Talk:Third Party System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Third 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."

[edit] the civil war

"not only energized the Confederates to fight to the bitter end," I don't know if this phrase should really be in here, as what evidence is there that before emancipation, they were willing to compromise at all? Any sign of giving up? They already thought the north was thoroughly abolitionist. Furthermore, I think it could be safely said that the initial reaction to emancipation in the north was not the same as the later reaction. Certainly the fact that it effectively turned a southern strength into one of its greatest weaknesses was appreciated won over a great many people. Novium 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 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 William Lasser, Clemson University http://www.college.hmco.com/polisci/lasser/am_pol/2e/students/ch_out09.html 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 Rjensen 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War section

"It was the measure of genius of President Lincoln not only that he won his war but that he did so by drawing upon and synthesizing the strengths of anti-slavery, free soil, democracy, and nationalism." This statement is clearly a pov statement, whether you may agree with it or not. It implies that President Lincoln was a genius, which is a statement that could be disputed. This statement later on accuses the Copperhead faction of treason, even though none of them were ever convicted of treason. I believe most of the bias comes from the writing of the section being of poor quality. It could probably use a rewrite. Life, Liberty, Property 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easy enough to address the treason issue. The actual situation is that the Republicans accused their opponents of treason and the charge resonated with many voters and divided the Democratic Party. I would guess that most people would be able to pick up on the intent as it is written (I did), but it certainly can be changed with a few tweaks.

On the genius issue, the paragraph is footnoted so the clear implication is that the characterization came from one (or both)of the two sources -- although the lack of page references throughout the footnotes is strange. Do you know differently? Furthermore, characterizing Lincoln as possessing some level of genius, especially in the political arena which is the context of this article, is certainly the dominant view of most historians writing of the era and of Lincoln. The title of Goodwin's best seller is "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" -- is there some academic backlash that I have missed that dismisses the association of "political genius" and "Abraham Lincoln". It is only a POV statement if reliable sources do not support it or if similarly reliable sources offer a conflicting view and this view is not included. What exactly is the other side of the issue missing from this paragraph, and what historians or biographers of Lincoln espouse this conflicting view? Tom (North Shoreman) 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Modified sentence regarding treason and added footnote and quote from reliable source regarding Lincoln's political skills. Removed POV tag pending response to my earlier request for documentation of alternative POV omitted from article. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)