“Fire-Brands of Sedition”: The Democratic Societies of the 1790s

Abstract

The citizen-led Democratic-Republican or Democratic societies in the United States represented a new era of political discourse in the 1790s. Members of these societies, frustrated by their sense that the emerging Federalist executive branch of government was becoming dangerously elitist, and alienated by decision-making in Congress, met regularly to compose resolutions to publish in local and national papers and so make their concerns widely known. Many Federalists, in and out of government, became wary of these societies and their increased presence in the public sphere. Federalists believed the political participation of ordinary citizens should be limited, and political demonstrations should either show support for governmental policy or exhibit bipartisan patriotism through parades and similar celebrations. As manifestations of political opposition by common citizens, the Democratic societies seemed threatening. This thesis studies the organization of these societies, and their interactions with political opponents in the press and public sphere, to explore some long-held misconceptions about their participation in political debate in the 1790s. First, this thesis brings into question the role of Democratic societies in the Whiskey Rebellion, initially described by Federalists and then repeated by generations of historians. The thesis then turns to similar misconceptions surround the timing and reasons for the societies’ demise. Many have argued, under the influence of Federalist victory celebrations over the societies, that they withered away following President Washington’s harsh condemnation of them in 1794, but some of them survived into the nineteenth century. Finally, this thesis examines the period between 1795 and 1800, and the Democratic societies’ presence in the public sphere in spite of strict Federalist policies during John Adams’ presidency. As the Federalists had long popularized the narrative which depicted the societies as impotent and seditious rebels, incorrect assumptions about their values and longevity have endured even until today. I argue, based on this evidence, that while the Federalists were in an advantageous position during the Adams administration to legally suppress political dissent, and described themselves as utter victors over the societies, the Democratic societies endured longer than previously believed, influencing political ideology as late as the 1820s.