washington administration.

    Not disagreeing, but I’m curious to know what those might have been.

    Corporation of a national bank: there is no power of Congress to incorporate anything. This is where that Scots Bastard knee capped the Constitution with “implied powers” which you can’t find anywhere in the document. <Cue the moron Conservatives to tell me how wrong I am and that a strict reading of the constitution would render it unworkable, blah blah blah.>

    illegally raising an army and invading a state in violation of Article IV, Section 4 (this is the Whiskey Rebellion)

    Those are the two biggest affronts to the constitution as it was sold to us by the very people who violated it (I;m looking at you, Alex you Scots Bastard). I also believe there were some shanannigans with foreign policy toward the end of his second term that bled into Adams’s term, but one can’t really make a case here since the Executive is the sole branch in charge of foreign policy.

    You can find implied powers in the Constitution. Look up the Necessary and Proper Clause. It’s right there, in black and white.

    Balderdash! Go read the Convention minutes and the Ratification debates. there are no “implied powers” to a constitution that purportedly is a document conferring “few and enumerated” powers. Nice try but swing and a miss.

    • #25
  26. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    1787Libertarian (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    Well, we could send them to Manhattan. Just be sure to have Snake Plissken standing by, just in case:

    On a more serious note, I question the practicality of exile for most crimes. Have you considered corporal punishment?

    I think you are in the wrong thread. Is this for the Penal Colony?

    Yeah, sorry.

    • #26
  27. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    Well, we could send them to Manhattan. Just be sure to have Snake Plissken standing by, just in case:

    On a more serious note, I question the practicality of exile for most crimes. Have you considered corporal punishment?

    Wrong thread.

    • #27
  28. 1787Libertarian Member
    1787Libertarian
    @

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio&hellip; (View Comment):

    Well, we could send them to Manhattan. Just be sure to have Snake Plissken standing by, just in case:

    On a more serious note, I question the practicality of exile for most crimes. Have you considered corporal punishment?

    I think you are in the wrong thread. Is this for the Penal Colony?

    • #28
  29. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I think the best thing our political parties do is recruit and teach would-be candidates. The Republicans in Massachusetts run something they call Campaign School for first-time candidates and campaign managers. It’s a lot of fun for participants, and it gets them warmed up for the campaign. It’s really hard to go from quiet home to running for office. People need help to do that, some encouragement. They need to see people smiling back at them.

    Civic engagement does not happen automatically. Most people need some encouragement and mentoring to run for office at any level. There is nothing like an election to increase civic engagement. We cannot set up our schools and police and fire departments, and then just walk away. They will always be ours to manage. They are our responsibility. We need to stay in touch. We need to show up when the police chief wants to talk to townspeople. We need to go to the schools’ concerts and graduations. Talk to the principals and teachers and superintendents. Politics and civic engagement are a revolving door.

    Keeping the civic engagement lights lit is something we have to work on constantly. It won’t happen by itself. People are essentially lazy, and today every organization in America is competing with television and the internet for members and help. I used to make a joke to my friends: “Everyone tells me there are too many people and there’s overpopulation. They think that way because they have never tried to find a treasurer!” :-) Everyone I knew in local government was also involved politics and church. It wasn’t a coincidence. It was a way of life.

    Years ago, a friend of mine who had four daughters had a great child-rearing strategy. The kids were in a very nice private school, and their afternoons were structured such that one afternoon was spent on church-related activities, one afternoon was spent on charity-related activities (two of the kids volunteered at the local hospital), one was spent on music lessons of some sort, and one was spent on politics.

    I thought it was great strategy for building a life. And it turned out really well. Her youngest is an attorney in some prestigious law firm in New England, and she now has three children of her own. I was fascinated by my friend’s inclusion of politics on the list. The kids worked on local political campaigns. It was just brilliant of my friend to include it.

    I have learned things working on political campaigns that I would never have known or even guessed any other way. I think everyone should do it at least once. It’s an incredible learning situation–government, human behavior, organization building and maintenance, management, marketing, media, and money.

    • #29
  30. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    You can call them parties or groups or tribes or communities but a fact of life is that without a group around you, you are vulnerable.  The Left has made an art of connecting gangs and fighting the smaller gangs and groups.  Until the Right gets over its urge to fight itself more than its enemies it will continue to lose.  I understand the founders feelings they were originally part of the same tribe / group of patriots that ripped a country from Britain.  So the parties that came later were splinter groups of that.   Nowadays there is no bigger group that we are part of.  At one time it was America but the Left is brought up being taught that the US is evil and they do not consider themselves as part of that group but instead a resistance or a revolution against it.   As time goes by and the Federal government continues to show itself to be nothing more than a Democrat tool more of the Right is going to feel the same.  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.