THE “TEA PARTY” – DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN?

[An Exclusive Essay - copyright 2011 by Sbynews]

Other than those holding a PhD in American History, very few Americans know about the so-called Democratic-Republican Societies, a post-Revolutionary phenomenon that occurred during the 1790’s in most of the then United States. Until recently, it was the only significant movement in American History motivated mainly by opposition to the entire ruling political elite – although the Jacksonian ascendancy was somewhat similar in that regard.

Briefly summarized, when Independence was fully achieved, although there were opposing political doctrines – the Federalist and the “Republican” views, epitomized by Hamilton and Jefferson, respectively, that eventually became the basis of organized “parties” (a term initiated by James Madison) – most officials distrusted the purer forms of democracy and favored governance by the more educated and affluent citizens. At that time many members of Congress were elected by the state legislatures, which were very aristocratic and controlled by the wealthy and/or large landowners such as the “Virginia gentry,” composed of scions of the Randolph family (including Jefferson and Marshall) and other FFV’s. The first President, George Washington, was the choice of an “Electoral College” that at that time did not simply endorse the popular vote. Washington, despite his universal prestige and popularity, was viewed as an aristocrat and sometimes called “His Excellency.” His inaugural was called a “coronation” by many who feared an incipient monarchy despite his having no children.

During Washington’s first term there developed a widespread belief among those less well endowed, financially, especially those not so well connected but who were doing well as artisans and businessmen, that the political “aristocracy” was attempting to feather their nests at the expense of the body politic. That view was further inflamed by the internal “excise” taxes imposed on such things as whiskey, high tariffs, and the decision by Washington not to support the revolutionary government in France, the country that had been our ally during the American Revolution, against the British. Soon, ordinary citizens and even some leading ones – many of whom had been under arms against the British a few years earlier – were forming activist groups that included in their titles the words “Democratic” or “Republican,” which at the time shared the same general meaning and denoted opposition to the concentration of governmental power into the hands of a small elite.

In short, many citizens had been imbued with a desire to participate directly in the political power and refused to simply shift from being ruled by British monarchical fiat to a system controlled by an aristocracy, albeit elected. They felt it was imperative to promote a much broader system of democracy by means of concerted action. However, the activists did not create a formal political party, of which there were none at the time that the movement began and flourished. Historians have evidence of at least 50 different Societies that were widely dispersed throughout the nation as it existed at the time, but did communicate and share thoughts with one another.

When it existed, the grass roots Societies movement was loosely affiliated with the so-called Republican officials and leaders, most of whom were rural landowners, such as Jefferson, and urban artisans and small businessmen. The coalition of these rather diverse groups was fueled by the policy and programs of the so-called Federalist officials, nominally led by Hamilton, who dominated the administration of Presidents Washington and his successor, Adams, including taxation and other revenue sources to support spending by the federal government for such things as repayment of the remaining debt incurred by States (mostly Northern) to support the Revolutionary War.

One such tax resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion, which caused the government to assemble an army of about the same size as that which had won our freedom from British rule. The Federalists attributed that episode and active support for the French government to the Societies and those that befriended it, especially Jefferson. Those episodes and others, including vocal opposition to the Jay Treaty with Great Britain and reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution, resulted in withering and eventual disappearance of the Societies, but many of the members coalesced into the Democratic-Republican Party, which by 1800 eclipsed the Federalist Party when Jefferson became President.

It’s not a perfect analogy, given the much different circumstances, but the tenor of the times is such that the recent rise of a loosely organized “Tea Party” reflects the same opposition and reaction to the ruling political “elite” in our mainstream political parties that caused the formation and conduct of the Societies that arose somewhat more than 200 years ago. And, just as than, the dominant political coalition – the present day Democrat Party – is as terrified of the Tea Party as the Federalist “party” of the time was by the Societies, which it sought (unsuccessfully) to have censured by Congress but did manage to have criticized (as “certain self created societies”) by President Washington. Some feel that the public criticism of elected officials by the more outspoken members of the Societies was the catalyst for the Sedition Act of 1798, under which charges were brought against a leading member of the Societies, Benjamin Franklin Bache, whose newspaper had excoriated prominent Federalists, including Hamilton and other officials, including George Washington, for some years.

Just as then, one mainstream political party has become affiliated with and influenced by the popular movement in reaction and opposition to prevailing political ruling class and its conduct. We may be witnessing a historical repetition.

It remains to be seen whether the Tea Party will be more or less permanent – and influential – than the Democratic-Republican Societies of the 1790’s and whether it becomes subject to the same response by those politicians who fear its actions and goals.

*****************

Historical Note:
There is meager scholarship about the Democratic-Republican Societies – the last comprehensive history was published about years ago. However, there is a good synopsis at www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-2536600826.html.

The best known and largest Society group was in Philadelphia, then the U. S. Capitol; begun in 1793 as “The Democratic Society of Pennsylvania,” its members included notables such as David Rittenhouse, Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin Bache (grandson of Benjamin Franklin), who published the popular anti-Federalist “Aurora” newspaper. Another group, also begun that year in Philadelphia, the “German Republican Society” included the former (and future) Congressman, Peter Muhlenberg.

The attitude of the more aristocratic Federalist officials toward the Societies is reflected in the statement of one of its leading members, John Jay: “those who own the country ought to govern it.”

The Sedition Act of 1798 imposed a substantial fine and even imprisonment for statements that could be deemed as bringing the President or the Congress “into contempt or disrepute.” It was aimed at, among others, Benjamin Franklin Bache, who was charged under the Act but died of Yellow Fever before his trial began.
.
*****************************
To contact the author, send an e-mail to Sbynews stating your name and why you would like to speak to the author of this essay.