How did Britain perceive the 1st American party system?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
We know that in the first American party system the Federalists were pro-British (moderated by pragmatic considerations occasionally) while the Republicans were pro-French (also moderated by pragmatic considerations occasionally).

Did Britain know or care much about these partisan arguments in the USA at the time.

If Britain did feel a stake, was their attitude to American factions and regions pretty much a reciprocation of how the Americans felt about them [cheering the Federalists and booing the Republicans]?

I ask because although reciprocation is probable, when you look at the economic programs of each side Jefferson's vision would leave the Americans perpetually underdeveloped suppliers and customers, while Hamilton's vision would result in higher tariffs in the here and now, and more American industrial competition later on.

Did any Brits express the view that Jeffersonian economics would be better for British interests?

After the the Napoleonic Wars, the War of 1812, and the demise of the 1st party system, did British leaders feel they had any skin in the game causing them to prefer Whigs over Democrats (or vice versa) in the second party system or Republicans over Democrats (or vice versa) in the third party system?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Also, while I get the idea of why the New England Federalists had a reason to be pro-British, basically trading ties on the positive side, and the hassle of being in conflict with them on the other side, why were the southern Republicans so pro-French?

Were the southerners more bitterly anti-British because the later campaigns of the American Revolutionary War were in the south, while New England and the Mid-Atlantic caught a break at the end for the most part?
 
Also, while I get the idea of why the New England Federalists had a reason to be pro-British, basically trading ties on the positive side, and the hassle of being in conflict with them on the other side, why were the southern Republicans so pro-French?

Were the southerners more bitterly anti-British because the later campaigns of the American Revolutionary War were in the south, while New England and the Mid-Atlantic caught a break at the end for the most part?

It was a matter of ideology; the Republicans were, ironically, more democratic, and looked to the French Revolution as a good thing. They disliked the British because they perceived them as aristocratic and elitist.
 
There was a lot of good feeling in the United States for France after the American Revolution, for the straightforward reason that France had aided the Americans. When France then began to undergo its own democratic revolution, it widely celebrated by Americans initially - they could find more common cause with a constitutional regime than with an absolute Catholic monarchy. The point of divergence between Federalists and Republicans on France occurred around the time of the overthrow/execution of Louis XVI. Here's a pretty good summary:

While the French Revolution had initially received broad support in the United States, its radicalization in 1792-1793 led to sharp disagreement in American opinion.

Domestic attitudes toward the proper future of the American republic grew even more intense as a result of the example of revolutionary France. Conservatives like Hamilton, Washington, and others who would soon organize as the Federalist political party saw the French Revolution as an example of homicidal anarchy. When Great Britain joined European allies in the war against France in 1793, Federalists supported this action as an attempt to enforce proper order.

The opposing American view, held by men like Jefferson and others who came to organize as the Democratic-Republican political party, supported French actions as an extension of a world-wide republican struggle against corrupt monarchy and aristocratic privilege. For example, some groups among the Whiskey Rebels in western Pennsylvania demonstrated their international vision when they rallied beneath a banner that copied the radical French slogan of "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, AND FRATERNITY."

The example of the French Revolution helped convince Americans on both sides that their political opponents were motivated by dangerous and even evil forces that threatened to destroy the young republic.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That is a great summary on ideological views.

However, if Americans were tracking French ideological developments that closely, why didn't Federalists mellow out about the French Republic (and later the Empire) after the demise of the Jacobins and establishment of the more conservative Directory?

Also, why were these ideological views distributed the way they were in geographical terms? I would think that plantation-running political elites in states from Virginia through Georgia would have at least as much to fear from the radical French slogan of "LIBERTY, EQUALITY, AND FRATERNITY" as New England merchants and New York bankers, yet the non-Federalist southerners (the majority of public and elite) continued their anti-British and pro-French stand through 1815 at least.
 
At that point more practical considerations
That is a great summary on ideological views.

However, if Americans were tracking French ideological developments that closely, why didn't Federalists mellow out about the French Republic (and later the Empire) after the demise of the Jacobins and establishment of the more conservative Directory?

By that point more practical considerations had taken over. The USA had some long-standing issues with Britain and resolved a lot of them with the Jay Treaty, but this in turn greatly angered France, which interpreted the treaty as a de facto Anglo-American alliance. It broke off relations and began to attack American ships. This then led to the XYZ Affair and finally the Quasi-War. After that I think the Federalists simply never trusted the French government again. Or they just thought it was easier to do business with Britain.

I don't know the explanation for the geographical distribution.
 

Towelie

Banned
Britain generally was hostile to the US until the Jay Treaty, and thereafter, only marginally less hostile running up until 1812.

The impressment of sailors was to be fair not discriminatory, and while from a modern perspective barbaric, it wasn't exactly unique to Britain at the time, nor was their complaints about deserters claiming US citizenship completely invalid. But the continued support of hostile western Indian tribes and the discord along the Canadian border was by no means benign or without official state approval.

Support for the French Revolution simply added to their revulsion of the US. They disliked Jefferson and his ideals, without a doubt. But they were not giant fans of the Federalists either, who sought a stronger, more independent American economy.

When it comes to US-British relations, they quite and simply were bad for most of the first century of the US's existence for varying reasons, some territorial and some ideological. The only real respite from this was the post 1812 War thaw and the British support for the Monroe Doctrine (for their own reasons). Territorial disputes with Britain continued through the 1840s, and the Civil War, along with American support for Canadian rebellions of varying types, meant that Britain was still seen as the true enemy for about a century.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So Britain thought America sucked under any party till 1815? although I thought I heard they left antiwar New England states alone.
 
Last edited:
The impressment of sailors was to be fair not discriminatory, and while from a modern perspective barbaric

Where are you getting that nonsense from? Impressment was simply conscription, an institution many countries retain today, and far more keep in reserve as an emergency war power.

So Britain thought America ducked under any party till 1815? although I thought I heard they left antiwar New England states alone.

Warren exempted New England from the blockade in order to try and politically split the (Federalist) northeast away from the (Republican) south, to bring the war to a swift end. It didn't work, so Cochrane abandoned the strategy, extended the blockade to New England and conquered Maine.
 
So Britain thought America ducked under any party till 1815? although I thought I heard they left antiwar New England states alone.
Britain wasn't one monolithic entity either. A lot of it can come down to even personal relations, for example, the British ambassadors present in America at that time got along a lot better with Adams than with Jefferson, political considerations aside.

Britain as a whole didn't necessarily dislike the Americans so much as not take them seriously as a Nation. At the same time as they were not being respected, Britain was also treating America as a potential threat to contain, as we can see with their stance towards Indians in the West. Essentially, Britain treated America like an annoyance, which understandably pissed American leaders off.

As for the two party system, it could be argued that Britain liked the Federalists more (like I said, they had a better personal correspondence), but it had a lot more to do with the Democratic-Republican's actions than anything else, and Britain would continue to challenge American authority and prosecute the war in the way they saw fit regardless of which party was in power. Also, Federalists were in power for a far shorter period of time, one where tensions between the two weren't as high (at least compared to 1807 and beyond). That being said, it's possible Federalist actions helped ease tensions.
 
Top