Talk:First Party System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Party System is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category."
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low."
??? This article has not yet been assigned a subject.
The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event."

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

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1]

  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)