Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Free Legal Encyclopedia: Ex proprio motu (ex mero motu) to File

Federalist Party - Further Readings

government national constitution republican

The Federalist Party was an American political party during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It originated in the loosely affiliated groups advocating the creation of a stronger national government after 1781 and culminated with the laws and policies established by Federalist lawmakers from 1789 to 1801. These laws and policies laid the foundation for a strong central government in the United States, thereby securing the transition from the provisional national government established during the Revolutionary War and continuing under the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION to the intricate system of checks and balances contemplated for the three branches of government in the U.S. Constitution.

The Federalist party's early leaders included ALEXANDER HAMILTON, JOHN JAY, JAMES MADISON, and GEORGE WASHINGTON. These men provided much of the impetus and organization behind the movement to draft and ratify the federal Constitution. Their support came from the established elites of old wealth in the commercial cities and in the less rapidly developing rural regions.

Even before the Articles of Confederation were ratified by the original 13 states in 1781, prominent Americans were criticizing the document for having failed to create a strong federal government. In 1783, George Washington, as commander in chief of the army, sent a circular to state governors discussing the need to add tone to our federal government. Three years later Washington and his political allies were referring to those who opposed strengthening the power of the central government under the Articles of Confederation as antifederal.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, those favoring a stronger central government drafted a Constitution that greatly increased the powers of Congress and the executive. Debate over ratification of the Constitution sharpened the lines separating those who called themselves federalists and those who called themselves antifederalists. Much of this debate was formalized in The Federalist, later called The Federalist Papers.

Originally written as 85 tracts under the name Publius, the pro-Federalist essays were published in New York City newspapers between October 27, 1787, and May 28, 1788. Each essay was written to persuade the people of New York to elect delegates who would ratify the federal Constitution in the forthcoming state convention. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the principal authors, while John Jay wrote five essays. The Federalist Papers are today considered America's most important political treatise and the most authoritative source for understanding the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founding Fathers.

After the Constitution was ratified, the Federalist party dominated the national government until 1801. The Federalists believed that the Constitution should be loosely interpreted to build up federal power. They were generally pro-British, favored the interests of commerce and manufacturing over agriculture, and wanted the new government to be developed on a sound financial basis. Accordingly, Secretary of Treasury Hamilton proposed tax increases and the establishment of a national bank.

During their 12-year reign, the Federalist party settled the problems of the revolutionary debt, sought closer relations with Great Britain in Jay's Treaty of 1794, and tried to silence their domestic critics with the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of 1798. These repressive laws cost the Federalist party much of its support, including that of Madison, who with THOMAS JEFFERSON organized the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY.

The Democratic-Republicans, also known as just the Republicans, opposed the policies and laws of the Federalist party at every turn. Republicans were generally pro-French and pro-agriculture. They believed that the Constitution should be strictly interpreted, favored strong, independent states at the expense of the federal government, and opposed the creation of a national bank.

The Federalist party lost control of the national government when Jefferson became president in 1801. The Federalists continued to diminish in popularity for the next 20 years. The party's last significant political victory came in the IMPEACHMENT trial of SAMUEL CHASE, associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court and staunch Federalist, who had been impeached by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives for what they called judicial misconduct. However, in his trial before the Senate, Chase and his attorney convinced enough Senators that the impeachment charges boiled down to little more than partisan politics and that convicting Chase would imperil the independence of the federal judiciary. Chase was thus acquitted on all eight ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

The Federalist party ceased to exist as a national organization after the election of 1816, in which Republican JAMES MONROE defeated Federalist Rufus King. However, the party remained influential in a number of states until it disappeared completely during the 1820s. Most Federalists, such as DANIEL WEBSTER, joined the National REPUBLICAN PARTY in the 1820s and later the WHIG PARTY in the 1830s.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Republican Party; Whig Party.

[back] Federalist Papers - Federalist, No. 78, And The Power Of The Judiciary, Further Readings

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 1 year ago

this site is the worst site i have ever seen

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

oh and also george w. was not a federalist, or a Democratic-Republican. he refused to take sides. Like seiously that is like 8th grade social studies.

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

...Wow.i just needed to find out who lead the Federalists, and I got here. This is why I tend to use Bing.

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

The info. was not totaly correct.As Mandee M. said washington would not side with either of the parties. The info. needs to be corrected. :( sorry!!

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

I honestly do not see what is so confusing about this website.

Vote down Vote up

over 6 years ago

Federalist Party - Further Readings

Vote down Vote up

9 months ago

Do you think that soup is just salad with a lo of dressing? Is salad soup with little broth?

Vote down Vote up

9 months ago

WHO WROTE THIS SITE?!?!?! THIS IS GARBAGE. *pacyber*

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

This is so confusing.!

Vote down Vote up

almost 5 years ago

This website is so dumb. I had to read the other website to for my iA2p thingy....its a waste of time

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

You think this is bad try this site on the Democratic-Republican Party. Alot worse. Enjoy! -_-

Vote down Vote up

over 3 years ago

wow terrible website the other one is so much better jeez people give us information thanks very much

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

I honestly do not see what is so confusing about this website.

Vote down Vote up

almost 3 years ago

Did anyone else notice that almost everyone who wrote something like, "correct this u did it wrong omg lik foreal its not that hard" can't actually spell simple words? XD

Vote down Vote up

over 3 years ago

This was very confusing. I couldn't even use it for a school project.

Vote down Vote up

over 1 year ago

Um George Washington refused to take sides!! So that is incorrect!

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

was does this poopin cyber school have to use poopy websites like this piece of poop. i think im going to go poop

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

was does this poopin cyber school have to use poopy websites like this piece of poop. i think im going to go poop

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

idk wat ya'll r talk bout this an't hard to under stand im in 8th grade n 12 n i can under stand

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

this place is so helpful

Vote down Vote up

over 2 years ago

hi there

Vote down Vote up

over 3 years ago

yo-yo

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

Origins

Loch NessThe term "monster" was reportedly applied for the first time to the creature on 2 May 1933 by Alex Campbell, the water bailiff for Loch Ness and a part-time journalist, in a report in the Inverness Courier.[6][7][8] On 4 August 1933, the Courier published as a full news item the claim of a London man, George Spicer, that a few weeks earlier while motoring around the Loch, he and his wife had seen "the nearest approach to a dragon or pre-historic animal that I have ever seen in my life", trundling across the road toward the Loch carrying "an animal" in its mouth.[9] Other letters began appearing in the Courier, often anonymously, with claims of land or water sightings, either on the writer's part or on the parts of family, acquaintances or stories they remembered being told.[10] These stories soon reached the national (and later the international) press, which described a "monster fish", "sea serpent", or "dragon",[11] eventually settling on "Loch Ness Monster".[12] On 6 December 1933 the first purported photograph of the monster, taken by Hugh Gray, was published in The Daily Express,[13] and shortly after the creature received official notice when the Secretary of State for Scotland ordered the police to prevent any attacks on it.[14] In 1934, interest was further sparked by what is known as The Surgeon's Photograph. In the same year R. T. Gould published a book,[15] the first of many that describe the author's personal investigation and collected record of additional reports pre-dating the summer of 1933. Other authors have claimed that sightings of the monster go as far back as the 6th century (seen below).



HistorySaint Columba (6th century)The earliest report of a monster associated with the vicinity of Loch Ness appears in the Life of St. Columba by Adomnán, written in the 7th century.[16] According to Adomnán, writing about a century after the events he described, the Irish monk Saint Columba was staying in the land of the Picts with his companions when he came across the locals burying a man by the River Ness. They explained that the man had been swimming the river when he was attacked by a "water beast" that had mauled him and dragged him under. They tried to rescue him in a boat, but were able only to drag up his corpse. Hearing this, Columba stunned the Picts by sending his follower Luigne moccu Min to swim across the river. The beast came after him, but Columba made the sign of the cross and commanded: "Go no further. Do not touch the man. Go back at once."[17] The beast immediately halted as if it had been "pulled back with ropes" and fled in terror, and both Columba's men and the pagan Picts praised God for the miracle.[17]



Believers in the Loch Ness Monster often point to this story, which notably takes place on the River Ness rather than the loch itself, as evidence for the creature's existence as early as the 6th century.[18] However, sceptics question the narrative's reliability, noting that water-beast stories were extremely common in medieval saints' Lives; as such, Adomnán's tale is likely a recycling of a common motif attached to a local landmark.[19] According to the sceptics, Adomnán's story may be independent of the modern Loch Ness Monster legend entirely, only becoming attached to it in retrospect by believers seeking to bolster their claims.[18] Additionally, in an article for Cryptozoology, A. C. Thomas notes that even if there were some truth to the story, it could be explained rationally as an encounter with a walrus or similar creature that had swum up the river.[18] R. Binns acknowledges that this account is the most serious of various alleged early sighting of the monster, but argues that all other claims of monster sightings prior to 1933 are highly dubious and do not prove that there was a tradition of the monster before this date.[7]



Spicers (1933)Modern interest in the monster was sparked by the 22 July 1933 sighting, when George Spicer and his wife saw 'a most extraordinary form of animal' cross the road in front of their car.[9] They described the creature as having a large body (about 4 feet (1.2 m) high and 25 feet (7.6 m) long), and long, narrow neck, slightly thicker than an elephant's trunk and as long as the 10–12-foot (3–4 m) width of the road; the neck had a number of undulations in it. They saw no limbs, possibly because of a dip in the road obscuring the animal's lower portion.[20] It lurched across the road towards the loch 20 yards (20 m) away, leaving only a trail of broken undergrowth in its wake.[20]



In August 1933 a motorcyclist named Arthur Grant claimed to have nearly hit the creature while approaching Abriachan on the north-eastern shore, at about 1 am on a moonlit night. Grant claimed that he saw a small head attached to a long neck, and that the creature saw him and crossed the road back into the loch. A veterinary student, he described it as a hybrid between a seal and a plesiosaur. Grant said he dismounted and followed it to the loch, but only saw ripples.[15][21] However some believe this story was intended as a humorous explanation of a motorcycle accident.[22]



Sporadic land sightings continued until 1963, when film of the creature was shot in the loch from a distance of 4 Kilometers. Because of the distance it was shot at it has been described as poor quality.[23]



Chief Constable William Fraser (1938)In 1938, Inverness Shire Chief Constable William Fraser penned a letter stating that it was beyond doubt the monster existed. His letter expressed concern regarding a hunting party that had arrived armed with a specially-made harpoon gun and were determined to catch the monster "dead or alive". He believed his power to protect the monster from the hunters was "very doubtful". The letter was released by the National Archives of Scotland on 27 April 2010.[24][25]



C. B. Farrel (1943)In May 1943, C. B. Farrel of the Royal Observer Corps was supposedly distracted from his duties by a Nessie sighting. He claimed to have been about 250 yards (230 m) away from a large-eyed, 'finned' creature, which had a 20-to-30-foot (6 to 9 m) long body, and a neck that protruded about 4–5 feet (1.2–1.5 m) out of the water.[26]



Sonar contact (1954)In December 1954 a strange sonar contact was made by the fishing boat Rival III. The vessel's crew observed sonar readings of a large object keeping pace with the boat at a depth of 480 feet (146 m). It was detected travelling for half a mile (800 m) in this manner, before contact was lost, but then found again later.[26] Many sonar attempts had been made previously, but most were either inconclusive or negative.


Read more: Virginia and Kentucky Resolves - Federal, Acts, Government, and Constitution - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/11138/Virginia-Kentucky-Resolves.html#ixzz2Ksh611eV

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

This is a BLOODY GOOD SITE. You just have to read the WHOLE THING, not skim around.

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

this place is so helpful

Vote down Vote up

over 1 year ago

this isn't hard at all! Just read ALL of it and don't skim through it...