First Party System

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The First Party System is the term political scientists and historians give to the political system governing the United States between 1792 and the early 1820s. It featured two national parties that competed for control of the Presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party (created by Alexander Hamilton) and the Democratic-Republican Party (or Jeffersonian Republican Party) (created by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). Partisan politics virtually ended during the Era of Good Feelings (1816-1824), as the Federalists shrank to a few isolated strongholds. In 1824-28, as the Second Party System emerged, the Democratic-Republican Party split into the Jacksonian faction (which became the modern Democratic Party in the 1830s) and the Henry Clay faction which became the Whig Party. Throughout the period the two parties contested elections vigorously, but if defeated they did not rebel. Instead they formed an opposition that vetted the programs of the dominant party and attempted to build a winning coalition for the next election.

Contents

Idea of a party system

Hofstadter (1969) finds the “idea of a party system” in the pluralistic, antiparty attitudes in the young Republic, especially those of James Madison, primary author of the Constitution (1788) and cofounder of the Republican Party (1793). Americans did not respect English parties of the 18th-century, which were shifting coalitions of politicians in Parliament and not based on the opinions of voters. Colonial American "pre-parties" practised a vigorous, experience-yielding factionalism. However, deferential colonial politics (as in Virginia) elected men not for their proposals but for their reputation. Liberty and republicanism, the basic values of the Founding Fathers, were to be protected by legislative checks since the checks of the political process were suspect. Ideally, two houses, rather than two parties, would check each other. In advocating the Constitution, antiparty thinkers such as Madison actually were establishing the major force in creating two great parties. Madison envisioned a pluralism among the parties rather than within them. He did not foresee parties as great, bland, enveloping coalitions. Because he feared the tyranny of a majority faction, Madison sought pluralism through a large republic and through majorities made up of weak, precarious coalitions. His view of pluralism owed much to his understanding of the liberties of religious dissent; parties were to resemble the multiplicity of religious sects, as in Virginia.[1]


Washington Administration (1789–1797)

At first there were no parties in the new nation. Factions soon formed around such dominant personalities as Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton's broad vision of a powerful government. Jefferson especially objected to Hamilton's flexible view of the Constitution, which Hamilton stretched to include a national bank. Washington was re-elected without opposition in 1792.

Hamilt$$.jpg

Hamilton built a national network of supporters that emerged about 1792–93 as the Federalist Party. In response, Jefferson and Madison built a network of supporters in Congress, then reached out to state leaders; their party emerged in 1792-93 as the Republican party[2] The elections of 1792 were the first to be contested on anything resembling a partisan basis. In most states, the congressional elections were recognized in some sense, as Jefferson strategist John Beckley put it, as a "struggle between the Treasury department and the republican interest." In New York, the race for governor was organized along these lines. The candidates were John Jay, a Hamiltonian, and incumbent George Clinton, who was allied with Jefferson and the Republicans. [3]

In 1793, the first Democratic-Republican Societies were formed. They supported the French Revolution, which had just seen the execution of King Louis XVI, and generally supported the Jeffersonian cause. The word "democrat" was proposed by Citizen Genet for the societies, and the Federalists quickly began to ridicule Jefferson's friends as "democrats". After Washington denounced the societies as unrepublican, they mostly faded away.

In 1793, war broke out between Britain and France. The Jeffersonians favored France and pointed to the 1778 treaty that was still in effect. Washington and his unanimous cabinet (including Jefferson) decided the treaty did not bind the U.S. to enter the war; instead Washington proclaimed neutrality.

Fed-vs-r.jpg

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 and settled many (but not all) the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Britain., [4] the Jeffersonians vehemently denounced it as a sell-out to Britain, saying it threatened to undermine republicanism by giving the aristocratic British and their Federalist allies too much influence. The Federalists said it avoided war, reduced the Indian threat, created good trade relations with the world's foremost economic power, and ended lingering disputes from the Revolutionary War. The Federalists used the enormous prestige of President Washington to secure senate approval by the needed 2/3 vote.[5] The fierce debates over the Jay Treaty in 1794-96 according to William Nisbet Chambers, nationalized politics and turned a faction in Congress into a nationwide party. To fight the treaty the Jeffersonians "established coordination in activity between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties and towns." [6] When Jefferson came to power in 1801 he honored the Jay treaty, but new disputes with Britain ended friendly relations in 1805 and led to the War of 1812. [7]


In 1796 Jefferson challenged John Adams for the presidency and lost. The Electoral College made the decision, and it was chosen by the state legislatures, which still lacked parties.

Newspapers as party weapons

File:~party3.JPG
Federalist poster about 1800. Washington (in heaven) tells partisans to keep the pillars of Federalism, Republicanism and Democracy

Newspapers became party weapons. John Fenno began publishing his Gazette of the United States in April 1789 hoping it would become the official paper of the new government; soon Hamilton was encouraging and subsidizing him. Jefferson and Madison persuaded Philip M. Freneau, a brilliant poet, to found the National Gazette in Philadelphia in October 1791. The National Gazette at first served as a successful political tool for the Jeffersonians as it defined arguments against Hamilton's policies while rebutting Fenno's editorials. The National Gazette collapsed in 1793 due to weak circulation and the political fallout over Jefferson and Madison's financial involvement in founding the paper.

rapid growth of party newspapers

Hamilton set up his own stable of Federalist papers. His editor in New York City was Noah Webster. In 1793, Hamilton loaned him $1500 to move to New York City and edit a newspaper for the new Federalist Party. In December Webster founded New York's first daily newspaper, American Minerva (later known as The Commercial Advertiser). He edited it for four years, writing the equivalent of 20 volumes of articles and editorials. He also published the semi-weekly publication, The Herald, A Gazette for the country (later known as The New York Spectator). As a partisan, he soon was denounced by the Democratic-Republicans as "a pusillanimous, half-begotten, self-dubbed patriot," "an incurable lunatic," and "a deceitful newsmonger ... Pedagogue and Quack." Fellow Federalist Cobbett labelled him "a traitor to the cause of Federalism", calling him "a toad in the service of sans-cullottism," "a prostitute wretch," "a great fool, and a barefaced liar," "a spiteful viper," and "a maniacal pedant." The master of words was distressed. Even the use of words like "the people," "democracy," and "equality" in public debate bothered him, for such words were "metaphysical abstractions that either have no meaning, or at least none that mere mortals can comprehend." [8]


By 1796, both parties had a national network of newspapers, which attacked each other vehemently. In 1802 the New York Evening Post, with large amounts of advertising by Federalist merchants, published a daily edition for 1100 subscribers in the city, and a weekly edition that circulated to 1600 subscribers nationwide. The Federalist and Republican newspapers of the 1790s traded vicious barbs. Hamilton's vices, both personal and political, were favorite targets, as shown by this doggerel from a Democratic-Republican paper: [9]

  • 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.

Party strength in Congress

Historians have used statistical techniques to estimate the party breakdown in Congress. Many Congressmen were hard to classify in the first few years, but after 1796 there was less uncertainty.

Election year
House 1788 1790 1792 1794 1796 1798 1800 1802 1804 1806 1808 1810 1812 1814 1816 1818 1820
Federalist 37 39 51 47 57 60 38 39 25 24 50 36 68 64 39 26 32
Dem-Rep 28 30 54 59 49 46 65 103 116 118 92 107 114 119 146 160 155
 % Dem-Rep 43% 43% 51% 56% 46% 43% 63% 73% 82% 83% 65% 75% 63% 65% 79% 86% 83%
Senate
Federalist 18 16 16 21 22 22 15 9 7 6 7 6 8 12 12 9 4
Dem-Rep 8 13 14 11 10 10 17 25 17 28 27 30 28 26 30 37 44
 % Dem-Rep 31% 45% 47% 34% 31% 31% 53% 74% 71% 82% 79% 83% 78% 68% 71% 80% 92%

Source: Kenneth C. Martis, The Historical Atlas of Political Parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989 (1989); the numbers are estimates by historians.

each new state brought in two senators and one or two representatives; most were Republicans as the Federalists had a weak appeal on the egalitarian frontier

The affiliation of many Congressmen in the earliest years is an assignment by later historians. The parties were slowly coalescing groups; at first there were many independents.

Inventing campaign techniques

Both parties invented entirely new campaign techniques that became the core of American political practice. The Federalists took the lead in building a network of newspapers in major cities to broadcast their statements and editorialize in their favor. In 1796 the Federalist papers outnumbered the Republicans by 4-1. Every year more paper began publishing; in 1800 the Federalists still had a 2-1 numerical advantage. Most papers, on each side, were weeklies with a circulation of 300 to 1000.[10] Jefferson systematically subsidized the editors. Fisher Ames, a leading Federalist, who used the term "Jacobin" to link Jefferson's followers to the terrorists of the French Revolution, blamed the newspapers for electing Jefferson. They were, he wrote, "an overmatch for any Government.... The Jacobins owe their triumph to the unceasing use of this engine; not so much to skill in use of it as by repetition." [11] Historians echo Ames' assessment. As one explains, "It was the good fortune of the Republicans to have within their ranks a number of highly gifted political manipulators and propagandists. Some of them had the ability... to not only see and analyze the problem at hand but to present it in a succinct fashion; in short, to fabricate the apt phrase, to coin the compelling slogan and appeal to the electorate on any given issue in language it could understand." Outstanding phrasemakers included editor William Duane and party leaders Albert Gallatin, Thomas Cooper and of course Jefferson himself. [12] Meanwhile John J. Beckley of Pennsylvania, an ardent partisan, invented new campaign techniques (such as mass distribution of pamphlets and handwritten ballots) that generated the grass-roots support and unprecedented levels of voter turnout for the Jeffersonians.


In 1798 the disputes with France led to a Quasi-War, an undeclared naval war involving the navies and merchant ships of both countries. Democratic-Republicans said France really wanted peace, but the XYZ Affair undercut their position. Warning that full-scale war with France was imminent, Hamilton and his "High Federalist" allies forced the issue by getting Congressional approval to raise a large new army (which Hamilton controlled), replete with officers' commissions (which he bestowed on his partisans). The Alien and Sedition Act (1798) clamped down on dissenters, including pro-Jefferson editors, and Vermont Congressman Matthew Lyon, who won re-election while in jail in 1798. In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (1798), secretly drafted by Madison and Jefferson, the legislatures of the two states challenged the power of the federal government.[13]

Jefferson and the revolution of 1800

Madison worked diligently to form party lines inside the Congress and build coalitions with sympathetic political factions in each state. In 1800, a critical election galvanized the electorate, sweeping the Federalists out of power, and electing Jefferson and his Republican Party. Adams made a few last minute appointments, notably Federalist John Marshall as Chief Justice, a post he held for three decades and used it to federalize the Constitution, much to Jefferson's dismay.[14]

Adams had a strong base in New England but otherwise was weak. New York state prove decisive--it was controlled by Aaron Burr, who became vice-president

The Jeffersonian majority in Congress and key states was so large that it tended to split into factions. The minority faction, which tended to collaborate with Federalists, was called Quids in Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia, though the three groups were not directly connected. After years as Jefferson's leader in the House, John Randolph of Roanoke led a split-away faction in Congress called Quids.

As president, Jefferson worked to cleanse the government of Adam's "midnight" Federalist appointments made days before Jefferson took office. He withheld the commissions of 25 of 42 midnight appointment judges and removed Army officers. The sense that the nation needed two rival parties to balance each other had not been fully accepted by either party; Hamilton had viewed Jefferson's election as the failure of the Federalist experiment. The rhetoric of the day was cataclysmic—election of the opposition meant the enemy would ruin the nation. Jefferson's foreign policy was not exactly pro-Napoleon, but it applied pressure on Britain to stop impressment of American sailors and other hostile acts. By engineering an embargo of trade against Britain, Jefferson and Madison plunged the nation into economic depression, ruined much of the business of Federalist New England, and finally precipitated the War of 1812 with a much larger and more powerful foe. [15]

The Federalists vigorously criticized the government, and gained strength in the industrial Northeast. However, they committed a major blunder in 1814. That year the semi-secret "Hartford Convention" passed resolutions that verged on secession; their publication ruined the Federalist party. It had been limping along for years, with strength in New England and scattered eastern states but practically no strength in the West. While Federalists helped invent or develop numerous campaign techniques (such as conventions), their elitist bias alienated the middle class, thus allowing the Jeffersonians to claim they represented the true spirit of "republicanism."[16]

State parties

Because of the importance of foreign policy (decided by the national government), of the sale of national lands, and the patronage controlled by the President, the factions in each state realigned themselves in parallel with the Federalists and Republicans. Some newspaper editors became powerful politicians, such as Thomas Ritchie, whose "Richmond Junto" controlled Virginia state politics for decades.

Connecticut

New England was always the stronghold of the Federalist party. One historian explains how well organized it was in Connecticut:

It was only necessary to perfect the working methods of the organized body of office-holders who made up the nucleus of the party. There were the state officers, the assistants, and a large majority of the Assembly. In every county there was a sheriff with his deputies. All of the state, county, and town judges were potential and generally active workers. Every town had several justices of the peace, school directors and, in Federalist towns, all the town officers who were ready to carry on the party's work.... Militia officers, state's attorneys, lawyers, professors and schoolteachers were in the van of this "conscript army." In all, about a thousand or eleven hundred dependent officer-holders were described as the inner ring which could always be depended upon for their own and enough more votes within their control to decide an election. This was the Federalist machine. [17]

Given the power of the Federalists the Republicans had to work harder to win. In 1806, the Connecticut state Republican leadership sent town leaders instructions for the forthcoming elections. Every town manager was told by state leaders "to appoint a district manager in each district or section of his town, obtaining from each an assurance that he will faithfully do his duty." Then the town manager was instructed to compile lists and total up the number of taxpayers, the number of eligible voters, how many were "decided republicans," "decided federalists," or "doubtful," and finally to count the number of supporters who were not currently eligible to vote but who might qualify (by age or taxes) at the next election. The returns eventually went to the state manager, who issues directions to laggard town to get all the eligibles to the town meetings, help the young men qualify to vote, to nominate a full ticket for local elections, and to print and distribute the party ticket. (The secret ballot did not appear for a century. ) [18] This highly coordinated "get-out-the-vote" drive would be familiar to modern political campaigners, but was the first of its kind in world history.

Religious tensions polarized Connecticut, as the established Congregational Church, in alliance with the Federalists, tried to maintain its grip on power. Dissenting groups moved toward the Jeffersonians. The failure of the Hartford Convention in 1814 wounded the Federalists, who were finally upended by the Republicans in 1817.

Maryland

Demaree (1985) examined the relationship between constituency characteristics of Maryland's nineteen counties, Annapolis, and Baltimore and the voting behavior of members of the House of Delegates elected by these constituencies from 1789 to 1824 . The personal characteristics, regional identification and party membership were also considered as possible influences. Regionalism was not a powerful factor because delegates from different regions were more likely to agree than to disagree with each other. Party membership was the best predictor of voting behavior. The strength of party cohesion interfered with the influence of constituency characteristics on voting, especially among the Federalists. Of all the constituency characteristics, slavery was most influential on voting behavior. A consistent pattern developed that illustrated that Jeffersonian Republicans from counties with large slave populations tended to be the ones to break with their fellow Republicans and vote with Federalists, who tended to be identified with the plantation society in Maryland. Thus, though political parties acted as strong, cohesive forces in the Maryland House of Delegates during the first party system, an association with slave-holding interests sometimes overshadowed partisan loyalty, a portent of the divisive quality of slavery in the nation.

Era of Good Feelings

The United States by 1800 had the first two-party system in the world. The First Party System was built around foreign policy issues that vanished with the defeat of Napoleon and the compromise settlement of the War of 1812. Furthermore, the fears that Federalists were plotting to reintroduce aristocracy dissipated. Thus an "Era of Good Feelings" under James Monroe replaced the high-tension politics of the First Party System about 1816. Personal politics and factional disputes could occasionally still get nasty, but Americans no longer thought of themselves in terms of political parties.

Historians have debated the exact ending of the system. Most concluded it petered out by 1820. The little state of Delaware, largely isolated from the larger political forces controlling the nation, saw the First Party System continue well into the 1820s, with the Federalists occasionally winning some offices. For the rest of the nation, the contributions of the founding fathers of political parties had been completed—and thus it seems symbolic that Adams and Jefferson died on the same day (4 July 1826), even on their deathbeds acknowledging the other's remarkable contributions.

Legitimacy of a party system

Alexander Hamilton felt that only by mobilizing its supporters on a daily basis in every state on many issues could support for the government be sustained through thick and thin. Newspapers were needed to communicate inside the party; patronage helped the party's leaders and made new friends. Hamilton, and especially Washington, distrusted the idea of an opposition party, as shown in George Washington's "Farewell Address" of 1796. They thought opposition parties would only weaken the nation. By contrast Jefferson was the main force behind the creation and continuity of an opposition party. He deeply felt the Federalists represented aristocratic forces hostile to true republicanism and the true will of the people, as he explained in a letter to Henry Lee in 1824:

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all."

Hofstadter (1970) shows it took many years for the idea to take hold that having two parties is better than having one, or none. That transition was made possible by the successful passing of power in 1801 from one party to the other. Although Jefferson systematically identified Federalist army officers and officeholders, he was blocked from removing all of them by protests from Republicans. The Quids complained he did not go far enough.

See also

Bibliography

  • Encyclopedia of the New American Nation, 1754–1829 ed. by Paul Finkelman (2005), 1600 pp.
  • Banning, Lance. The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1978) excerpt and text search
  • Ben-Atar, Doron and Barbara B. Oberg, eds. Federalists Reconsidered (1999), topical essays by scholars
  • Beard, Charles A. The Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy (1915) online edition
  • Bowling, Kenneth R. and Donald R. Kennon, eds. Perspectives on the History of Congress, 1789-1801. (2000)
  • Brown, Roger H. The Republic in Peril: 1812 (1964), stresses intense hostility between partisans online edition
  • Brown; Stuart Gerry. The First Republicans: Political Philosophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison (1954)online.
  • Buel, Richard. Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1815 (1972)
  • Chambers, William Nisbet, ed. The First Party System (1972)
  • Chambers, William Nisbet. Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809 (1963), political science perspective
  • Charles, Joseph. The Origins of the American Party System (1956), reprints articles in William and Mary Quarterly
  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. Jeffersonian Republicans: The Formation of Party Organization: 1789–1801 (1957), highly detailed party history
  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. The Jeffersonian Republicans in Power: Party Operations 1801–1809 (1963), highly detailed party history
  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. The Process of Government Under Jefferson (1978)
  • Dawson, Matthew Q. Partisanship and the Birth of America's Second Party, 1796-1800: Stop the Wheels of Government. Greenwood, (2000) online version
  • Dinkin, Robert J. Campaigning in America: A History of Election Practices. (1989) online version
  • Elkins, Stanley and Eric McKitrick. The Age of Federalism (1995) online version, the standard highly detailed political history of 1790s
  • Ferling, John. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. Oxford University Press. (2003) online version; survey
  • Fischer, David Hackett. The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (1965)
  • Freeman, Joanne B. "The Election of 1800: A Study in the Logic of Political Change." Yale Law Journal. Volume: 108. Issue: 8. 1999. pp: 1959-1994. online edition
  • Goodman, Paul. "The First American Party System" in William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds. The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (1967), 56–89.
  • Hoadley, John F. "the Emergence of Political Parties in Congress, 1789-1803." American Political Science Review (1980) 74(3): 757-779. ISSN 0003-0554 Fulltext in Jstor. Looks at the agreement among members of Congress in their roll-call voting records. Multidimensional scaling shows the increased clustering of congressmen into two party blocs from 1789 to 1803, especially after the Jay Treaty debate; shows politics was moving away from sectionalism to organized parties.
  • Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1970) excerpt and text search
  • Keller, Morton. America's Three Regimes: A New Political History (2007) 384pp.
  • Kerber, Linda K. Federalists in Dissent: Imagery and ideology in Jeffersonian America (1970)
  • Larson, Edward J. A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign. (2007). 333 pp. on 1800 online review
  • Luetscher, George D. Early Political Machinery in the United States (1903) online edition
  • Miller, John C. The Federalist Era: 1789-1801 (1960), survey of political history
  • Pasley, Jeffrey L. et al eds. Beyond the Founders: New Approaches to the Political History of the Early American Republic (2004), topical essays by scholars
  • Peterson, Merrill D. Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography (1975) online edition
  • Sharp, James Roger. American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis (1993), political narrative of 1790s
  • Skeen, Carl Edward. 1816: America Rising (1993)
  • Smelser, Marshall. The Democratic Republic, 1801-1815 (1968) (ISBN 0-06-131406-4) survey of political and diplomatic history
  • Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln. (2005), broad-scale interpretation of political history
  • Wiltse, Charles Maurice. The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy (1935) online edition

Biographies

  • Banning, Lance. The Sacred Fire of Liberty: James Madison and the Founding of the Federal Republic (1995), to 1795; online edition
  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. , "John Beckley: An Early American Party Manager," William and Mary Quarterly, 13 (Jan. 1956), 40-52, in JSTOR
  • Koch, Adrienne. Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration. (1950). online edition
  • Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty v 3; Jefferson the President: First Term 1801 - 1805 vol 4; Jefferson the President: Second term, 1805-1809 vol 5; (1948-70), the standard multivolume biography
  • Miller, John C. Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox (1959), full scale biography; [www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=97872357 online edition]
  • Peterson, Merrill D. Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A Biography (1975) online edition
  • Schachner, Nathan. Aaron Burr: A Biography (1961), full scale biography online version
  • Schachner, Nathan. Thomas Jefferson: A Biography (1957) 1074 pp.. online edition

State and regional studies

  • Banner, James M. To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics in Massachusetts, 1789–1815 (1970)
  • Broussard, James H. The Southern Federalists: 1800–1816 (1978)
  • Demaree, L. Steven. "Maryland during the First Party System: A Roll-Call Analysis of the House of Delegates, 1789-1824." PhD dissertation U. of Missouri, Columbia 1984. 413 pp. DAI 1985 45(11): 3434-A. DA8500571
  • Formisano, Ronald. The Transformation of Political Culture: Massachusetts Parties, 1790s–1840s (1983)
  • Goodman, Paul. The Democratic-Republicans of Massachusetts (1964)
  • Leonard, Gerald. The Invention of Party Politics: Federalism, Popular Sovereignty, and Constitutional Development in Jacksonian Illinois (2002) online edition
  • McCormick, Richard P. The Second Party System: Party Formation (1969) deals with the collapse of the First Party System, state by state
  • Prince, Carl E. New Jersey’s Jeffersonian Republicans: The Genesis of an Early Party Machine, 1789–1817 (1967)
  • Risjord, Norman K. Chesapeake Politics, 1781–1800 (1978), covers Virginia and Maryland online edition
  • Risjord, Norman K. The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson (1965) online edition standard history of Randolph's Quids
  • Tinkcom, Harry M. The Republicans and Federalists in Pennsylvania, 1790–1801: A Study in National Stimulus and Local Response (1950) online edition
  • Turner, Lynn Warren; The Ninth State: New Hampshire's Formative Years. (1983).
  • Young, Alfred F. The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1763–1797 (1967)

Newspapers

  • Humphrey, Carol Sue The Press of the Young Republic, 1783-1833 (1996) online edition
  • Knudson, Jerry W. Jefferson And the Press: Crucible of Liberty (2006) how 4 Republican and 4 Federalist papers covered election of 1800; Thomas Paine; Louisiana Purchase; Hamilton-Burr duel; impeachment of Chase; and the embargo
  • Nevins, Allan. The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism (1922) online edition ch 1-2
  • Pasley, Jeffrey L. "The Tyranny of Printers": Newspaper Politics in the Early American Republic (2003) (ISBN 0-8139-2177-5)
  • Pasley, Jeffrey L. "The Two National Gazettes: Newspapers and the Embodiment of American Political Parties." Early American Literature 2000 35(1): 51-86. Issn: 0012-8163 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ebsco
  • Stewart, Donald H. The Opposition Press of the Federalist Era (1968), highly detailed study of Republican newspapers

Primary sources

  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr. ed. The Making of the American Party System 1789 to 1809 (1965), short excerpts from primary sources
  • Cunningham, Noble E., Jr., ed. Circular Letters of Congressmen to Their Constituents 1789-1829 (1978), 3 vol; political reports sent by Congressmen to local newspapers
  • The complete text, searchable, of all early American newspapers are online at Readex America’s Historical Newspapers, available at research libraries.

External links

Notes

  1. Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1969).
  2. Thomas Jefferson to President Washington, May 23, 1792 "The republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it's [sic] present form, are fewer in number. They are fewer even when joined by the two, three, or half dozen anti-federalists,..."
    James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, March 2, 1794. "I see by a paper of last evening that even in New York a meeting of the people has taken place, at the instance of the Republican Party, and that a committee is appointed for the like purpose."
  3. Elkins and McKitrick, p. 288
  4. Elkins and McKitrick, 405-12
  5. Elkins and McKitrick, 417-8; Goodman (1964) 71-2.
  6. Chambers, Political Parties p. 80
  7. Miller, Federalist Era pp 165-78
  8. Joseph Ellis, After the Revolution: Profiles of Early American Culture (1979) pp 199, 206.
  9. Independent Chronicle (Boston), 16 October 1797 quoted in Carol Sue Humphrey, The Revolutionary Era: Primary Documents on Events from 1776 to 1800 (2003) p, 260
  10. Stewart, Opposition Press, p. 622
  11. Cunningham, 1957 p 167
  12. Tinkcom 271
  13. Miller, Federalist Era pp 210-43
  14. Miller, Federalist Era pp 251-77
  15. Smelser, Democratic Republic
  16. Banner, To the Hartford Convention (1970)
  17. Richard J. Purcell, Connecticut in Transition: 1775-1818 1963. p. 190.
  18. Noble E. Cunningham, Jr. The Jeffersonian Republicans in Power: Party Operations 1801-1809 (1963) p 129
Personal tools