Future Federalist Party ?

Suppose the USA lost the 1812 war and the Democrat-Republicans decline giving place to the Federalists. Then Rufus King takes the place of James Monroe, what would happen ? Who would be his successors ? What would happen to the Federalist Party ? What about the Monroe Doctrine ?
 
The Federalist Party was already more or less dead by this point. The best way I can see the Federalist Party surviving is if a candidate other than John Adams is nominated for 1796. Alternatively, you could also have the Democratic-Republicans somehow win in 1796 and their candidate is Adams-level incompetent, so we see the two parties swap roles in early American history.

If the Federalist Party does in fact dominate early American politics then I could see the Quasi-War evolving into a full-out Franco-American War. I'd be hesitant to say that such a war would result with American intervention in Europe, but I can most certainly see the Royal Navy aiding the US in the Caribbean and Atlantic. This means that we would not only see a violent annexation of Louisiana but also the potential annexation of Caribbean territory, such as Haiti.

Another thing that interests me is the relationship the USA would have with the former Spanish colonies. While I don't really see a Monroe Doctrine coming into existence due to the Anglo-American alliance being formed I can see the Americans establishing their own sphere of influence in Latin America. Perhaps the United States aids the Mexicans in their war for independence? I personally like the idea of the USA establishing loyal regimes throughout Latin America that, with the United States, form a Pan-American economic bloc. The best comparison I can think of is the hypothetical Mitteleuropa Bloc from Central Powers victory scenarios.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Suppose the USA lost the 1812 war

Otherwise known as OTL.


The Federalist Party was already more or less dead by this point.

Very true, you'd need an earlier POD.


The best way I can see the Federalist Party surviving is if a candidate other than John Adams is nominated for 1796. Alternatively, you could also have the Democratic-Republicans somehow win in 1796 and their candidate is Adams-level incompetent, so we see the two parties swap roles in early American history.

Adams wasn't as poorly regarded in his day as history makes it out to be. He made some pretty big mistakes, but the fault was as much Hamilton's as his. The Federalists actually made their highwater mark in 1798 (60 of 106 seats in the House, 22 of 32 seats in the Senate). The XYZ affair of 1797 had really turned public opinion against the French. The Quasi-War was actually quite popular with the majority. The Federalists took advantage by preparing for an invasion by the French Army, creating a navy and a standing army. The taxes that paid for this were unpopular with some segments of the population, but not debilitatingly so. Same goes for the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Things really went wrong because the key driver behind all of this was Hamilton. Adams tried to free himself from Hamilton's overbearing influence in early 1799, and did so by unilaterally sending overtures of peace to France. This divided the federalists between his supporters and Hamilton's. Adams fired Hamilton's group from his cabinet. Hamilton then became deeply embittered, wrote scathing criticisms of Adams, and started conspiring to undermine Adams and throw the 1800 election to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

No Alien and Sedition Acts is probably a plus, and building a navy but no (or just a nominal) standing army would probably be wiser than what they did. Most importantly, the internal struggle must be avoided, and Adams must certainly not open peace talks with France in order to spite Hamilton. The best POD, then, is simple: Hamilton gets run over by a carriage in early 1798. His absence results in the above changes, the public support for the Federalists remains strong, and Adams wins in 1800.
 
Last edited:
Adams wasn't as poorly regarded in his day as history makes it out to be. He made some pretty big mistakes, but the fault was as much Hamilton's as his. The Federalists actually made their highwater mark in 1798 (60 of 106 seats in the House, 22 of 33 seats in the Senate). The XYZ affair of 1797 had turned public opinion ran strongly against the French. The Quasi-War was actually quite popular with the majority. The Federalists took advantage by preparing for an invasion by the French Army, creating a navy and a standing army. The taxes that paid for this were unpopular with some segments of the population, but not debilitatingly so. Same goes for the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Things really went wrong because the key driver behind all of this was Hamilton. Adams tried to free himself from Hamilton's overbearing influence in early 1799, and did so by unilaterally sending overtures of peace to France. This divided the federalists between his supporters and Hamilton's. Adams fired Hamilton's group from his cabinet. Hamilton then became deeply embittered, wrote scathing criticisms of Adams, and started conspiring to undermine Adams and throw the 1800 election to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

No Alien and Sedition Acts is probably a plus, and building a navy but no (or just a nominal) standing army would probably be wiser than what they did. Most importantly, the internal struggle must be avoided, and Adams must certainly not open peace talks with France in order to spite Hamilton. The best POD, then, is simple: Hamilton gets run over by a carriage in early 1798. His absence results in the above changes, the public support for the Federalists remains strong, and Adams wins in 1800.
So you suggest that Alexander Hamilton is removed from the picture so the Federalist Party remains united under John Adams and goes to war with France? That could definitely work. I do have to wonder what happens to the Democratic-Republicans in this scenario. I'd assume that they never destroy themselves to the point of OTL's Federalists, so no Federalist Era of Good Feelings, so does this mean that the early 19th Century is a very polarized time in American politics?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
So you suggest that Alexander Hamilton is removed from the picture so the Federalist Party remains united under John Adams and goes to war with France? That could definitely work. I do have to wonder what happens to the Democratic-Republicans in this scenario. I'd assume that they never destroy themselves to the point of OTL's Federalists, so no Federalist Era of Good Feelings, so does this mean that the early 19th Century is a very polarized time in American politics?

Could go several ways. Assuming Adams does nothing stupid, and his second term sees the USA and Britain allied against France, this will by definition result in American gains at France's expense-- gains that will look very good for Adams, and which will be rather cheap. (The French won't be in a position to resist, as their real fight is elsewhere. They'll just write North America off altogether.) The likely outcome is that Hamilton's Federalist successor wins in 1804, and quite possibly in 1808 as well. By that time, matters are mostly settled as far as foreign affairs are concerned. Joining France against Britain will be unthinkable. Politics will be about domestic affairs, and it's quite possible that the people will have grown tired of Federalist governance. Democratic-Republican President elected in 1812 on a "lower taxes and free trade"-platform? Seems realistic. France is defeated pretty much on schedule, Amarica's gains are confirmed, alternate Era of Good Feelings dawns. Democratic-Republican gets re-elected in 1816.

After that, who knows? Politics will mostly be about supporting either the Federalist position of industry, federally implemented internal improvements and a solid navy and army (funded by protectionism/tarriffs) versus the Democratic-Republican position of agrarianism, a small federal government, reducing the military and free trade/lower tarriffs. In all likelihood, the two parties will just be rotate in and out of power whenever the public tires of the dominant policies.
 
So you suggest that Alexander Hamilton is removed from the picture so the Federalist Party remains united under John Adams and goes to war with France? That could definitely work. I do have to wonder what happens to the Democratic-Republicans in this scenario. I'd assume that they never destroy themselves to the point of OTL's Federalists, so no Federalist Era of Good Feelings, so does this mean that the early 19th Century is a very polarized time in American politics?

"Polarized" is probably a pretty strong term, at least relative to how the term is used today. Alot of the issues of the day that the Federal government actually has control over would be by their nature questions of degree (ie. How big should the Army or Navy be, what should the rate of the custom duties vs should we have an army of customs at all). Some other points of contention will probably be the existence/monopolistic nature of a National Bank, public education, and the disposal of Federal public land. The survival of the Federalists as a champion of coordination/centeralization Though means the foundational issue will be the nature of Federalism to a much greater extent and consistency than IOTL. This... complicates the Slavery Question to say the least, but on the plus side the two big schismatic issues not bleeding so tightly together probably makes both debates cleaner and reach more decisive conclusions
 
Top