Talk:First Party System

Untitled

cleanup 1-7-06 Rjensen 01:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Usage of this term

How widely used is this term, really? I keep seeing links to this article in the opening sections of various other articles. I've never heard of this term myself. A Google search only turns up about 500 links. Is it really necessary to include such an obscure term in the opening sections of Jefferson, Jackson, etc.? --JW1805 (Talk) 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Google search shows this is a term used by the leading reference sources (like William and Mary Quarterly) and leading educational sites (like NEH). So this is the technical term used by the specialists--which is the information users want when they go to encyclopedias. Rjensen 00:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A Google search shows no such thing. How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff? Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But how prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about.
    • "The party system" is a (commonly accepted) term, not a theoretical approach (i.e. method of understanding). Therefore, the study of how and why it came about is a matter more appropriately suited to historiography and beyond the focus of this article. Moreover, regardless of the degree to which it is (or is not) invoked by Early American historians, it is sufficiently descriptive to stand out its own with a complex self-examination.

Possible error in Washington Administration section?

This section seems wrong:

"There were no parties in the new government, though factions soon formed around such dominant personalities as Treasury Secretary Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Washington was reelected without opposition in 1792. Hamilton was building a network of supporters that emerged about 1792–93 as the Federalist Party (United States): Federalist Party. In response and Hamilton built a network of supporters in Congress and in the states that they called Republican Party. "

Wasn't it Jefferson that built the Republican Party network? As it reads now, it gives the impression that Hamilton was on both sides. However I don't know my history well enough to fix this, and certainly don't have a cite for it, it just reads like a contradiction! ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• You're right and I'll fix it. Rjensen 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It reads better but it still has Hamilton on both sides. If he really was on both sides,that's something I think is worth actually highlighting!!! ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hamilton was pretty consistent, and so is the article now. :) Madison on the other hand switched from the pro-Constitution ('Federalist") position in 1788 to the "antiFederal" position by 1793. 67.176.74.236 00:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But it still says "Hamilton was building a network of supporters that emerged about 1792–93 as the Federalist Party. In response Jefferson and James Madison and Hamilton built a network of supporters in Congress and in the states that they called Republican Party." That still to me reads like he was on both sides. Sorry to keep nitpicking! Maybe strike as I marked it stricken? ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
        • • well now it's fixed--i think....keep that eagle eye open Rjensen 00:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert war?

What's up with the reversion around Legitimacy of a Party System (Revision as of 12:59, 18 February 2006 Griot) and similar? (for example here's a version that has the material being removed [1] )... I would like to suggest discussion here rather than a revert war. The information seems useful and apropos to me (an outside observer). ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all historians agree with the Hofstadter position. The issue was whether a 2 party system is good or bad. It was hotly debated for years (and still is debated in many countries--like Iraq) and we need to explain that. Rjensen 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Very far off topic, don't you think? This article is about American history. An article about whether a two-party system is useful belongs in an article about political parties or political science. Griot 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think theories about whether parties are "good" or "bad" belong at this article. Like Griot suggested, maybe at one of those articles, or at American politics. --JW1805 (Talk) 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the formation of a party system in the US, the first one we had. I think some discussion of why it came about that a system formed, and who the main actors in making it happen is appropriate. I didn't see the material as touching on whether parties ARE good or bad, it touched on WHO said they were at the time. Therefore it seems relevant to me. I could be wrong though. I agree that theories about whether parties are good or bad belong elsewhere. (PS, perhaps Legitimacy of a Party System isn't the best title for the section? Perhaps it does carry a connotation of good/badness.) ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

1st Party System is in AP Government exams:

The 100,000+ high school students who take AP United States Government and Politics course and national exam will be studying the first-to-fifth party systems, and will be tested on them. They can turn to Wiki for help. see Cracking the AP U.S. Government & Politics Exam p 174 online at [2]

some 300,000 students will be studying AP United States History. That exam explicitly mentions the second party system and covers the first without calling it that [3]

In 2005 285,000 high school students took the US History exam from 9,922 schools, while 130,000 students took the exam from 5,569 schools. Rjensen 08:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags

The assertion that Hamilton was particularly the target of abuse is unsourced; the inclusion of the poem against him is a classic example of a novel synthesis from primary sources. We have been through this already at Talk:Alexander Hamilton#Doggerel.

In fact, the whole article suggests that the Democratic-Republicans were intriguers and the Federalists were their poor helpless victims. This is the problem with political articles in general: too many editors would rather write unencyclopedic partisan trash. Septentrionalis 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence, with the assertion that Hamilton was a particular target remains an unsourced conclusion from a primary source. (A single instance is not "proof", at least from literate pens"

Hamilton's vices, both personal and political, were favorite targets, as shown by this doggerel from a Republican paper:

• ASK—who lies here beneath this monument?
• L o!—’tis a self created MONSTER, who
• E mbraced all vice. His arrogance was like
• X erxes, who flogg’d the disobedient sea,
• A dultery his smallest crime; when he
• N obility affected. This privilege
• D ecreed by Monarchs, was to that annext.
• E nticing and entic’d to ev’ry fraud,
• R enounced virtue, liberty and God.
• H aunted by whores—he haunted them in turn
• A ristocratic was this noble Goat
• M onster of monsters, in pollution skill’d
• I mmers’d in mischief, brothels, funds & banks
• L ewd slave to lust,—afforded consolation;
• T o mourning whores, and tory-lamentation.
• O utdid all fools, tainted with royal name;
• N one but fools, their wickedness proclaim.

This verslet is already on Wikisource, where it belongs. Septentrionalis 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the humorous quote tells the readers a lot about the tone of the rhetoric of the 1790s. It comes of course from a recent secondary source. Rjensen 08:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been recently reprinted in a collection of primary sources. This is not the same thing. Septentrionalis 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Timespan

With the Federalists all but completely wiped out by 1816, why does the article state that the FPS continues until 1824? Skyemoor 18:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• They weren't; Daniel Webster was a Federalist in 1820.

One person does not a party make. Skyemoor 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Key set it up that way; the real question is why he doesn't see the Revolution of 1800 as a change of Party System. Septentrionalis 19:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It certainly was a change in governing party. But this is begging the question... Skyemoor 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jay's treaty

I see that our Federalist friend is back to spread the Truth, hitherto unsuspected, that Jay's Treaty was all sweetness and light, and only a pro-French conspirator could find any reason to object to it.

I subjoin a few facts, removed from the text by our apologist:

When war threatened with Britain in 1794, Washington sent John Jay to negotiate the Jay treaty with Britain; it was signed in late 1794, and ratified in 1795. It averted a possible war by settling some of the outstanding issues remaining from the Treaty of Paris; but the treaty did not settle the issues arising from the new war, of impressment and the rights of neutral (that is, American) trade in wartime.

Does Rjensen deny these? No, he simply vanishes them. Septentrionalis 06:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Party Systems model is in wide usage for over 35 years

The idea of Party Systems was introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History 1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse. Why anyone would want to remove it is baffling It's used in the textbooks: for example: American Politics, Second Edition by William Lasser, Clemson University [4] Chapter Nine: Political Parties Basic Concepts The Framers and Political Parties/The Idea of a Party System/ The American Party System Parties in the American Political System/ /Parties and the Party Systems in American History/The Idea of Realignment /The First Party System /The Second Party System The Third and Fourth Party Systems /The Fifth (or New Deal) Party System/The Modern American Party System/Democrats and Republicans Today

It's also used in the major journals in both history and political science:

• PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
• Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
• The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
• Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
• The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
• Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
• The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
• Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
• Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
• PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
• Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
• The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
• Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
• The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
• The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413
• A good place to start perhaps is the classic edited by William Chambers, The First Party System (1972)-- over 34 years ago, so the idea is hardly brand new. Rjensen 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV label by Septentrionalis PMAnderson

What is there in the article that is not encyclopedic or accurate? Your own POV does not count. 66.225.251.176 00:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

non-NPOV section

Even with the "While historians are not unanimous ..." figleaf in place, the Historical Legacy section is anything but NPOV. Does this alleged "scholarly trend" actually extend beyond the quoted historian's own work? 62.157.44.224 (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilentz actually disagrees with the majority trend--he likes Jefferson more (and Hamilton less) than most scholars. He is telling us the majority viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the 'majority viewpoint' the quote used contains no factual value, is thick with opinion and, the article is no worse off without it. I have nixed it (although I was not signed in at the time), and believe it should stay that way. Thrandurne (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"opinions"??? no. -- what we have is the considered analysis by a top scholar in a leading journal of what the consensus is among historians. Is reporting a fact. It's a high priority for Wikipedia to represent the consensus among the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Who invented this concept?

This article desperately needs an explanation of how the concept of the first (and second and third) party systems evolved. Obviously, Jefferson and the other important figures in the so-called first party system didn't refer to themselves as such. This seems to me to be the creation of a historian or school of historians. Who were they? When was this term first used? Is it a concept favored by many students of American history? Rjensen has made it his life's mission to sprinkle references to the first, second, third, and fourth party systems throughout numerous articles on Wikipedia. Did he devise this concept? Where does it come from? This article needs to describe the origins of the first, second, etc. party system idea and whether the majority of American historians really subscribe to it. Chisme (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The history is covered in the article on party system. The idea emerged in the late 19th century with scholars like Bryce & Ostrogorski, and it was a major argument of people like Charles Merriam in the early 20th century. Merriam's textbook was very widely used in 1920s and 1930s: American Party Systems; V O Key picked it up from there with the most influential textbook of the 1940s and 1950s.

As for Numbering the systems that began in mid-1960s-- key books included Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (1966) and William N Chambers and Walter D Burnham, eds The American Party Systems. Stages of Political Development (1967) based on a 1965 conference. The party system model is covered in AP government courses which are taken by over 100,000 high school students a year and in university courses as well. My life mission is to cover political history in Wikipedia :), and I mostly work on biographies--like Lincoln, FDR, etc. Rjensen (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I went to the party system article, to the subsection about the term's use in the United States, and I remain unconvinced. To what degree is the party system really accepted by American historians? How did this notion of studying the nation's history in the framework of political parties develop? What do its critics say about it? If it is a major means of studying history as you believe, it surely has its defenders and detractors. I would like to hear from them. As is, this article seems like somebody's little hobbyhorse. Chisme (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The term "party system" goes back to the late 19th century. For the numbering in terms of first-second-third-etc see the major book edited by William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (1967). Over 100,000 students a year who take AP history will be tested on it, so it's a pretty big 'horse'. Rjensen (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Party System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070512222830/http://dca.tufts.edu:80/features/aas/index.html to http://dca.tufts.edu/features/aas/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Questionable Deduction About the Collapse of the Federalists

"While Federalists helped invent or develop numerous campaign techniques (such as the first national nominating conventions in 1808[25]), their elitist bias alienated the middle class, thus allowing the Jeffersonians to claim they represented the true spirit of "republicanism."[26]"

Despite the citation, this thesis is entirely subjective. First of all, if the popular objection to Federalism found its root in rural agrarian voters, I question whether the majority of such persons could be considered members of "middle class", at least in the modern connotation. Secondly, the general Federalist positions (Constitutionalism, executive authority, a central bank) all had a very practical and logical basis in establishing an effective theoretical system of government. While many opponents may have felt that the Federalists' polices favored certain interests (northern industrialists) over others (rural agrarians) "biased elitism" is not a reasonable description of their basic political beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.6.173 (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

some quotes from RS: 1) Ron Chernow in his 2004 bio of Hamilton writes on p 626 "a deeper problem in the Federalist party, one that may explain its ultimate failure to survive: the elitist nature of its politics." 2) Frank Joseph Sorauf - 1964 writes "the Federalist party failed at least in part because its elitist, antidemocratic, national values prevented it from building the loyalties and following it increasingly needed. It could neither serve nor survive as a party of notables...." 3) Randall M. Miller 2008 - writes: "John Adams would be the last Federalist president...Tending toward elitism, the Federalists became the victims of their own arrogance and were unable to attract the loyalty of ordinary people." Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

1st sentence

Excellent artlcle.

Only, the very 1st sentence drops on us the term periodize. I mean, I'm 67 & consider myself not un-erudite, yet the term is new to me. I bristle at those articles in Wikipedia which, right out of the starting gate, are couched in technical or academic language, as if aimed at the expert who already knows the topic.

Transitioning into such language is fine further down in the article, when one gets into details. But phrase the introductory part of an article for the layman. I mean, millions are reading this. And many of them are going to read only the introduction. All they want is a definition of the article's topic. For that matter, what I just said isn't really true: The intro is fine; just demote that one term to ordinary, if slightly more circuitous, English describing what is meant.

Jimlue (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)