A Federalist resurgence after 1800?

[Vinization]

Could the Federalist Party return to the presidency after Thomas Jefferson's victory over John Adams in 1800, or were they fated to die a slow death after that and especially the Louisiana Purchase? Perhaps if they retain the governorship of New York in 1801, or take it back in 1810 or 1813?

One thing's for sure, the War of 1812 (and thus the Hartford Convention) will have to be avoided at all costs.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Actually, I think a loss in 1812 would buy the establishment feds a little bit, but they need to drop the elitism. If the federalists were able to paint themselves as a "nationalist" party in favor of tje common man, that'd go a long way, but I think you need to buy them time for a different generation to take over

 

[karatachi]

*insert argument that America has been turning more and more Federalist since The Great Depression*

 

[mspence]

The Federalists might have started a civil war if they were serious about making a separate peace with Britain. Maybe America loses the war, or is at least driven to bankruptcy because of it, and the Federalists win the 1816 Presidential election.

UPDATE: On a whim I used Chatgptonline to create the following scenario, based on my prompt:

ChatGPT
01:49
The death of Andrew Jackson during the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 would have had significant repercussions for the United States. Jackson's victory at New Orleans was a turning point in the War of 1812, and his leadership in the battle cemented his reputation as a military hero. Without his victory there, the outcome of the war would have been much less certain.

If Jackson had died in the battle, it is likely that the United States would have lost the war to Britain. The British were more experienced and better equipped than the Americans, and without Jackson's leadership, the American forces would have been at a disadvantage. The defeat would have been a major blow to American morale and would have left the country vulnerable to further British attacks.

In the aftermath of the war, it is likely that the Federalist Party would have gained more political power. The Federalists had opposed the war from the beginning and had been critical of President James Madison's leadership. With a defeat, their criticisms would have gained more traction, and they could have used the loss as a way to gain more support.

In this alternate history scenario, Rufus King, a prominent Federalist, becomes president in 1816. King was a strong supporter of the Federalist Party and had been a vocal opponent of the War of 1812. As president, he would have worked to strengthen ties with Britain and could have even formed an alliance with them.

This alliance would have been especially appealing to the New England states, which had been opposed to the war from the beginning. New England had strong economic ties to Britain, and an alliance with them would have allowed the region to continue trading with the powerful British economy.

The formation of this alliance would have had significant implications for the United States. It could have led to a split between the New England states and the rest of the country, potentially even leading to secession. It would have also changed the course of American history, putting the country on a different trajectory and altering its relationships with other countries.

 

[The Gunslinger]

Maybe America loses the war, or is at least driven to bankruptcy because of it, and the Federalists win the 1816 Presidential election.

The Federalist ideology was just too fundamentally at odds with that of the dominant Republican ideology and failed to gain much traction outside of New England and New York despite their opinions about the war being largely correct. Despite impressment, and the Orders in Council (both of which primarily affected New England) and windfall government profits the government still sought war with Britain and the declaration of war vote pretty much followed party lines. A loss in 1812 is just going to further their decline their electoral fortunes because they're going to be blamed for the defeat (which isn't necessarily untrue in some regards).

 

[Vinization]

So I looked at the numbers of the 1808 election, and from the looks of things Pinckney did pretty well in New Jersey and North Carolina. Perhaps he could win New York and Vermont if the Federalists retain their governorships in 1801 and 1807, respecitvely? Could the Democratic-Republicans suffer a split, too?

 

[Wendell]

There's a timeline on this board where this happens following a successful George Clinton presidential candidacy in 1808.

 

[Vinization]

A question: even if Pinckney or some other Federalist candidate won in 1808, how would he deal with Congress, which is as far as I know bound to have at least one of its houses under Democratic-Republican control? The party did end up falling apart into several factions eventually, but that was after the Federalists ceased to exist.

 

[OxSpace]

Jackson's victory at New Orleans was a turning point in the War of 1812, and his leadership in the battle cemented his reputation as a military hero. Without his victory there, the outcome of the war would have been much less certain.

I don't think the AI knows that the war was over before the battle.

 

[David T]

1812 was the Federalists' only real chance after 1800 but even then only by backing a dissident Democratic-Republican (Clinton). And in any event Clinton's chances in 1812, even with Federalist support, were poor. "Anyway, no Federalist candidate would have the slightest chance without New York--but even with New York (which Clinton carried) their chances were dim. It is often observed that Clinton could have won if he had carried PA--but the trouble with this is that PA was not at all close, going for Madison over Clinton by 62.6-37.4%. http://staffweb.wilkes.edu/harold.cox/pres/PaPres1812.html Clinton carried only a handful of Federalist-leaning counties in the southeastern part of the state. A "real" Federalist would probably have done even worse in PA than Clinton did." https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...l-and-the-1812-election.462738/#post-18518457

 

[Valentinian]

The Republicans were so good at making their party into the "default" party after 1800. There was a large number of politicians in the 1800s and 1810s who ideologically would have been a better fit in the Federalist Party, but they went to the Republicans, I think partially since it was the only path to being elected. Young John Calhoun was an economic nationalist. Henry Clay, obviously. His American System was straight out of Hamilton's playbook. Even JQC saw the writing on the wall and defected.

Although the Federalists had some success in a few places, they did not have any chance in the South or West. Part of this was not going out and doing the candidate recruitment necessary, but it was also Jefferson skillfully using the spoils system. If I am the local postman in Pig Slop, Tennessee, and Jefferson wins, you bet I am going to switch real fast if I think I am going to lose my job (Jefferson's alleged promise during the 1801 House balloting notwithstanding). Now, the people in town see the postman has switched parties, and he kept his job, while this guy over in Hog Pen two towns over didn't pledge public loyalty to the Republicans and got fired, that will have an impact. I guess if you want to be something, elected or bureaucrat, being a Republican would have to be the way to go, regardless of your beliefs.

I also think the Federalists needed better PR. They failed miserably in the newspaper wars with the Republicans. Federalists did many good things for the nation's economy, but it was not communicated well. Jefferson carried through what was probably the stupidest government policy in the country's history, the embargo, and Madison still won in 1808, despite the pain it caused the country. The Federalists were incapable of exploiting their opponents' mistakes. And in a game like politics, where it is usually the side that makes the fewest mistakes wins, that is a death sentence.

 

[Vinization]

How much stronger would the Federalists' chances of survival in the long term be if Adams was reelected?

 

[Valentinian]

How much stronger would the Federalists' chances of survival in the long term be if Adams was reelected?

I think the Federalists would have been sitting pretty if Adams won in 1800. The treaty of Fontainbleu would have been more noticed as a win in the Quasi-War and he would have been in office for the Louisiana Purchase and the early-decade economic boom.

 

[arrestedcorn]

*insert argument that America has been turning more and more Federalist since The Great Depression*

So the Federalists won in the end?

 

[Vinization]

I think the Federalists would have been sitting pretty if Adams won in 1800. The treaty of Fontainbleu would have been more noticed as a win in the Quasi-War and he would have been in office for the Louisiana Purchase and the early-decade economic boom.

I wonder what Aaron Burr's career would end up like if the 1800 election wasn't as much of a mess. He ran for governor of New York in 1804, so perhaps he could be elected?

 

[Valentinian]

With Jefferson losing twice, you would see a battle between the factions. I could see Burr lead the fight against the Virginia clique. If Adams wins in 1800, I see Pinkney winning in 1804. I think 1808 would be Burr's best shot.

 

[Vinization]

With Jefferson losing twice, you would see a battle between the factions. I could see Burr lead the fight against the Virginia clique. If Adams wins in 1800, I see Pinkney winning in 1804. I think 1808 would be Burr's best shot.

I see, fatigue would definitely be a thing after twelve (eighteen if you count Washington's administration) years of Federalist rule.

What would Burr's administration be like, since he'll probably have a majority in Congress? Would he shrink/neglect the military like Jefferson did, and what about the economy?

 

[Valentinian]

I see, fatigue would definitely be a thing after twelve (eighteen if you count Washington's administration) years of Federalist rule.

What would Burr's administration be like, since he'll probably have a majority in Congress? Would he shrink/neglect the military like Jefferson did, and what about the economy?

I don't think Burr would shrink the army. Too many good patronage spots. Remember, he knows about this when Adams nominated him for a spot in the army during the quasi war and Washington vetoed him. I think Burr would love the chance to lead the army in an alt-war of 1812.

 

[Vinization]

I don't think Burr would shrink the army. Too many good patronage spots. Remember, he knows about this when Adams nominated him for a spot in the army during the quasi war and Washington vetoed him. I think Burr would love the chance to lead the army in an alt-war of 1812.

How could the US perform in a such a scenario? From what little I know about the war the Americans used state militias rather than an actual army at first, as a consequence of Jefferson's administration. What about the inevitable British naval blockade, could it not be as thorough ITTL because of a stronger US navy?

 

[Valentinian]

How could the US perform in a such a scenario? From what little I know about the war the Americans used state militias rather than an actual army at first, as a consequence of Jefferson's administration. What about the inevitable British naval blockade, could it not be as thorough ITTL because of a stronger US navy?

I think it would go as poorly as OTL. The systemic issues were already there. The army high command was ossified. Dearborn and Hull were well past their primes, and Wilkinson was in the pay of a foreign power. The militia system was riven with nepotism and incompetence.

I don't think they navy would be much better since that was still seen as the Federalist branch. You would have a few more ships commissioned in 1800-1808, but not enough to make a difference. The navy would be the first thing to get cut to reign in the "Federalist debt".