In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

143 6 The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States in 1787 shared the assumption that political parties were bad because they could not help but be divisive. They declared as a consequence that parties should not and would not develop, and the structure of government they devised was based on this assertion. James Madison in The Federalist Papers foresaw the development of conflicting “interest” groups that would represent the different needs of American citizens. But he did not envision the political parties that quickly appeared in the 1790s, nor the two-party system that has characterized United States politics throughout most of its history. As a result, Americans have tinkered with their political system to make it work under conditions for which it was not originally designed. Historians in turn have tried to explain when and why parties appeared and how they developed and operated. Historians have also examined which voters have been attracted to which parties and why there were usually two parties (not more, as in Italy, or fewer, as in the former Soviet Union). The first American party system arose between 1791 and 1795 on the foundation of real political, economic, and ideological differences among Americans. The resultant Federalist and JeffersonianRepublican parties fought over policies and offices until after the War of 1812, when the Federalist Party declined because of its opposition to the war and a surge in nationalist feeling at its end. The election of 1824 was marked by a revival of political contests and followed by the reemergence of a two-party system that Richard P. McCormick referred to as “the second party system” (1966). Historians have tried to address numerous questions about this system. The first question is when parties actually emerged. The initial contest (on the national level, the presidential election of 1828) was between John Quincy Adams, representing the National Republicans, and Andrew Jackson of the Jacksonian Democrats. A division emerged between Whigs and Democrats, but when? Or, more precisely, when did this split emerge on the national level and in different states, specifically New Jersey? Did the second-party system develop because of national issues, state interests, or a combination of both? 144 / Richard P. McCormick The second question concerns ideology. Historians have suggested that philosophical differences stimulated the creation of political parties. Whigs favored an active government, one that assisted in the development of commerce and manufacturing. Democrats preferred a limited government and a laissez-faire economy. The first represented the elite and wealthy, the second small farmers and workers. But American political parties have seldom been diametrically opposed in their viewpoints ; they more often comprise coalitions of different interest groups. Thus, for example, it is necessary to ask if all Whigs in New Jersey were wealthy, and if all of them agreed on policy matters. If not, other factors must have influenced the development of parties. An alternative explanation revolves around personalities. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were very different. As John William Ward notes in Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (1953), Adams represented the East and was more intellectual; Jackson, by contrast, was seen as the western man of action. Each appealed to some voters and politicians and alienated others. But do voters support parties based on subjective likes and dislikes alone? Is this a sufficient explanation for the emergence of parties? Whether ideology or personality accounts better for the creation of political parties, historians have noted the tendency of parties to be selfperpetuating . They become “electoral machines,” winning offices for candidates by gathering votes and rewarding supporters with patronage appointments once in power. Recipients of jobs and other prizes support the party in the next election by voting and otherwise using their influence . In The Behavior of State Legislative Parties in the Jacksonian Era: New Jersey, 1829–1844 (1977), Peter Levine argues that such structural factors help explain what held together a diverse coalition. Other historians have claimed that cultural differences have had greater influence in sustaining the party system. Herbert Ershkowitz, in The Origin of the Whig and Democratic Parties: New Jersey Politics 1820–1837 (1982), argues that the “Whigs drew their support from evangelical Protestants, the Democrats had a constituency which included the Irish, German, and nonevangelical Protestants.” Political scientists today might observe that Mormons are Republicans. But is there a uniform or strong correlation between ethnic, religious, and social background and party affiliation? If so, why does a particular...

Share