The Federalist States of America: What if the Federalist Party wasn't defeated?

WIP

The view of how the United States government would function and how American culture was shaped was ultimately in the hands of the first two political parties: The Federalists and the Republicans.

In our timeline, the Republicans became extremely popular under Thomas Jefferson, and by the 1800s the Federalists could not regain any popularity. But what if the Republicans disbanded do to overwhelming Federalist support? This one possible scenario.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nov. 1789: George Washington is elected President. John Adams is elected Vice President.

Jul. 1790: Compromise of 1790 occurs.

1791-1804: Haitian Revolution begins.

Aug. 1791: George Clinton is endorsed by various political leaders that would eventually make up the Democratic-Republican Party (Republicans). Adams is called out for his actions in the Senate.

Nov. 1791: George Washington is reelected President. But George Clinton is elected Vice President, gaining more votes than Adams.

1792-1794: George Washington, continues his policy of neutrality. George Clinton becomes the face of the Republicans, along with Thomas Jefferson. The Federalists are more united under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, who does not endorse John Adams but rather Thomas Pinckney.

Aug. 1795: Washington does not run. And the election is split between George Clinton, John Adams, and Thomas Pinckney. George Clinton receive large support in New York and the southern States, while Thomas Pinckney had support throughout

Jan. 1796: George Clinton is elected President. Thomas Pinckney is elected Vice President.

1796-1797: Clinton's administration was marked with lukewarm appeal. During his years in office he ended tariffs within the US, and sought a more commercial/maritime US economy. Northern Federalists, such as Hamilton, did not like Clinton's economic approach, and began to publish numerous articles calling him "incompetent & self serving". Clinton also split the Republican party. Jefferson and many southern Republics felt that Clinton was moving power away from Virginia back to New England.

1798-1804: The Quasi-War begins (First Phase of the First French-American War), as Clinton's administration wishes to save money. The war remains just a naval conflict within the Caribbean. French sympathizers in the South are labled as Frenchman and are seen as radicals in the Republican party.

1799: George Clinton does not seek reelection. This leaves Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson as the main Republican candidates. Thomas Pinckney wins national appeal for being a Southerner and being endorsed by Hamilton.

1800: Thomas Pinckney is elected President. Aaron Burr is elected Vice President.

1801-1803: Thomas Pinckney's administration strengthens ties with Britain and escalates tensions with the French Republic. The Quasi-War continues, leading to Pinckney investing in a stronger military and navy. Tariffs are put in place to protect new American industries and to decrease the tax burden.

1804: The Twelfth Ammendment is adopted, now Presidents and Vice Presidents are elected separately.

1804: Thomas Pinckney is reelected President. Aaron Burr is elected Vice President.

1805-1809: Armed Frenchman resistance within the western territories and French Louisiana against the United States taxes escalates the Quasi-War conflict into a full scale war against the French Republic: the Louisiana War (Second Phase of the First French-American War). British troops from Canada assist the United States.

Mar. 1807: Napoleon sends a second French force lead by Louis-Alexandre Berthier to recapture Haiti and use the island as a launching point against the United States.

Jul. 1807: United States Naval Commander Paul Hamilton defeats Louis-Alexandre Berthier in the Battle of Gonâve, ending the French invasion of Haiti.

May. 1808: Under the leadership of Zebulon Pike, the American forces capture and defeat the Frenchmen in New Orleans. The Louisian Territory surrenders to the Unied States and British forces.

Aug. 1808: With the war looking in the United States' favor, Federalists boomed in popularity. Thomas Pinckney does not run again, despite being far more popular than his successor. Rufus King was selected as the Federalist candidate, with DeWitt Clinton as his running mate. James Madison ran against King as the Republican opponent.

1808: Rufus King is elected President. DeWitt Clinton is becomes Vice President.

1809: Treaty of New Orleans is signed ending the Louisiana War. Transferring control of the Louisiana territory and various other French colonial assets to the United States and British Empire. This Treaty was not accepted by Napoleon, thus the United States remains at war with France (Third Phase of the First French-American War).

1812: John Eager Howard is elected President. DeWitt Clinton is elected Vice President.

1816: John Eager Howard is reelected President. DeWitt Clinton is elected Vice President.

1820: John Quincy Adams is elected President. Zebulon Pike is elected Vice President.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Foreign policy of all these alternate Presidents? Impact on infrastructure, sectional tension, westward expansion, Indian policy, civil liberties, etc.?
 
I find it very hard to believe that a ticket with King and Clinton can win. The Virginians wouldn't allow it.

The election of 1808 was more reactionary to Southern Republicans, and fear of peasantry uprising like in France. And by this point the President and VP were elected separately, so two Federalist could win both positions.
 
Not bad, but what does it mean? What does this alternate America look like?

America in the ATL is more industrial, civil rights is achieved quicker, and American exceptionalism does not exist (thus no Manifest Destiny and Isolationist policies).

Several other things happen too, like Mexican government stability, Quebec cultural oppression, and Equador not existing.
 
America in the ATL is more industrial, civil rights is achieved quicker, and American exceptionalism does not exist (thus no Manifest Destiny and Isolationist policies).

Several other things happen too, like Mexican government stability, Quebec cultural oppression, and Equador not existing.

That stuff sounds very interesting. Looking forward to seeing this TL get fleshed out with those details!
 
America in the ATL is more industrial, civil rights is achieved quicker, and American exceptionalism does not exist (thus no Manifest Destiny and Isolationist policies).

Several other things happen too, like Mexican government stability, Quebec cultural oppression, and Equador not existing.

Color me very skeptical on each of those points.
 
Color me very skeptical on each of those points.

Industrial investment and civil rights (abolitionist movement, anti-Jacksonian, anti-French) were core to the Federalists vision. This would result in America being less isolationist and more of a military power guilding the other former colonial nations.

American exceptionalism was fostered under the Democratic-Republican model, the "agrarian utopia" vision of Jefferson. Without this, the need to move west would be weak.

On the international side of things. The Mexican government could possibly adopt either the French Republic style or American Republic style. And since the US is right on the Mexican border, I'd figure they would choose the later.

Quebecois culture would go through the same treatment as German culture did in the US during WW1. Gradually assimilating as Anti-French attitudes increased.

And Equador doesn't exist because Gran Colombia fears invasion from the American Style Mexican government, and a reactionary Centralist support unites Colombia.

Hope this was helpful.
 
I would be very interested to see some citations for the idea that the Federalists were abolitionists or more pro-civil rights than the D-Rs. I’d also like to see that squared with the A-S acts.
 
I would be very interested to see some citations for the idea that the Federalists were abolitionists or more pro-civil rights than the D-Rs. I’d also like to see that squared with the A-S acts.

The Federalists were inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and were of the opinion that pure Rousseauian democracy would be the end of the Republic. And in this regard the Federalists were not civil activists but were elitist in nature. That's why the A-S Acts were so unpopular.

But the Federalists did come from air of humanist teachings. The Federalists did well in the Northeast, where slavery was illegal. I am taking an educated guess that the Federalists didn't like the institution of slavery because of that, economic or otherwise. The Federalists' successors, namely the northern Whigs and Modern Republicans all fought for the abolishment of slavery, and against the Jacksonian ideology of an Imperial United States.

So to say shortly, Federalists were not pro-civil liberties, but there policies were definitely created for the "common good" and would ultimately allow for a path way to civil rights, at least more than in OTL.
 
The Federalists were inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and were of the opinion that pure Rousseauian democracy would be the end of the Republic. And in this regard the Federalists were not civil activists but were elitist in nature. That's why the A-S Acts were so unpopular.

But the Federalists did come from air of humanist teachings. The Federalists did well in the Northeast, where slavery was illegal. I am taking an educated guess that the Federalists didn't like the institution of slavery because of that, economic or otherwise. The Federalists' successors, namely the northern Whigs and Modern Republicans all fought for the abolishment of slavery, and against the Jacksonian ideology of an Imperial United States.

So to say shortly, Federalists were not pro-civil liberties, but there policies were definitely created for the "common good" and would ultimately allow for a path way to civil rights, at least more than in OTL.

The entire American political system was a product of the Enlightenment. And the Northeast was also home to many merchants that transported slaves. Further, the Whigs fell apart as a party in no small part due to their internal divide over slavery.

The conclusion presented sounds more like a transposition of modern political sensibilities, or at least mid 19th century sensibilities, than what would be likely for the late 18th century.
 
The Federalists were inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment, and were of the opinion that pure Rousseauian democracy would be the end of the Republic. And in this regard the Federalists were not civil activists but were elitist in nature. That's why the A-S Acts were so unpopular.

But the Federalists did come from air of humanist teachings. The Federalists did well in the Northeast, where slavery was illegal. I am taking an educated guess that the Federalists didn't like the institution of slavery because of that, economic or otherwise. The Federalists' successors, namely the northern Whigs and Modern Republicans all fought for the abolishment of slavery, and against the Jacksonian ideology of an Imperial United States.

So to say shortly, Federalists were not pro-civil liberties, but there policies were definitely created for the "common good" and would ultimately allow for a path way to civil rights, at least more than in OTL.
If the Federalists are going to remain dominant though, they're going to retain more support in the South. For example, the federalist president you use, Thomas Pinckney, was a slave owner from South Carolina.
 
The entire American political system was a product of the Enlightenment. And the Northeast was also home to many merchants that transported slaves. Further, the Whigs fell apart as a party in no small part due to their internal divide over slavery.

The conclusion presented sounds more like a transposition of modern political sensibilities, or at least mid 19th century sensibilities, than what would be likely for the late 18th century.

On the policy of slavery, there was a big push in the late 1700s and early 1800s to ban the pratice. Is it unrealistic to assume that under a Federalist government that a ban or limits on slavery would be passed before the textile industry appeared in Europe? Because Jefferson ended trade of slaves in 1808, because of the British. Wouldn't a more Federalist government which wanted investment in industry, try to ban slavery?
 
On the policy of slavery, there was a big push in the late 1700s and early 1800s to ban the pratice. Is it unrealistic to assume that under a Federalist government that a ban or limits on slavery would be passed before the textile industry appeared in Europe? Because Jefferson ended trade of slaves in 1808, because of the British. Wouldn't a more Federalist government which wanted investment in industry, try to ban slavery?

Uh, no, because that would tear apart the United States and start a civil war the South would easily win. If The South still was able to hold out for 4 years in the 1860s, when the Northern was damn near close to fully industrialized (I would argue the Civil War was the point where full industrialization took hold), then a war in the 1810s would be a crushing defeat for a North which was largely small mills and farmers.
 
On the policy of slavery, there was a big push in the late 1700s and early 1800s to ban the pratice. Is it unrealistic to assume that under a Federalist government that a ban or limits on slavery would be passed before the textile industry appeared in Europe? Because Jefferson ended trade of slaves in 1808, because of the British. Wouldn't a more Federalist government which wanted investment in industry, try to ban slavery?

That push was bipartisan. So, to your first, yes. To the second, no. The dirty secret was that those nascent industrial towns needed cheap slave-produces raw materials.
 
Top