James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the leading critics of the Federalist policies of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Washington’s decision to raise an army to put down the western Pennsylvania rebels confirmed Madison’s fears that the national government had become too strong. In his letter to James Monroe, then serving as U.S. minister to France, Madison expresses his concern about Washington’s use of military force and the dangers of a standing army. He also criticizes Federalist efforts to link rebellious farmers with the Republican societies (also sometimes called Democratic societies) established in support of the French Revolution and the emerging political opposition in the United States.
You will learn from the newspapers and official communications the unfortunate scene in the Western parts of Pennsylvania which unfolded itself during the recess. The history of its remote and immediate causes, the measures produced by it, and the manner in which it has been closed, does not fall within the compass of a letter. It is probable, also, that many explanatory circumstances are yet but imperfectly known. I can only refer to the printed accounts, which you will receive from the Department of State, and the comments which your memory will assist you in making on them. The event was, in several respects, a critical one for the cause of liberty, and the real authors of it, if not in the service, were, in the most effectual manner, doing the business of Despotism. You well know the general tendency of insurrections to increase the momentum of power. You will recollect the particular effect of what happened some years ago in Massachusetts. Precisely the same calamity was to be dreaded on a larger scale in this case. There were enough, as you may well suppose, ready to give the same turn to the crisis, and to propagate the same impressions from it. It happened most auspiciously, however, that, with a spirit truly Republican, the people every where, and of every description, condemned the resistance to the will of the majority, and obeyed with alacrity the call to vindicate the authority of the laws. You will see, in the answer of the House of Representatives to the President’s speech, that the most was made of this circumstance, as an antidote to the poisonous influence to which Republicanism was exposed. If the insurrection had not been crushed in the manner it was, I have no doubt that a formidable attempt would have been made to establish the principle that a standing army was necessary for enforcing the laws. When I first came to this City, about the middle of October, this was the fashionable language. Nor am I sure that the attempt would not have been made, if the President could have been embarked in it, and particularly if the temper of New England had not been dreaded on this point. I hope we are over that danger for the present. You will readily understand the business detailed in the newspapers relating to the denunciation of the “self-created Societies.” The introduction of it by the President was, perhaps, the greatest error of his political life. For his sake, as well as for a variety of obvious reasons, I wished it might be passed over in silence by the House of Representatives. The answer was penned with that view, and so reported. This moderate course would not satisfy those who hoped to draw a party advantage out of the President’s popularity. The game was to connect the Democratic Societies with the odium of the insurrection; to connect the Republicans in Congress with those Societies; to put the President ostensibly at the head of the other party, in opposition to both, and by these means prolong the illusions in the North, and try a new experiment on the South. To favor the project, the answer of the Senate was accelerated, and so framed as to draw the President into the most pointed reply on the subject of the Societies. At the same time, the answer of the House of Representatives was procrastinated, till the example of the Senate and the commitment of the President could have their full operation. You will see how nicely the House was divided, and how the matter went off. As yet, the discussion has not been revived by the newspaper combatants. If it should, and equal talents be opposed, the result cannot fail to wound the President’s popularity more than anything that has yet happened. It must be seen that no two principles can be either more indefensible in reason, or more dangerous in practice, than that—1. Arbitrary denunciations may punish what the law permits, and what the Legislature has no right by law to prohibit; and that, 2. The Government may stifle all censure whatever on its misdoings; for if it be itself the Judge, it will never allow any censures to be just; and if it can suppress censures flowing from one lawful source, it may those flowing from any other—from the press and from individuals, as well as from Societies, &c.
The elections for the House of Representatives are over in New England and Pennsylvania. In Massachusetts, they have been contested so generally as to rouse the people compleatly from their lethargy, though not sufficiently to eradicate the errors which have prevailed there. The principal members have been all severely pushed; several changes have taken place, rather for the better, and not one for the worse.