The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture

Notes

219 Notes introduction 1฀ Rutland Herald, July 6, 1795. For Fourth of July celebrations generally see Len Travers, Celebrating the Fourth: Independence Day and the Rites of Nationalism in the Early Republic (Amherst, 1997); David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776– 1820 (Chapel Hill, 1997); and Simon P. Newman, Parades and the Politics of the Street: Festive Culture in the Early American Republic (Philadelphia, 1997), esp. chap. 3. 2 See Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (New York, 1993); James Roger Sharp, American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis (New Haven, 1993); and Lance Banning, The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (Ithaca, 1978). For the debate over whether or not a party “system” was in place at the time of the first party conflicts see Sharp and also Ronald P. Formisano, “Federalists and Republicans: Parties, Yes–System, No,” in Paul Kleppner et al. (eds.), The Evolution of American Electoral Systems (Westport, Conn., 1981), pp. 33–76. 3฀฀ Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven, 1989), and Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York, 1992), are the principal works here. 4฀ Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes, p. 136. 5฀ Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780–1840 (Berkeley, 1970), remains the classic statement on the acceptance of the concept of an opposition party as a regular feature of government. 6฀ See Joanne B. Freeman, Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven, 2001), pp. 98–99. Freeman notes further: “As the Republicans eventually understood more fully than Federalists, the game of govern- ment could be won by the party that best orchestrated these conversations” (p. 99). For a similar and related point see the discussion in Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes, pp. 113–14. Although I agree in general with these formulations about the eventual lines of development, I emphasize the point developed in this book, that early in the 1790s the Federalists, too, could be extremely proficient and successful at the “seeding” of public opinion. My understanding of the workings of public opinion in the early republic has been further influenced by conversations and correspondence with Joanne Freeman, Albrecht Koschnik, and David Waldstreicher, to all of whom I owe a great debt. Needless to say, they would not necessarily agree with everything I have written. Although it appeared too late for inclusion in this study, Christopher J. Young’s recent dissertation, “Contests of Opinion: The Public Sphere in PostRevolutionary America” (University of Illinois at Chicago, 2001), examines some of the same larger questions I do. 7฀ For an example of the collection of public opinion gone awry because it revealed support for the other side, see James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, July 30, 1793, in Papers of Madison, 15:49. In this letter, written during the Citizen Genet affair and Neutrality Crisis, Madison laments that a recent sounding of public opinion in Virginia was disappointing. “I can only account for it by supposing the public sentiment to have been collected from tainted sources wch. ought to have suggested to a cautious & unbiassed mind the danger of confiding in them.” Republicans presumably encountered the “wrong” public, since those canvassed did not return the desired opinion. 8฀ James Madison, “Public Opinion,” December 19, 1791, in Papers of Madison, 14:170. 9 Colleen A. Sheehan, “The Politics of Public Opinion: James Madison’s ‘Notes on Government,’” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 49, no. 4 (Oct. 1992), 609–27, quotation at 620. 10 The classic works on Federalism which have done so much to shape historians’ understanding of the party are David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York, 1965); Linda K. Kerber, Federalists in Dissent: Imagery and Ideology in Jeffersonian America (Ithaca, 1970); James M. Banner, Jr., To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789–1815 (New York, 1970); Shaw Livermore, The Twilight of Federalism: The Disintegration of the Federalist Party, 1815–1830 (Princeton, 1962); and James Broussard, The Southern Federalists, 1800–1816 (Baton Rouge, 1978). 11 My reconsideration of Federalism joins other works. The argument of this book was anticipated in two of my articles: “Shaping the Politics of Public Opinion: Federalists...