We proceed to notice…the new division which grew up soon after the adoption of the Constitution, and which, though it coincided to a considerable extent, as respects the personal composition of the parties, with the[division of the Federalists and anti-Federalists before the Constitution's ratification], turned on questions essentially different. Of the new parties, the one that finally prevailed assumed the name of the Democratic, or Republican party:—the other was designated by its opponents as the aristocratic party, but continued to claim the title of Federal[ist], although the subjects in controversy were now in a great measure foreign to the character or construction of the Constitution…There was this marked distinction between this division and the [division over the interpretation of the Constitution], that while the latter turned upon points of controversy that were purely American, and was of course confined to this country, the former was only one branch of a general division, that prevailed at the time…. through the whole civilized world….

…[T]ill the termination of the general war in Europe by the fall of Napoleon, the whole internal and foreign policy of all the powers of Europe and America, has been directly or indirectly connected with the causes and circumstances of [the various conflicts in Europe, first between the aristocrats and the revolutionaries in the French Revolution, and later between Napoleon and the English in the Napoleonic Wars]. In every nation which was important enough to be at all affected by the operation of general causes, there grew up at once two great domestic parties, which espoused respectively the two opposite sides of the question at issue, applying it in each to the particular circumstances of their respective governments….

This division of opinion, feeling and action which, as we have said, pervaded the whole Christian world, formed the basis of the new division of parties that grew up in this country after the Constitution went into operation….the people of this country…like all their contemporaries, were arranged into two great parties [the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans], according to their respective opinions and feelings upon the political questions then and still in agitation throughout the Christian world….

It may…be assumed as certain,--so far at least as the general consent of the English and American public can make it so,—that the tendency, under which the Democratic party acted after the adoption of the Constitution and when the controversy had begun to turn upon the foreign policy of the country, was not only perfectly natural but substantially a right and beneficial one:-—that it was, in short, the tendency of the age. [This refers to the Democratic-Republicans' decision to fight the War of 1812 against England, a move opposed by the Federalists.] It does not however follow, that [the Federalists] were always in the wrong in regard to particular measures. They were strong in the superior correctness of their views in regard to the Federal Constitution, which, though no longer the principal subject of controversy, was occasionally brought into discussion; and they were often strong in the errors of their opponents.

While the Federalists remained in power [until 1800], the Republicans, as is usual with opposition parties, opposed almost every measure of the Government,—and in this way often placed themselves in the wrong. After 1800, the case was reversed in this respect; and the Federalists, from the natural tendency to indiscriminate opposition, were led to disapprove some of the wisest and most fortunate measures that the Government has ever adopted; as, for example, the purchase of Louisiana. While the contest was carried on with activity between these parties, (and it did not subside until the close of the war in 1814) it was accompanied of course with the bitterness of feeling, which is always generated by such a struggle. Neither party at the time probably did full justice to the other. The serious charges of perversity, foreign influence, and even direct bribery and corruption, were bandied about with great freedom. This merely partisan coloring has long since disappeared, with the feelings of which it was a transitory and unsubstantial reflection. It is now admitted by the whole American people, (with the exception of the few individuals remaining in active life, who were themselves engaged in the old controversy,) that these parties were composed, very much like others, of mixed materials;—that of the members of both, some acted on pure principles and patriotic feelings, and some from interested motives, while the mass were influenced by accidental circumstances, over which they had little control;—that taking the parties throughout, the proportion of the different sorts of ingredients was nearly the same in both, although each, in the section where it greatly predominated, naturally included a larger share of the intelligence, property and influence of the community. The strength of the Federalists lay, as is well known, in the North; that of the Republicans in the South.