The Second Party System

718 Words2 Pages

The breakdown of the second party system was also a reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. In the early 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated, the second party system collapsed and the Republican Party emerged to challenge the Democrats. Southern Revisionists have argued that the collapse of the Union had been preceded by the collapse of the 2nd party system and that the Whig disappeared only to re-emerge as the new Republican party in 1854 supported by nativist Know-Nothing votes. They have also argued that politicians created this tension on purpose to advance their careers, but by doing so they made the 2nd party system collapse. However recent historians, such as Hugh Tulloch, contradict this view by arguing that there is no one single Previously Whigs would have benefited from this however; as Farmer argues, “the Whig collapse has often been seen as a direct result of the Kansas Nebraska Act”. This emphasises that all the factors are linked as the actions of politicians with the Kansas Nebraska Act and the decisions over slavery caused the Whig party failure. This all built up created the tensions that resulted in the Civil War. Another reason for Whig failure was their inability to deal with the two major issues of immigration and Catholicism. Americans detested the rapidly increasing political power that catholic voters had. It was claimed that Irish Catholics only voted for the party that their political leader/priest told them to vote for. This could be seen as a threat to democracy. This shows that the problems around immigrants cause Whig collapse and the start of the breakdown of the political system, which weakened the country in the lead up to the breakout of the war. Another Whig failure was their 1852 election, where they were actively pro-catholic, which was a mistake as it made traditional Whigs reluctant to vote. This highlights that Americans did not like the sudden change of viewpoint and protested this by not voting for them. Henry Adams Observed, “Of all the parties that have existed in the United States, the famous Whig party was the most feeble in ideas”. This proves that the Whig party was not strong enough to change their views as society changed in the lead up to the war, which lead to their collapse, which ultimately lead to the outbreak of

Show More
Related

  • Slavery, The Constitutional, And The Origins Of The Civil War

    1066 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...d. The Whig and Democratic parties developed as national parties, they advocated throughout the nation, regardless of the regional and sessional differences between the supporters. Due to the economic changes, it affected many of the territories in the United States. For example, the North and the Great Lakes economy, and the East-West economy was growing as well, which strengthened relations with Border States and the North. Unlike the North, the South struggled the workers and the poverty-stricken farmers felt excluded from the new exchanges that were being made by the Democrats. Both Parties battled each other over economical issues, both of the parties had supporters throughout the entire country and stayed devoted to the idea of a unified nation. Since the parties shared interest leaders from the North and South to work together and work through sectional issues.

    Read More

  • Analysis of The Shattering of The Union by Eric H. Walther

    402 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Democratic Party was sectionally shattered by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but it also gave birth to the Republicans. Ultimately, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would lead to a sectional rift in the country that would prove too deep to patch up without war. During the year of 1855, Governor Andrew Reeder called for an election for a legislature for the state o Kansas. He carefully planned out the election to make it fair by appointed two Free Soilers and one proslavery judges and several supervisors.

    Read More

  • Jacksonian Democrats vs. The Whigs

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the 1830-1840’s the opposing governmental parties, the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, undertook many issues. The Whigs were a party born out of their hatred for President Andrew Jackson, and dubbed his harsh military ways as “executive usurpation,” and generally detested everything he did while he was in office. This party was one that attracted many other groups alienated by President Jackson, and was mainly popular among urban industrial aristocrats in the North. On the other hand, the Jacksonian Democrats were a party born out of President Andrew Jackson’s anti-federalistic ideals that was extremely popular among southern agrarians. A major economic issue that the two parties disagreed on was whether or not the United States should have a National Bank. Along with the National Bank, the two parties also disagreed on the issue of the Protective tariff that was enforced to grow Northern industry. Politically, the two parties disagreed on the issues of Manifest Destiny, or expansion, and ultimately Slavery. While the two parties essentially disagreed on most issues, there are also similarities within these issues that the two parties somewhat agree on.

    Read More

  • The American Civil War: The Inevitable Confrontation

    1753 Words  | 4 Pages

    Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.

    Read More

  • The Antebellum United States and the Increase of Sectionalism

    1618 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ong the various sections of the United States increased. The country, similarly to the democratic party, shattered along sectional lines due to the individual interests of the sections. The south, above all, was bonded in an effort to preserve and spread slavery through the usage of popular sovereignty. New England was bonded together with the conviction that slavery was immoral and that the spread of slavery should be hindered. The west was bonded together over a mutual appreciation of democratic principles such as popular sovereignty as well as an understanding that slavery was undesirable within their own states because it would add additional competition. As the nation turned upon itself there was no other alternative but war which would ultimately pit one section of the nation against the other in a battle of slavery, moral conviction, and personal liberties.

    Read More

  • The 1860 Presidential Election

    1204 Words  | 3 Pages

    The separation of the south and north was not the only separation the United States was going through, the Democratic Party had split. The northern and southern democrats turn on each other. After several delegates walk out of the democratic convention, Douglas, who was not supposed to be put up as a nomination for president because he would not support the idea to make all states have slaves, was nominated for president. After the fact that Douglas was nominated without the entire Democratic Party consent, the southern democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge, who believed that all the states should have slavery, thus a split in the Democratic Party. (Foner,496)

    Read More

  • The United States' Two-Party System

    525 Words  | 2 Pages

    A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...

    Read More

  • The Two Party System of UK

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Two Party System of UK It has often been said that the United Kingdom possesses a two party political system. However, any balanced argument on this issue must take into account both the differing perspectives from which this subject can be viewed and the time period which is being evaluated. The two party theory is not universally accepted and many people argue that the UK can best be described as a multi party, dominant party or even a two and a half or three party system, depending on how the subject is approached. The most commonly held view is that Britain is a two party system.

    Read More

  • The Republican Party: The Know Nothings

    1494 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Know Nothings was a political party whose members completely opposed immigrants and Catholics. The Know Nothings associated themselves with the temperance social movement that went against the consumption of alcohol. Anbinder believed that the success of the Know Nothings in the North had a connection with their view on slavery. The Know Nothings were against slavery, and that is why, according to Anbinder, they accomplished their most significant victories in the North. The voters truly believed that the Know Nothings were against the extension of slavery, and that is why the voters in the North generated the Know Nothings’ great success in 1854 and 1855. Anbinder totally acknowledged the ethno-culturalists; past historians have indeed undervalued the relevance of the anti-Catholicism and Know Nothings in the 1854 political phases. Anbinder concluded that the extension of the slavery problem was the influential factor in the second party system’s

    Read More

  • third parties

    1467 Words  | 3 Pages

    Despite being the constant underdog and loser in major elections third parties make some significant contribution to the political spectrum in the United States. Third Party Agendas are taken serious by the Democratic and Republican Parties and specific pieces of the Third Party Agendas are sometimes adopted by the two major parties. Third parties give discontented voters other alternatives. The Republican and Democratic Parties have been known to operate in similar styles and third parties give the voter the opportunity to express their discontent. The third parties in the United States are policy advocates and often are more specific about were they stand ideologically. Often the Republican and Democratic Parties try and take a moderate approach to political issues, and third parties are more conservative or liberal when it comes to political issues. Also, third parties tend to do exactly the opposite when their agenda concerns social issues. Then there is the ?spoiler factor? a Third Party Candidate can collect enough votes to change the outcome of a Presidential Election.

    Read More

  • The Evolution Of American Democracy

    1410 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...0s and 1840s Democrats and Whigs built the most completely national two–party system that Americans have ever had—both parties relied on support from all sections of the country, and both were evenly matched in most states. Within that system, politicians knew that arguments between the North and South must be avoided. Such arguments would, first of all, split the Whig and Democratic parties in which politicians were making their careers. Second, and more dangerous, the breakdown of the national two–party system could realign the parties along North–South lines and focus national politics on the differences between the North and South. Political leaders feared that such a breakdown could lead ultimately to disunion and perhaps civil war. Most historians agree that the national party system's eventual breakdown was a crucial cause of the American Civil War (1861-1865).

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Michael F. Holt's The Political Divisions That Contributed To Civil War

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not

    Read More

  • Two-Party Vs Two Party System

    550 Words  | 2 Pages

    The United States’ political policy is dominated by the two party system, a structure where there are two, and only two, major political parties. This makes it close to impossible for third party candidates to win any major elections. In other countries such as France, there are multiple political parties, which, in the long run, is more effective than the two-party system. In a two-party system, the extremists refuse to work and or agree with the other party, most acts of violence is shown as a debate between the two opposing sides, and since there are only two parties every political problem has two and only two solutions.

    Read More

  • Dealing With Politics: The Four Political Parties

    360 Words  | 1 Pages

    When dealing with politics, a partisan is a loyal member of a political party or political partnerships. When dealing with multi-party systems, partisanship is used for politicians that are not willing to negotiate with their political opponents and those who support their party's. There are four parties. There’s a house democrat, house republicans, senate democrats, and senate republicans. House Leadership consists of the speaker of the house, the majority leader, and the minority leader.

    Read More

  • Political Parties

    670 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Founding Fathers did not want political parties because they considered them to be “factions" and did not want them to gain too much power.A faction is majority or minority of the amount of citizens, “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. Madison had explained in No.10 of the Federalist papers, that the improvements of the American Constitution, have some flaws, and there had been complaints from “citizens, friends of the public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties, and

    Read More

More about The Second Party System

Open Document