Political Parties and Their Evolution: The “Potent Engines” of American Society

By Ian Harman and Aditi Ambravan (2021 Contest Submission)

In his renowned farewell address, George Washington was clairvoyant-- able to foresee the future. Most accurately, he was able to predict the massive political polarization that faced America for centuries following his retirement through the “potent engines,” or political parties of society. He claims, “there is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of the party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” Political parties may have served a purpose against unchecked power, but as time went on, they led to a fracture within our people that is only deepening today. Yet, these political parties have always existed-- but at what point did they reach the division we see in 2021?

Patriots and Loyalists (British colonization - 1783)

British colonization of the American Colonies led to an immediate division of the new settlers-- those who supported the new American colonies (patriots) and those who were loyal to Great Britain (loyalists). While there were little tensions and divisions between the two groups for the first few decades after colonization, soon British salutary neglect ended, where the colonists no longer faced autonomy. After increased British intervention and the rise of Revolutionary causes with the Stamp Act, Boston Tea Party, and Boston Massacre, the two groups saw distinctions that were significant enough to impact society to a great extent. Loyalists did not condemn the actions of the British Redcoats, contrasting in attitude with Patriots who grew increasingly indignant with the actions of British Soldiers. During the Revolutionary War itself, the two groups divided as Loyalists fought on the side of Great Britain and Patriots fought for American independence. Unlike later political parties, the two groups did not evolve into the following parties, but they simply ended along with the sentiment of the American Revolution around 1783.

Federalists and Anti-federalists (1783 - 1800)

After achieving independence, Americans had to decide the ways in which they would govern themselves. Some were fearful of returning to a more “absolutist and monarchical” government as they had seen under King George III and favored the rights of the states and the people over the federal government. This group was known as the anti-federalists. On the other hand, there was an emerging group known as the Federalists, who believed that for America to be successful, it must have a strong central government. The Federalists were championed most famously by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The trio began writing the Federalist Papers, a set of 85 essays outlining the necessity for a strong federal government. The Federalist Papers were highly influential and reached not only the most educated members of American society but even those of lower classes. Thus, the federalists maintained a stronghold over larger cities where print and ideas were shared easily through magazines and newspapers along with access to printing presses. The anti-federalists formed as almost a response to the Federalist Papers themselves. As they saw the strength of the Federalist party increase, the anti-Federalists moved to remind Americans of the rights that a strong government placed at risk. From there, the Anti-Federalist Papers were written by Robert Yates, George Clinton, Samuel Bryan, and Richard Henry Lee. The papers directly refuted the Federalist Papers but were not nearly as widespread. However, the development of newspapers and print led to the clash of the political parties to reach a larger scale than ever seen before. The representation of both parties ended up being evident in the government. The Anti-Federalists pushed for the Bill of Rights in order to have the constitution ratified, while the Federalists received a central government that was subject to checks and balances. During this time period, it is important to note the willingness of both parties to compromise, something America has not seen for decades. Furthermore, a lack of extreme polarization allowed for George Washington, a non-partisan president, to be elected as the first president of the United States of America. After Washington stepped down and the Adams Administration, the election of 1800 signaled a large shift in the political parties, and soon the Democratic-Republicans were born.

Democratic-Republicans and Federalists (1800 - 1824)

While Federalists remained the same in their name, the Anti-Federalist party evolved into the Democratic-Republicans by the election of 1800, sometimes referred to as the “revolution of 1800” because it ended a Federalist stronghold over the branches of government. The most notable member of the Democratic-Republican party was Thomas Jefferson, winner of the election of 1800, making him the third president of the United States. The cause of the formation of the Democratic-Republicans was the increased involvement of the federal government in everyday affairs. As the national bank and treasury grew in power, the Democratic-Republicans sought to continue limiting the power of the federal government. Jefferson maintained the ideology of “the government which is best is the one that governs least.” He was very “hands-off” in the sense that he wanted to preserve states’ rights and leave few matters to the discretion of the federal government. The actions and new dominance of the Democratic-Republicans angered the Federalists, who no longer had much of a say in the government. It is important to note another shift here: the first time that the government was controlled by “one party,” causing the frustration of another. The Federalists wanted to regain control of the presidency and of the legislative branch so they attempted to end the encroachment on federal power and focused on building up the American economy. While the Democratic-Republicans envisioned a society of farmers and field workers, Federalists wanted international trade and industrialization. Thus, the role of political parties became not solely political, but economic as well. Shifting lenses to the modern-day, it is common that people will use economic views to justify their political opinions and vice versa. This connection between money and politics that we still see today formed over the period 1800-1824.

Democrats and National-Republicans/Whigs (1824 - 1856)

The formation of the opposing political parties of Democrats and National-Republicans/Whigs is quite remarkable. From 1815-1825, American society was in the Era of Good Feelings, a time of political unanimity after the war of 1812. It seemed almost too good for the American people to be in agreement after decades of division-- which is exactly what caused the Era of Good Feelings to come to an end. In the election of 1828, the Jeffersonian Democrats finally divided into Democrats and National-Republicans (which soon became the Whig party). After the “corrupt bargain” of the election of 1824, where no candidate received a majority of electoral votes, regional factions began to develop once again. The Democrats formed due to the outcome of the election of 1824 and were championed by Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, and Martin Van Buren. The main goals of the democratic party at the time were to limit the federal government and extend voting rights beyond the most educated white men to those of lower classes. On the other hand, the National-Republicans formed due to more economic reasons, as they primarily favored manufacturing and commercial interests. They believed in a strong central government that should have an even larger role in the American economy than before, including control over manufacturing, protective tariffs, and the establishment of a national bank. In fact, Nicholas Biddle of the Bank War was one of the most influential members of the National-Republicans, joined by John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and John Marshall. The Bank War was the struggle between Democratic president Andrew Jackson and Nicholas Biddle, who was the president of the Bank of the United States. Jackson wanted to end the national bank and its influence while Biddle and the National-Republicans felt that the bank was necessary for American financial success.From there, the National-Republicans evolved into the Whig party after the election of 1836. After Jackson eliminated the Bank of the United States, the Whig party was empowered to continue to promote economic nationalism. The National-Republican party and the Whig party were almost identical except the Whig party evolved specifically in order to promote anti-Jacksonian ideals. This is the first time in history that a political party is formed to go against a single political figure, highlighting that politics were slowly becoming more polarized.

Democrats and Republicans (1856 - 1860)

One of the first clear models of modern-day political parties was demonstrated in the election of 1856, where James Buchanan, a conservative Democrat candidate, John C. Frémont, a progressive Republican candidate, and Millard Filmore representing the Know-Nothing Party (a smaller 3rd party). Democrat James Buchanan won the election, taking 174 electoral votes and contributing to a tense era of political party divide; the divide being due to differing views on the institution of slavery. Republicans, a large party supporting the industrialization of America, fought with the Democrats for abolition. The Republican party realized that freed slaves would move north to escape the widespread racism ravaging the south, and as a result, would be in need of work. The ex-slaves were more likely to take the open worker level jobs and thereby provide the big business owners of the industrial age cheap labor to progress the success and profits of their business endeavors. Republican politicians, being heavily influenced and funded by the entrepreneurs of America, supported abolition to increase the chances of this happening, and as a result increase profits for the wealthy. The Republican support of abolition was not out of a desire for racial equality, but rather to economically progress the state of the union. Democrats, on the other hand, supported slavery, since the majority of their voter base was made up of southerners whose livelihoods depended almost entirely on whether or not they could own slaves. This dependence, in conjunction with the racism ingrained in the southern culture for countless years, resulted in a harsh pushback against Republican policy in congress, furthering the chasm between the two parties and voter bases. Later, tensions would rise to an immeasurable extent and throw America into civil discord.

The discord in America in regards to slavery was perfectly exemplified throughout the mid 19th century. Issues regarding slavery began rising exponentially, with the most famous examples being those of deciding the slavery laws in the newly added states. Specifically, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was drafted by a Northern Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. This act was based on the idea of popular sovereignty, where the states added had the ability to vote on whether or not their state could allow slavery. However, the peculiar thing about this act (besides the violence that ensued as a result of it) was that it was drafted by a Democrat: the party against abolition. This is because of a divide in the Democratic party between the north and south. The southern democrats followed the typical political views of their party, supporting slavery and racism. The northern Democrats had a different approach to Democratic ideology, focussing more on limiting the power of the federal government than protecting the institution of slavery. Stephen Douglas realized that the argument over slavery would provide the grounds for a shift in power from Federal to State, and took advantage of it, introducing popular sovereignty to the United States Legislature. While it ran the chance of eliminating slavery from some states, Stephen Douglas used the grounds to set an example of what State power could potentially bring. His act, while harmless in nature, led to Bleeding Kansas, one of the leading causes of the Civil War. The division between Democrat ideologies was evident.

But what does this mean for today’s political parties? Stephen A. Douglas and the other Northern Democrats gave a clear historical example of “independent” parties, which are similar to offshoots of political parties today. For example, Bernie Sanders is an Independent Party senator from Vermont, but ran for president under the Democratic Party. Similar to how the Northern Democrats related to the Democratic party as a whole, Bernie Sanders split off into a more focused “party”, but still remained under Democratic Ideology. Ideas similar to these examples are seen in government today in other instances besides Sanders, and the Northern/Southern Democrat split laid the historical stepping stones to these actions.

Democrats and Republicans (1876 - Present day), include Party Switch (1915-1930)

Following the political mess that was the American Civil War, America set into a fairly consistent two-party system, those being the Democrats and the Republicans. Each represented the ideologies that they stood for historically, with the Democrats stood for a less controlling central government, while the Republicans stood for a more involved federal government. Socially, however, each party drew different populations of Americans. The Democrats voter base was primarily made from the agricultural population who previously owned slaves, while the Republicans drew from citizens from the North. When it came down to elections though, the main difference between the two parties’s voter bases was the African American population. Southern slaveholders were primarily democrat, and because of this, the Democratic party typically had a direct, negative opinion on slavery, and thus believed that it should be legal. Conversely, the Republican party had a different stance. While the 1876 version of the Republican party did not avidly support abolition, abolitionist views typically fell under the Republican party ideology. Due to the culture surrounding each party, those freed from slavery were naturally drawn towards the Republican side. Additionally, a large population of freed slaves went to the northern states, where the culture primarily supported social Republican ideas. The African American vote heavily influenced elections at the end of the 19th century, with every president between 1868 and 1912 being Republican, with the exception of Grover Cleveland’s two terms. Curiously enough, in the 21st century, the minority vote primarily lies with the Democrats, with about 80% of black voters supporting the Democratic party. Along the same vein, party demographics also flipped from their previous 19th century states, with the northern states being primarily Democratic, and the previously Democrat southern states becoming mostly Republican. But why did these voter demographics switch?

Leftover from the Northern Democrat instances in the Civil War era, the United States still contained a moderately sized population of Democrat politicians and supporters in the North/Midwest states. These politicians, while few existed, began to develop different ideologies than the traditional Democratic party model, moving the party ideologies further left to begin to vie for a more socialist approach to the economy, implying economic equality (equal taxation, use of an income tax). The Republican party began to be considered economically conservative, staying static in the political ways of the Gilded Age rather than evolving their ideologies to the new political climate, as they still supported those with power, like big businesses. They also supported bills that strengthened the power of the federal government, as the party has been traditionally supportive of since the party’s inception. While the northern Democratic voters did not stand against a federal government, they wanted to reduce the control it had over everyday lives. One party wanted more liberty, and one party wanted to conserve the ideologies that worked for them for so long. Thus, the split between Liberal and Conservative ideas was ingrained in modern politics and still causes numerous disputes today. The conservative ideas stayed (figuratively) in the past, continuing to support big business growth and thereby being more beneficial to the American economy. While beneficial, the idea of staying in the ways of the past came at the expense of human rights and inequality in the workplace and in society. Liberal ideas were the opposite; they supported an equality economic approach, and as a result led their opinions away from supporting big business, which pushed multiple groups of Americans down to the bottom of the barrel. So, these “new'' political parties can either support a fast paced growing and oppressive economy or a slow-growing and equal opportunity economy. With the shift in economic stance, humanities soon followed each party's respective economic standard. Liberals followed their economic equality idea, leading them to become more active in social justice within America. Conservatives came up with differing (but not opposite) views. The party’s ideology, which aims to conserve what already exists, continues on this sentiment through its economic and social policies. Republicans pushed for big business to remain on top and the rest of the class divisions to stay in the place they sit at, and these ideals were reflected in their social policy as well, as the conservative Republicans and Democrats opposed social justice bills, like the 1964 Civil Rights act. But what led voters to realign themselves with different political parties? Firstly, Republican northerners saw what the class division from big business does to the blue collar workers, and as a result shifted away from voting for candidates which support those institutions. In the south, the traditionally Democrat citizens began to consider what a conservative Republican ideology in Congress and the White House would do for them. The agricultural-based economy of the south needed big business to buy their material to process into food or turn into textiles, and thus supported the big business party. Over the course of the 20th century, voters realigned themselves with these Conservative and Liberal parties, switching the voter bases for parties and bringing the United States political party system to where it is today.

Third Parties Over the Centuries

What happens to people who don’t fall within the ideologies and beliefs on the two dominant parties at a given time? While American politics has always been a two-party system and will always be, third party (minority) groups have emerged. While their voices are typically overshadowed by the main political parties, their beliefs are just as important. Examples of third parties include the Know-Nothing Party, The Constitutional Union Party, The People’s Party, The Bull Moose Party, The American Independents, and Modern-day Third Parties.

Sources

Political Parties [ushistory.org]

https://www.ushistory.org/gov/5a.asp

United States - Political parties

https://www.britannica.com/place/United-States/Political-parties

Political Parties

https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Political_Parties_vrd.htm