When did national party politics start, and how and when did it become institutionalized in the rules of the national legislature?
There’s no clear start dates for the two earliest parties, but they gradually emerged during Washington’s term: the Federalists, who favoured a strong federal government, and the Democratic-Republicans, who favoured a more decentralised federal government and greater emphasis on the power of states. The Federalists also saw the future development as being based on commerce and urban centres; the Democratic-Republicans thought that the strength of a republic lay in agriculture and independent farmers.
Washington had members of both groupings in his Cabinet, which caused significant tensions as it became clear that different founding fathers had very different visions of how they wanted the new country to develop.
Two early leaders of the Federalist grouping were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Jefferson and Madison were in the Democratic-Republican grouping, as evidenced by their support for the resolutions of the Kentucky and Virginia Assemblies, attempting to nullify the Alien & Sedition Acts.
The Federalist party died out by the 1820’s, while the Democractic-Republican party gradually became known as the Democratic party, the name it carries today.
During the 1830’s, 1840’s, and 1850’s the main other party was the Whig party, but there were other groupings such as the Free Soilers (slavery abolitionists) and the Know-Nothings (American nativists).
The Republicans formed in the 1850’s mainly in opposition to slavery. They absorbed many of the Whigs and Free Soilers. (I believe Lincoln was a Whig during his term in Congress.)
One of the ironies, looking back two centuries, is that although the Federalists died out and the Dem-Reps survived, it was the Federalists who had the clearer idea of how the country would develop: strong federal government, urbanization, and commerce.
Thanks Northern Piper, great info
I Had heard of the Whigs and the Know-Nothings but not the Free Soilers (he he, the places I could go with that name). Will have to look into them
Can the north/south split during the constitutional convention be considered “party politic”?
I’m still curious about how and when the House and Senate rules concerning control of committees and legislative agenda came about.
P.S
DIE Hamsters DIE!
Excellent response, Northern Piper! You get two thumbs up from this history teacher.
:o :o :o
aw, shucks.
With regards to the question about the convention, it’s been my impression that the disputes there weren’t so much north v. south. Rather, the questions brought out divisions between big states v. small states, with some additional issues about tariffs and slavery tossed in.
The classic account of the Convention is by Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States. He wrote:
Course, Farrand was writing nearly a century ago, so I don’t know if modern historians take a different view.
Don’t know anything about the parliamentary procedure question, but it sounds interesting. Anyone else?
Will you do me a favor and cite your souce Piper? It would be nice to read more, but thanks for that blurb.
Oh dear. Cites. hmmm. I didn’t make it up, but just posted what I had rattling around in my head from various readings. Since I’ve never studied American history, I don’t know the standard texts - maybe Frostillicus can help?
You might try “Grand Inquests” by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Then there’s “The Duel”, an account of the rivalry between Burr and Hamilton. Plus, Ken Burns’ PBS bio of Jefferson that aired a while ago - I don’t know if it will repeat.
Thank you. I wasn’t questioning if it was your original work. I wanted to know if you found that at one place; like a website, or an academic text. Thanks
The main controversy regarding slavery at the Constitutional Convention did not center around the morality of owning other human beings, but around whether or not slaves should be counted as part of a states’ population as far as determining representation in Congress. The Southern states argued that they should be counted, while the Northern states argued the opposite, which is somewhat ironic when you think about it. (If slaves were considered property in the South, why not count cows and horses as part of the population as well?) The founders settled on the 3/5ths Compromise, which counted each slave as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of Congressional representation. Of course, the slaves were given 0/5ths of the rights that go along with being a person.
Googled a search on party history and came up with this list from:
http://library.thinkquest.org/12587/contents/parties/?tqskip1=1&tqtime=1110
I’m not sure how complete it is because they didn’t include the green party.(maybe an old list?)
I’m still looking for info on procedure but haven’t had much luck.
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Federalist Party
Democratic-Republican Party
Whig Party
Progressive Party(Bull Moose)
People’s Party
Socialist Party
Reform Party
Constitutional Union Party(Free Soilers)
Free Soil Party
Greenback-Labor Party
Anti-Masonic Party
Liberty Party
American Party
American Independent Party
National Republican Party Libertarian Party
But even on this point it wasn’t a clear-cut division between free and slave states, according to Farrand.
The Convention referred the issue of reperesentation in the lower house to a committee composed of one member from each of the states. This committee reported back with a proposal to base future representation on a census of the free white population of each state, and on three-fifths “of those of other descriptions” (a circumlocution to avoid using the word slaves).
On debate, South Carolina and Georgia moved that representation in the lower house be based on whole population, treating blacks and whites equally. This proposal was voted down seven states to three.* The three in favour were South Carolina, Georgia and Delaware.
The convention then took up the report of the Committe. The Convention agreed unanimously that representation should be based on the census. They then considered the Committee’s recommendation in two stages.
The first stage was that representation be based on free white population. This motion passed 6-4, with South Carolina, Delaware, Maryland and Georgia in the negative.
The second stage was the proposal to include “those of other descriptions” at the three-fifths rate. That proposal was also defeated 6-4, but by a different division. The four states opposed were Connecticut, North Carolina, Virginia and Georgia.
As Farand puts it, " There were evidently motives at work that are not observable on the surface, for the last vote apparently was not to the liking of the Convention." In the last vote of the day, the Convention unanimously dismissed the Committee’s report and was back to square one.
The next day, however, the Convention adopted the Committee resolution, by tying it to a proposal that taxes could only be levied directly in proportion to the population figures used to allocate seats in the lower house. It seems that the concern may have been that the slave states could use their additional 3/5ths to impose an unequal tax burden on the states that did not have a large number of states. The proposal as amended passed unanimously.
- There were only ten states voting at the time: Rhode Island never sent delegates, the New Hampshire delegates hadn’t arrived yet, and the New York delegation had lost the quorum imposed on it by the New York assembly and could not cast a vote on behalf of the state