AP United States History

## Learning Outcomes

- Understand why political parties emerged in the 1790s despite widespread fear of factions
- Identify the main differences between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans
- Explain how Hamilton’s financial program helped create the First Party System
- Analyze how foreign policy disputes, especially over Britain and France, deepened partisan conflict
- Recall key events including the Whiskey Rebellion, Jay Treaty, Alien and Sedition Acts, and Election of **1800**
- Use this topic in APUSH short-answer and long-essay responses focused on causation and political change

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand party formation in the 1790s, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **First Party System** developed in the 1790s rather than existing fully formed in **1787**
- Identify the main beliefs and support bases of the **Federalists** and **Democratic-Republicans**
- Explain how **Hamilton’s financial program** turned policy disagreement into party conflict
- Understand the difference between **strict construction** and **loose construction** of the Constitution
- Analyze how the **French Revolution**, **Neutrality Proclamation (1793)**, and **Jay Treaty (1794)** intensified division
- Explain the significance of the **Whiskey Rebellion (1794)** as a test of federal authority
- Understand why the **Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)** and **Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798–1799)** marked a major partisan crisis
- Know why the **Election of 1800** mattered as the first peaceful transfer of power between rival parties

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did political parties emerge in the United States during the 1790s?
2. What were the main differences between Federalists and Democratic-Republicans?
3. How did Hamilton’s financial program create political conflict?
4. Why did Jay Treaty and the French Revolution deepen party divisions?
5. Why is the Election of **1800** called the “Revolution of 1800”?

## Introduction

Party formation in the 1790s is one of the clearest examples in APUSH of how political conflict grows out of deeper disagreements. The debate was not just Hamilton versus Jefferson as personalities. It was about what the Constitution meant, how powerful the federal government should be, what kind of economy the nation should build, and whether the United States should lean toward **Britain** or **France**.

This topic matters because it links several major Period 3 themes: politics and power, America in the world, and American and national identity. It also gives strong evidence for causation essays, since the rise of parties came from a chain of connected disputes rather than one single event.

> **Key Term: First Party System**
> The first national party divide in U.S. politics, emerging in the 1790s between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans.

### Why parties formed in the first place

Many of the founders disliked political parties. They usually called them **factions** and associated them with selfish ambition, division, and instability. George Washington warned against them in his **Farewell Address (1796)**. Yet parties still formed very quickly. Why? Because the Constitution settled some issues of government structure, but it did not settle how that government would actually use its power.

The new republic faced immediate problems. It had war debt, regional differences, uncertain constitutional boundaries, and dangerous international pressures. Once leaders started proposing concrete solutions, disagreements became too large to remain private disputes inside Washington’s cabinet. They spread into Congress, newspapers, and state politics.

> **Key Term: faction**
> A political group pursuing its own interests; many founders used this term negatively for political parties.

The most important early split came from the clash between **Alexander Hamilton** and **Thomas Jefferson**. Hamilton believed the nation needed energetic federal authority to create stability, credit, and economic growth. Jefferson feared that too much central power would recreate the kind of tyranny Americans had just rejected in the Revolution.

These views attracted different kinds of supporters. Federalists tended to be stronger in the Northeast, among merchants, creditors, and urban elites. Democratic-Republicans were stronger in the South and West, among farmers and planters. Students often remember this as “city versus countryside,” but it was also “commerce versus agriculture,” “creditors versus debtors,” and “broad federal power versus limited federal power.”

> **Key Term: Federalists**
> Political leaders in the 1790s, associated with Hamilton and Adams, who supported a stronger national government, commerce, and closer ties with Britain.
>
> **Key Term: Democratic-Republicans**
> Political leaders associated with Jefferson and Madison who supported limited federal power, an agrarian republic, and greater sympathy for France.
>
> **Test Tip:** In SAQs and LEQs, do not say parties formed only because Hamilton and Jefferson disliked each other. Examiners want the deeper causes: constitutional interpretation, economic policy, and foreign affairs.

### Hamilton’s financial program and the constitutional divide

The strongest cause of party formation was **Hamilton’s financial program**. This is where vague disagreement became organized opposition. Hamilton wanted to stabilize the nation’s finances and strengthen the federal government at the same time.

His program included several main parts. First, **funding at par** meant that federal securities would be repaid at full face value. Hamilton argued this would establish U.S. credit and convince investors that the new government honored its debts. Critics responded that many original holders had already sold these securities cheaply to speculators, so repayment at full value rewarded the wealthy.

> **Key Term: funding at par**
> The federal policy of paying Revolutionary War debt certificates at full face value.

Second, Hamilton proposed **assumption of state debts**. Under this policy, the federal government would take over debts owed by the states from the Revolutionary War. Hamilton argued this would bind the states more closely to the Union and strengthen national authority. Critics, especially in the South, complained that states like Virginia had already paid much of their debt and would now help cover other states’ obligations.

This dispute led to the **Compromise of 1790**. Hamilton gained support for assumption, while Jefferson and Madison accepted a deal placing the permanent capital on the **Potomac River**. That compromise reveals an important APUSH point: early party conflict was often sectional as well as ideological.

Third, Hamilton supported the **Bank of the United States (1791)**. This produced the sharpest constitutional debate of the decade.

> **Key Term: assumption of state debts**
> The policy by which the federal government took over Revolutionary War debts previously owed by individual states.

Jefferson and Madison opposed the bank partly for social and economic reasons. They believed it favored merchants, creditors, and speculators over ordinary farmers. But they also opposed it on constitutional grounds. They argued for **strict construction**: the federal government should exercise only powers clearly delegated by the Constitution. Since the Constitution did not explicitly authorize a bank, they argued Congress could not create one.

Hamilton defended the bank through **loose construction**. He said the federal government had implied powers under the **necessary and proper** clause. If Congress could tax, borrow, and regulate money, then it could create a bank as a practical means to carry out those powers.

> **Key Term: strict construction**
> The view that the federal government should exercise only powers explicitly stated in the Constitution.
>
> **Key Term: loose construction**
> The view that the federal government has implied powers beyond those specifically listed in the Constitution.

This mattered because it set a lasting pattern. Once Americans began lining up on opposite sides of the bank issue, they were no longer merely debating one law. They were choosing between two visions of the republic.

The **Whiskey Rebellion (1794)** then turned that constitutional dispute into a practical test of power. Farmers in western Pennsylvania resisted Hamilton’s excise tax on whiskey. For western farmers, whiskey was not just a luxury item; it was easier to transport and sell than grain. So the tax felt like a burden imposed by distant elites.

Washington’s decision to send militia forces to suppress the rebellion showed that the new federal government could enforce its laws, unlike the weak government under the Articles of Confederation during **Shays’s Rebellion**. Federalists saw this as proof of legitimate authority. Democratic-Republicans were more likely to see potential tyranny.

> **Test Tip:** If a question mentions the Whiskey Rebellion, do not treat it as an isolated uprising. Use it as evidence in a bigger argument about federal authority and partisan division.

### Foreign affairs made the conflict much sharper

If Hamilton’s financial program created the party split, foreign affairs made it more emotional and more dangerous. The **French Revolution** divided Americans because it seemed, at first, to continue the spirit of the American Revolution. Jeffersonians often welcomed it as a republican struggle against monarchy. Federalists became increasingly alarmed, especially once the revolution grew more radical and violent.

Washington’s **Neutrality Proclamation (1793)** attempted to keep the United States out of the war between Britain and France. On paper, neutrality was a practical policy for a weak young republic. In practice, many Jeffersonians believed neutrality favored Britain, America’s main trading partner.

The **Citizen Genêt affair** made things worse. Genêt, the French minister, tried to recruit American support for France and bypass the Washington administration. This reinforced Federalist fears that democratic enthusiasm could turn into disorder.

Then came **Jay Treaty (1794)**. Federalists defended it as pragmatic diplomacy that avoided war and secured British evacuation of western forts. Democratic-Republicans attacked it as too favorable to Britain and a betrayal of France. This was one of the first major issues to produce mass public outrage, petitions, and newspaper warfare.

> **Key Term: Jay Treaty**
> A 1794 agreement with Britain that avoided war and resolved some disputes, but deeply divided Americans over foreign policy.

Students often miss an important distinction here: Jay Treaty did not create a formal alliance with Britain. Its significance lies in perception. Republicans saw it as proof that Federalists were too close to Britain and too willing to compromise republican principles for commercial stability.

The **Election of 1796** showed that parties had become permanent political realities. **John Adams**, a Federalist, defeated **Thomas Jefferson**, a Democratic-Republican. Because of the original electoral system, Adams became president while Jefferson became vice president. This awkward result showed how far party conflict had grown and exposed weaknesses in the Constitution’s original electoral design.

Under Adams, partisan conflict deepened further. The **XYZ Affair (1797–1798)** sparked anti-French anger after American diplomats were asked for bribes by French agents. Adams avoided full-scale war, but the undeclared **Quasi-War** with France intensified suspicion and nationalism.

The Federalists used this moment to pass the **Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)**. These laws lengthened the residency requirement for citizenship, allowed the deportation of foreigners considered dangerous, and punished criticism of the government.

> **Key Term: Alien and Sedition Acts**
> Federalist laws passed in 1798 that targeted immigrants and restricted criticism of the federal government.

Republicans saw these laws as a direct attack on civil liberties and opposition politics. Jefferson and Madison responded with the **Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions**, arguing that states could judge the constitutionality of federal laws.

> **Key Term: Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions**
> Republican responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts arguing that states could judge unconstitutional federal actions.

This response is important for two reasons. First, it shows how far party conflict had escalated: one party was now challenging the other’s laws at the state level. Second, it introduced ideas later associated with nullification and states’ rights. You should be careful, though: these resolutions did not establish settled constitutional law. They expressed a partisan argument in a crisis.

### Why the first party system mattered

The biggest significance of party formation is that it normalized organized political opposition in the United States. The founders had feared parties as dangerous factions, yet by the end of the 1790s parties were clearly embedded in national politics.

This mattered most in the **Election of 1800**. Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College at **73** votes each, sending the election to the House of Representatives. After **36 ballots**, Jefferson won. The crisis exposed flaws in the original electoral system, later fixed by the **Twelfth Amendment (1804)**, which required separate electoral votes for president and vice president.

But the larger significance was the peaceful transfer of power from Federalists to Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson later described it as the **“Revolution of 1800.”** It was revolutionary not because the government structure changed, but because bitter party conflict ended in constitutional transfer rather than violence.

For APUSH, that makes this topic more than a list of disagreements. It shows the new republic being tested. Americans argued over power, rights, and policy, but they also proved that intense political conflict could still remain within the constitutional system.

When writing an LEQ, you can argue that Hamilton’s financial plan was the primary cause of party formation, but you should qualify that judgment. Economic policy started the split, foreign policy intensified it, and the Alien and Sedition crisis made the division unmistakable. That kind of layered causation earns stronger analysis than a one-cause answer.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The First Party System emerged in the **1790s**, not at the moment the Constitution was written
- Federalists supported a stronger national government, commerce, banking, and generally closer ties with Britain
- Democratic-Republicans supported limited federal power, an agrarian republic, and greater sympathy for France
- Hamilton’s financial program was the main early cause of party formation
- Funding at par and assumption of state debts strengthened federal credit but angered critics who saw favoritism toward elites
- The Bank of the United States triggered the debate between strict and loose construction
- The Whiskey Rebellion showed that the new federal government could enforce its laws
- The French Revolution, Neutrality Proclamation, and Jay Treaty intensified domestic party conflict
- The Alien and Sedition Acts led to Republican resistance through the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
- The Election of **1796** showed that party competition had become national and entrenched
- The Election of **1800** produced the first peaceful transfer of power between rival parties
- The Twelfth Amendment later fixed the electoral problem exposed by the Jefferson-Burr tie

## Key Terms and Concepts

- First Party System
- faction
- Federalists
- Democratic-Republicans
- funding at par
- assumption of state debts
- strict construction
- loose construction
- Jay Treaty
- Alien and Sedition Acts
- Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions


Shaping a New Republic - Party formation in the 1790s