On the other hand, if Jeffersonian democracy was the representative of all the individualistic tendencies of the later science of political economy, Hamiltonian federalism represented the necessary corrective force of law.  It was in many respects a strong survival of colonialism.  Together with some of the evil features of colonialism, its imperative demands for submission to class government, its respect for the interests and desires of the few, and its contempt for those of the many, it had brought into American constitutional life a very high ratio of that respect for law which alone can render the happiness and usefulness of the individual a permanent and secure possession.  It was impossible for federalism to resist the individualistic tendency of the country for any length of time; it is the monument of the party that it secured, before it fell, abiding guaranties for the security of the individual under freedom.

The genius of the federalists was largely practical.  It was shown in their masterly organization of the federal government when it was first entrusted to their hands, an organization which has since been rather developed than disturbed in any of its parts.  But the details of the work absorbed the attention of the leaders so completely that it would be impossible to fix on any public address as entirely representative of the party.  Fisher Ames’ speech on the Jay treaty, which was considered by the federalists the most effective piece of oratory in their party history, has been taken as a substitute.  The question was to the federalists partly of commercial and partly of national importance.  John Jay had secured the first commercial treaty with Great Britain in 1795.  It not only provided for the security of American commerce during the European wars to which Great Britain was a party, and obtained the surrender of the military posts in the present States of Ohio and Michigan; it also gave the United States a standing in the family of nations which it was difficult to claim elsewhere while Great Britain continued to refuse to treat on terms of equality.  The Senate therefore ratified the treaty, and it was constitutionally complete.  The democratic majority in the House of Representatives, objecting to the treaty as a surrender of previous engagements with France, and as a failure to secure the rights of individuals against Great Britain, particularly in the matter of impressment, raised the point that the House was not bound to vote money for carrying into effect a treaty with which it was seriously dissatisfied.  The speech of Gallatin has been selected to represent the republican view.  It is a strong reflection of the opposition to the Treaty.  The reply of Ames is a forcible presentation of both the national and the commercial aspects of his party; it had a very great influence in securing, though by a very narrow majority, the vote of the House in favor of the appropriation.