DOCSLIB.ORG

1790-1824 First Party System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1790-1824 First Party System History of American Political History of American Parties Parties • Six “party systems” or historical eras • Changes in the nature of the two parties – Which voters support which party – What issues each party adopts • This change called a realignment 1848 Whig Party candidates Zachary Taylor & Millard Fillmore First Party System: First Party System: 1790-1824 1790-1824 Federalist Party Democratic-Republican Party • No parties in Constitution • Develop at elite level • Issues – National bank – Relations with France and England Alexander Hamilton Thomas Jefferson James Madison Strong national government Strong state governments 1 First Party System: Constituencies 1790-1824 • Develop inside Congress • Constituency – Loose coalition of supporters or opponents to – Limited electorate Hamilton versus Jefferson/Madison – Weakly organized • facilitates passage of legislation • Federalists: New England, English ancestry, – Coordination needed to win presidency commercial interests • Democratic-Republican: South and Mid-Atlantic, Irish/Scot/German ancestry, farmers and artisans, prosperity through western expansion First Party System: 1790-1824 All election maps from nationalatlas.gov • Electoral outcomes Source: http://nationalatlas.gov/elections/elect01.gif – 1796 John Adams (Federalist) • Thomas Jefferson, Vice President – 1800 tied vote and 12th Amendment – Democratic-Republican won next three • Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams 2 Second Party System: Federalists disappear by 1820 1828-1852 • Policy disputes within party • Old Democratic-Republican party split into • Failure to organize public support factions in 1824 • Burr-Hamilton duel, 1804 – four factions nominate different president – No majority in Electoral College, House • Opposition to War of 1812 selects J.Q. Adams • Republican-Democrats co-opt issues • Andrew Jackson comes to dominate one faction • Another faction becomes the Whig party Second Party System: Democratic Party 1828-1852 • First real party organizations • Jackson wins presidency 1828 • First mass-based parties • Issues – limited federal government, hard • Professional politicians money policy • Other presidents (Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan) • Congressional and organizational leaders (Calhoun, Van Buren) 3 Whig Party Constituencies Webster Clay • Democratic Party • Whig Party • Small farmer, frontier • Middle/Upper class • Issues - economic development, reform • Foreign-born • Native-born or British • Presidents:Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, • Catholic • Evangelical Fillmore Protestant – mostly nonpolitical military heroes • Congressional leaders – Daniel Webster - great orator – Henry Clay - compromise leader Changes in Parties in 2nd Party End of Second Party System System • Failure of compromises over slavery • Recognition of legitimacy of parties – Divides North and South and splits both major • Patronage parties • Mass-based parties • Number of third parties • Party convention to nominate president – Free Soil (anti-slavery) – American or Know-Nothing (anti-immigrant) • Whig party disappears, Democrats transformed 4 Third Party System: 1856-1894 Republican Party • Post Civil War party system • Era of business expansion more than Lincoln Grant political leaders • Combination of Whigs, northern Democrats, Free Soil, Know Nothing • Current Republican versus Democrats, but different issues and constituencies • Control presidency with Civil War heroes • Issues: industrial growth with high tariff laws, restrictions on labor, tight money policy, Homestead Act, land grants to railroads Republican Presidents: Democratic Party Third Party System • Party of the South • Rutherford B. Hayes • Only won presidency once (1877-1881) (Cleveland) • James A. Garfield • More competitive in Congress Grover Cleveland (1881) • Toward turn of century add B. A. • Chester A. Arthur urban immigrants, who were (1881-1885) locked out of the Republican party • Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) C. D. 5 Golden Age of American parties Fourth party system: 1896-1930 • Strong party organization • Failure to realign along class lines • Strong leaders in Congress and state • Economic strains in 1890s, urban & rural legislatures • Populist movement • Loyal party supporters in electorate – Use government to aid “little guy” • Rise of party machines in urban areas – Silver standard – For income tax – 8 hour day for labor William Jennings Bryan Republican Party • Republican William McKinley won in 1896 “You shall not press down • Reemerges as a much stronger party upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall • Control presidency 1896-1932, except for not crucify mankind upon Wilson elected due to split in Republican a cross of gold.” party Populist leader and 1896 Democratic presidential nominee President McKinley 6 Changing Competition Progressive Movement • One party control in many states • Middle class reform movement • Regional split in party constituencies • Clean up abuses of power in politics and – Conservative southern Democratic party business – Republican party of business in the North • Registration laws • Decline in voter turnout • Primaries • Civil service rather than patronage • Nonpartisan local elections & city managers Fifth Party System: 1932 - 1960 New Deal Realignment • Large Democratic majority allow dramatic new policies to be passed • Great Depression • Benefits cement loyalties of new voters • Hoover blamed – recent immigrants from southern and Eastern • 1932 Democratic Europe, Catholic or Jews, northern blacks, Franklin Delano union members, poor Roosevelt won by “default” • Retained conservative southern Democrats 7 Fifth Party System: 1932 - 1960 Changes in party structures • Democratic majority party but split • Increasing decline in party machines between liberal North and conservative • Rise of politician more independent from South factions party • Republicans minority • Media & technology – Only President Dwight Eisenhower in 1950s • Mixed presidential nomination system – Control Congress only twice • Multiple leadership positions in Congress Sixth Party System: 1964 - Changing Constituencies • Evenly matched parties • Exit of southern Democrats to southern • Rise of independent voters & split-ticket Republican party voting • Strengthening loyalties of African • Frequent divided government Americans to Democratic party • Frequent switch of presidential party • Emergence of gender gap • Candidate-centered campaigns • Presidential nominations through primaries 8 Realignments • Long-term (30 years) change in nature of parties • Change in constituencies • Change in issues • Change in majority status • Later years decay in alignment – new issues – conflicts between constituent groups 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Picking the Vice President
    Picking the Vice President Elaine C. Kamarck Brookings Institution Press Washington, D.C. Contents Introduction 4 1 The Balancing Model 6 The Vice Presidency as an “Arranged Marriage” 2 Breaking the Mold 14 From Arranged Marriages to Love Matches 3 The Partnership Model in Action 20 Al Gore Dick Cheney Joe Biden 4 Conclusion 33 Copyright 36 Introduction Throughout history, the vice president has been a pretty forlorn character, not unlike the fictional vice president Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays in the HBO seriesVEEP . In the first episode, Vice President Selina Meyer keeps asking her secretary whether the president has called. He hasn’t. She then walks into a U.S. senator’s office and asks of her old colleague, “What have I been missing here?” Without looking up from her computer, the senator responds, “Power.” Until recently, vice presidents were not very interesting nor was the relationship between presidents and their vice presidents very consequential—and for good reason. Historically, vice presidents have been understudies, have often been disliked or even despised by the president they served, and have been used by political parties, derided by journalists, and ridiculed by the public. The job of vice president has been so peripheral that VPs themselves have even made fun of the office. That’s because from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the last decade of the twentieth century, most vice presidents were chosen to “balance” the ticket. The balance in question could be geographic—a northern presidential candidate like John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts picked a southerner like Lyndon B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to Election and Initial Impact of FDR Kiana Frederick Leading up to the Election of 1932
    The Road to Election and Initial Impact of FDR Kiana Frederick Leading Up to the Election of 1932 ● FDR’s main campaign strategy was to focus the public’s attention on Hoover’s inadequacies and the Nation’s troubles. ● His strategy allowed for him to put down Hoover while promising better days ahead if he was president. ● This promise was NOT backed up with any specific policies or programs that he would change or create. Lead up to the Election of 1932 ● Herbert Hoover was the president prior to the election of 1932 ● Prior to the election, five thousand banks had failed, and by the end of 1932, one third of the nation’s workforce was unemployed. ● Farm income had declined from 12 million dollars in 1929 to 5 million dollars by the end of 1932. ● Herbert Hoover’s popularity decreased significantly because of his inability to reverse the economic collapse. Map of the Election of 1932 The Election of 1932 ● Democrats had only elected one president since 1896 ● Franklin D. Roosevelt v.s Herbert Hoover ● FDR would be a shoo-in for the election ● FDR would promise a “New Deal” for the American people ● The election marked the end of the “Fourth Party System” and would commence the “Fifth Party System” Fourth Party System and Fifth Party System The Fourth party System marks the period in political history that was dominated by the republican party, also known as the “Progressive Era.” The Great Depression served as the springboard. The election in 1932 would be a realigning election giving way to the Fifth Party System.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Parties in a Critical Era by John H. Aldrich
    Political Parties in a Critical Era1 by John H. Aldrich Duke University Prepared for delivery at “The State of the Parties: 1996 and Beyond,” Bliss Institute Conference, University of Akron, October 9-10, 1997 Political Parties in a Critical Era 2 Democracy, we often forget, is a process, and thus is continually in the making. It is not, as we usually like to think of it, an outcome. The central questions to ask about this process concern, first, the relationship between the beliefs and actions of citizens and of those whom they choose to govern them. The second question concerns the consequences of elite actions, that is, the policies and other outputs of the political system. This relationship between the mass and elite evolves over time, and as a result so does the pattern of policy produced by the government. That evolution is, indeed, the consequence of democracy being a process and not an outcome. Richard Niemi and I (Aldrich and Niemi, 1990; 1996; Aldrich, 1995) proposed a slight generalization and redefinition of V.O. Key's concept of a critical election (1955). We also offered a method for demonstrating at least some of the features of what we called "critical eras" and the period of stability (perhaps even equilibrium) in between. In our view, the 1960s were a critical era, and the 1970s and 1980s were a period of stable alignment.2 We dubbed the stable era that of the "candidate-centered party system," due to the importance of candidates and their assessments in shaping citizens’ choices, of the individual impact of incumbency on elections, and of related aspects of candidate-centered elections that so mark this period.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Jackson
    THE JACKSONIAN ERA DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS: THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM THE “ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS” • James Monroe (1817-1825) was the last Founder to serve as President • Federalist party had been discredited after War of 1812 • Monroe unopposed for reelection in 1820 • Foreign policy triumphs: • Adams-Onís Treaty (1819) settled boundary with Mexico & added Florida • Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans against further colonization in Americas James Monroe, By Gilbert Stuart THE ELECTION OF 1824 & THE SPLIT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY • “Era of Good Feelings” collapsed under weight of sectional & economic differences • New generation of politicians • Election of 1824 saw Republican party split into factions • Andrew Jackson received plurality of popular & electoral vote • House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams to be president • Henry Clay became Secretary of State – accused of “corrupt bargain” • John Quincy Adams’ Inaugural Address called in vain for return to unity THE NATIONAL REPUBLICANS (WHIGS) • The leaders: • Henry Clay • John Quincy Adams • Daniel Webster • The followers: • Middle class Henry Clay • Educated • Evangelical • Native-born • Market-oriented John Quincy Adams WHIG ISSUES • Conscience Whigs – abolition, temperance, women’s rights, etc. • Cotton Whigs – internal improvements & protective tariffs to foster economic growth (the “American System”) THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS (DEMOCRATS) • The leaders: • Martin Van Buren • Andrew Jackson • John C. Calhoun • The followers: Martin Van Buren • Northern working class & Southern planter aristocracy • Not well-educated • Confessional churches • Immigrants • Locally-oriented John C. Calhoun DEMOCRATIC ISSUES • Limited power for federal government & states’ rights • Opposition to “corrupt” alliance between government & business • Individual freedom from coercion “KING ANDREW” & THE “MONSTER BANK” • Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Second Party System and the Rise of the Republican Party
    The Demise Of The Second Party System And The Rise Of The Republican Party Antonio Lovato The Whig Party • 1834-1854 • Led by Henry Clay • A group organized in their opposiHon to Andrew JacKson • They supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency. • Had 2 presidents: William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor; both died in office. – John Tyler succeeded Harrison but was expelled from the party and was a firm democrat – Millard Fillmore became president aer Taylor and was the last Whig to hold office The Whig Party ConHnued • JacKson’s victories in 1828 and 1832 destroyed the Naonal Republican Party and allowed for the Whig party to grow. • In 1836 they ran three presidenHal candidates (Daniel Webster, Hugh L. White, and William Henry Harrison) to appeal to the East, South, and West • They pracHcally captured Congress and the White House in 1840 and were poised to become the naon’s dominant party. The Demise of the Whig Party • By the late 1840’s the Whig party began to unravel due to the dispute of slavery. • Millard Fillmore’s enforcement of the fugiHve slave law won the support of the southern Whigs but had alienated anHslavery Whigs. • The Party was destroyed primarily by the quesHon of whether to expand slavery and because Fillmore wasn’t reelected in 1852 the party nominated General Winfield Scoc. • Scoc won favor because he had support from the North and some support from the South in the ElecHon of 1852. • On ElecHon Day, the power of the Whigs significantly decreased due to the fact that they had elected no governors and no president, leaving only control of Tennessee and KentucKy.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer a Thesis
    Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies University of Washington 2013 Committee: Charles Williams Michael Allen Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Interdisciplinary Arts and Science ©Copyright 2013 Sean Panzer University of Washington Abstract Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer Assistant Professor Dr. Charles Williams Interdisciplinary Arts and Science This thesis explores how the Republican Party (US) and the Labour Party (UK) were successful in becoming the rare examples of third parties that displaced a major party to become one of the major parties in a two-party system. In exploring this question the thesis first examines the political science ‘rules of the game’ that make it extremely difficult for third parties, followed by a historical/sociological comparative analysis of case studies of the Republican and Labour Parties to determine if there are similarities in their rise to power. The comparative analysis shows that under extreme conditions, a fundamental sociological and demographic change may occur which supports the addressing of issues that the major parties will be unable to adequately incorporate for fear of upsetting their core base supporters. It is under this context that a third party could ultimately be successful in rising to major party status. i Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………..…….... 1 Chapter I: Political Science Perspectives of Limitations on Third Parties ....….…… 7 Chapter II: Republican Party ……….……………………………………..……….… 30 Chapter III: Labour Party (UK) …………………………………………...…………. 63 Chapter IV: Conclusion …………………………………………………..…..………. 95 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………. 102 1 Introduction As electoral results continued to roll in for the contentious 2000 presidential election, one of the presidential candidates took the opportunity to reflect upon the close nature of the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to American Government News the Logic of American Politics
    News Jeb Bush wants to push back the retirement age for Social Security by as many as five years, The Hill reports. Said Bush: “I think it needs to be phased in over an extended period of time. We need to look over the horizon and begin to phase in, over an extended period of time, going from 65 to 68 or 70. And that, by itself, will help sustain the retirement system for anybody under the age of 40.” “At the same time, Bush said that he would be open to cutting back benefits for wealthy people and their beneficiaries, a reform proposal known as means testing.” “The Rand Paul pile-on session began a few hours before sunset Sunday evening,” Politico reports. “Behind closed doors in the Senate’s Strom Thurmond Room, Republican senators lashed out at the junior Kentucky Republican’s defiant stance to force the expiration of key sections of the PATRIOT Act, a law virtually all of them support. Indiana Sen. Dan Coats’ criticism was perhaps the most biting: He accused the senator of ‘lying’ about the matter in order to raise money for his presidential campaign, according to three people who attended the meeting.” “The message may have gotten through to Paul except for one thing: The libertarian-minded senator skipped the hour-long meeting. That only infuriated his colleagues more.” Introduction to American Government Income inequality, by many measures, is now greater than it has been since the 1920s. Linz and Stepan suggest that we need to look to comparative politics rather POLS 1101 than Americanist political science in order to understand the sources of American inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Few Americans in the 1790S Would Have Predicted That the Subject Of
    AMERICAN NAVAL POLICY IN AN AGE OF ATLANTIC WARFARE: A CONSENSUS BROKEN AND REFORGED, 1783-1816 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jeffrey J. Seiken, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2007 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor John Guilmartin, Jr., Advisor Professor Margaret Newell _______________________ Professor Mark Grimsley Advisor History Graduate Program ABSTRACT In the 1780s, there was broad agreement among American revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton about the need for a strong national navy. This consensus, however, collapsed as a result of the partisan strife of the 1790s. The Federalist Party embraced the strategic rationale laid out by naval boosters in the previous decade, namely that only a powerful, seagoing battle fleet offered a viable means of defending the nation's vulnerable ports and harbors. Federalists also believed a navy was necessary to protect America's burgeoning trade with overseas markets. Republicans did not dispute the desirability of the Federalist goals, but they disagreed sharply with their political opponents about the wisdom of depending on a navy to achieve these ends. In place of a navy, the Republicans with Jefferson and Madison at the lead championed an altogether different prescription for national security and commercial growth: economic coercion. The Federalists won most of the legislative confrontations of the 1790s. But their very success contributed to the party's decisive defeat in the election of 1800 and the abandonment of their plans to create a strong blue water navy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Constitutional Choices: Political Parties, Groups, and Prohibition
    Constitutional Choices: Political Parties, Groups, and Prohibition Politics in the United States Aaron J. Ley, Ph.D. University of Rhode Island Department of Political Science 206 Washburn Hall Kingston, RI 02881 [email protected] 401.874.7893 Cornell W. Clayton Washington State University School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs Johnson Tower 814 Pullman, WA [email protected] Abstract: The Prohibition-Era is an exceptional period of American history spawning the only constitutional amendment ever to grant a specific police power to the federal government, as well as the first effort to repeal a constitutional amendment. Most accounts of the Eighteenth and Twenty First Amendments to the U.S. Constitution focus on the temperance movement and interest groups while largely ignoring the role played by major political parties. This is because prohibition split the electoral coalitions of both major parties and support for the amendment was thus characterized as “bipartisan” or “non-partisan” in nature. In this paper, we argue that partisan politics is an integral part of the constitutional politics of this period. The split in the parties’ political coalitions, together with the unsettled and closely divided nature of electoral politics during the transition from the third to the fourth party systems, played an important role, perhaps the key role in enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, permitting its passage even as neither national party supported it. The Eighteenth Amendment thus is the only constitutional amendment since the founding period to be enacted without supported of one or both of the major political parties. The national political parties also played a role in enactment of the Twenty First Amendment, supporting tacitly or explicitly the repeal of prohibition.
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Contagion
    Voting Contagion Dan Braha1,2 and Marcus A.M. de Aguiar1,3 1 New England Complex Systems Institute, Cambridge, MA, United States, 2 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Dartmouth, MA, United States, 3 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil Social influence plays an important role in human behavior and decisions. The sources of influence can be generally divided into external, which are independent of social context, or as originating from peers, such as family and friends. An important question is how to disentangle the social contagion by peers from external influences. While a variety of experimental and observational studies provided insight into this problem, identifying the extent of social contagion based on large-scale observational data with an unknown network structure remains largely unexplored. By bridging the gap between the large-scale complex systems perspective of collective human dynamics and the detailed approach of the social sciences, we present a parsimonious model of social influence, and apply it to a central topic in political scienceelections and voting behavior. We provide an analytical expression of the county vote-share distribution in a two-party system, which is in excellent agreement with 92 years of observed U.S. presidential election data. Analyzing the social influence topography over this period reveals an abrupt transition in the patterns of social contagionfrom low to high levels of social contagion. The results from our analysis reveal robust differences among regions of the United States in terms of their social influence index. In particular, we identify two regions of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots of social influence, each comprising states that are geographically close.
    [Show full text]
  • The Election of 1800: a Study in the Logic of Political Change
    The Election of 1800: A Study in the Logic of Political Change Joanne B. Freemant To an extraordinary degree, early national politics operated in a climate of crisis. The spirit of political experimentation that fueled the nascent American republic was as disquieting as it was invigorating; keenly aware that they were creating the first polity of its kind in the modem world, politicians believed that anything could happen. This crisis mentality is essential to understanding the logic of political change in the early republic, yet the detachment of hindsight makes it difficult to recapture. Aware of the eventual emergence of an institutionalized two-party system, we search for its roots in this period, projecting our sense of political order onto a politics with its own distinct logic and integrity. In We the People: Transfornations, Bruce Ackerman discusses the broader implications of this present-mindedness, suggesting that it has blinded us to the true nature of American constitutional governance. As he explains at the opening of his argument, "the professional narrative" propounded by judges and lawyers-a story of declining constitutional creativity-has cut Americans off from "the truth about the revolutionary character of their higher lawmaking effort."' By using the present as a standard of measurement, Ackerman suggests, this storyline depicts constitutional change as a downslide from the creative to the familiar, the entrenched, the now, obscuring the spirit of "unconventional adaptation" at its core.' The same insight holds true for the early republic. By using our present two-party system as a standard of measurement, we have obscured the distinctive and often unexpected features of early national politics, thereby blinding ourselves to the logic of political change.
    [Show full text]