Changes

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 attenpted to build a winning coalition for the next election.

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.

==Idea of a party system==

==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" practiced 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.<ref> Richard Hofstadter, ''The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840'' (1969). </ref>

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.<ref> Richard Hofstadter, ''The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840'' (1969). </ref>

[[Image:NEWS1800.JPG|thumb|275px|left|rapid growth of party newspapers]]

[[Image:NEWS1800.JPG|thumb|275px|left|rapid growth of party newspapers]]

Hamilton set uip 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 labeled 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." <ref>Joseph Ellis, ''After the Revolution: Profiles of Early American Culture'' (1979) pp 199, 206.</ref>

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." <ref>Joseph Ellis, ''After the Revolution: Profiles of Early American Culture'' (1979) pp 199, 206.</ref>