Robbinsville High School

Civil Discourse

Analyzing the Evolution of Political Divide in the United States

Brian Alexander Johnson

Introduction to Political Science (Independent Study)

Research Paper

Mr. Gibson

1/27/2017
 Dedication

To those who did so much for me: my parents, teachers, and friends; some of

whom are all of these things.

Table of Contents

Abstract 4

Introduction 5

Chapter One: Origins of the American Republic 9

The American Enlightenment Era 9
The Revolutionary Period 12
The Critical Period 15

Chapter Two: The First Party System 19

The Age of Federalism 19
The Age of Republicanism 26
The War of 1812 & The Era of Good Feelings 33

Chapter Three: The Second Party System 41

Division of the Democratic-Republicans 41
The Rise of New Parties 47
States’ Rights & The Coming Storm 53

Chapter Four: The Third Party System 59

The New Republican Party & The Civil War 59
The Reconstruction Era 64
Industrialization & The Gilded Age 69

Chapter Five: The Fourth Party System 75

The Progressive Era 75
Postwar America & The Roaring Twenties 80
The Rise of the Democrats 84

Chapter Six: The Fifth System 89

The New Deal Coalition 89
Containment, the Rise of Media, Race Relations, & Scandals 95
New Ideologies & Old Wounds 100

Conclusion 106

Annotated Bibliography 109

 Abstract
The 2016 presidential election brought about a familiar tune often heard following the
inauguration; that America is in the most divided time since its founding. According to a recent
Gallup poll, a record high of 77% percent from more than 1,000 Americans polled perceived the
nation as ‘divided’ (Gallup Inc.). A majority of Americans- over 49%- believe that Donald
Trump will do more to ‘divide’ our country (Gallup Inc.). It is easy for us, in a modern
perspective, to view the previous generations through rose-tinted glasses. Indeed, the Civil
Rights Movement; the Vietnam War; and, the Space Race; all these events and more are seen as
the ​precursors​ to the most divided era in American history. What this belief fails to address are
the countless more ​extreme​ events in American history. The rise and fall of political parties; the
prevalence of political machines during the Gilded Age; solutions during the Hoover
administration to the Great Depression; and, even the American Civil War. Opposite to this,
America has certainly seen its own share of political unity. The Era of Good Feelings under
Monroe ushered in the beginnings for American nationalism, and the absence of partisanship.
Unfortunately, ​these​ examples are cherry-picked. Division has ​always​ been a cornerstone of
American politics and, for better or for worse, has shaped our lives and numerous events closely.
In the following pages, I hope to address the uncertain nature of American divide up to the
Lyndon Johnson Administration, and to prove that we are no more divided ​today​ than we have
been at any point since our founding.

4
 Introduction
Given the deep separation of modern politics, it is understandable for one to assume what
one knows best. The life of modern politicians deals with the abstract issues from healthcare to
proper taxation. The 2016 presidential election gave no end to the countless riots and protests by
Antifa and the Alt-Right alike. Even now, allegations are fired from both sides as Democrats
accuse Republicans of Russian collusion and Republicans accuse Democrats of enfranchisement
for voter fraud. Independents of the two major parties- namely the Libertarian and Green Parties-
acted more as sponges to soak the ballots of the tired and confused voter rather than to ​actually
present a third option.
William D. Gairdner explores the source of this strict partisanship in his piece ​The Great
Divide ​which claims that the Enlightenment failed to address that not everything may be solved
by a science. “The means for human happiness can be discovered by reason; good and evil can
be quantified and expressed in formulas. This was the heart of the utilitarian dream” (Gairdner,
7). He then follows that this pursuit of morality, determinism, and tradition has been questioned-
“Since World War II, however, at what seems an accelerating pace most of those beliefs have
been severely tested, if not tirelessly challenged, bitterly ridiculed, or all-together turned upside
down, and not by an external enemy but an internal one- ourselves” (Gairdner, 11).
Marc J. Hetherington and Thomas J. Rudolph are other advocates for the ‘divisive
singularity’ that I have opted to refer to when discussing points that support the ideal of a
maximally divided U.S. government. Hetherington and Rudolph’s book ​Why Washington Won’t
Work​ plainly say that “American politics is dysfunctional… Some readers may be shocked to
learn that a controversy exists about whether the electorate is polarized. Of course it is, or so it
seems” (Hetherington, Rudolph, 1, 16). But more than this, they claim that politics have never
been ​more​ divided, going so far as to claim it is a phenomenon only within the last few decades.
For example, “It is important to note that these negative feelings have not always run so deep.
When, on September 8th, Obama made his speech, urging students to be responsible for their
education, no matter the circumstances… many school districts, overwhelmed by parental
complaints, opted not to share it. When George H. W. Bush addressed public school students in a

5
similar fashion in 1991, however, it did not cause a stir” (Hetherington, Rudolph, 3). Citing
instances such as these imply that the United States is in a fundamentally divided country.
To Gairdner, Hetherington, Rudolph, and many like them, political divide has been on a
downward slope since ​some​ point in American history. However, what this perspective fails to
observe is that, much like the precedents of presidents to their successors, the back-and-forth of
contemporary government stems from the interactions between our Founding Fathers and of
Gilded Age leaders alike. Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans; Whigs vs. Democrats;
Republicans vs. Democrats; and the numerous independent parties which have arisen from the
Know-Nothings to Dixiecrats. A rose-tinted view often reflects not an insistence of fact but a
lack thereof. Historical events are regarded not as complex interactions which built themselves
up over time, rather, they’re treated as black and white lessons to reflect simple lessons. It
perpetuates the thought that the War of 1812 was a united American effort; the Civil War
grounded itself as a fight for slavery in the South; President Hoover alone was responsible for the
Great Depression; and, Bill Clinton was a Democrat through and true.
Observations such as this cloud the truth of these events, and shift narratives to better fit
one of a steady decrease in political unity. The War of 1812 was ​not,​ in fact, a united effort, and
actually enticed one of the first secession crises in American history prior to the Civil War. The
American Civil War stemmed from long-standing rivalries and feuds on the matter of states
rights, decentralized government ​and​ slavery. Herbert Hoover, although unable to solve the
economic downturn, was ​not​ immediately responsible for the event. Bill Clinton ran openly as a
New Democrat​, or a Democrat who favored social liberalism but economic centrism (leaning on
conservatism). It enables not only the common man, but scholars and historians too to ring along
the tune of divisiveness full stop. It acts as a crutch to force a preferred historical narrative of that
which we can understand fully as being in the present to quickly answer current issues.
In our modern America, bureaucracy shrouds the government and there is clear political
divide. The 113th Congress saw almost 6,000 and 3,000 bills introduced to the House of
Representatives and the Senate respectively. By the end of the 113th Congress, only 3% had
been enacted (GovTrack, ​Historical Statistics About Legislation​). Iron triangles- or pacts
between private business and public legislative government- form in corrupt coalition to support

6
lobbyists and to defend regulation or tax increases. True that America is not free of vice or sin;
but it is certainly nothing new, and the division is hardly a shock from prior events. The 93rd
Congress, too, saw only 3% of bills pass. Late 19th century tycoons and magnates used vast
amounts of resource wealth and influence to finance political machines or to directly pay off
politicians. Warren G. Harding’s competitive bribery Teapot Dome Scandal was a truth to
behold, as the backscenes of government dealings were revealed. John Quincy Adams was
implicated in the first ‘Corrupt Bargain’, in which Henry Clay- who received Secretary of State
under him- was thought to have supported him for his own victory.
This essay aims not to claim that America is ​devoid​ of polarization. To say that America
is free of any divide is to be as ignorant to say that America is in its ​most​ divided time in its
history. Rather, that America’s sources of division- opposing parties and the inevitable parity
that will come with them- are not remotely ​new​. With that, there is also the pertinence of how
majorly divided topics themselves may affect the unity in Congress. After all, the American Civil
War was sparked by a festering of the issues of decentralization (or state’s rights) and slavery.
Opposition- however minor- can be seen in every major American conflict, and more over
internal disputes. A central banking system, minority civil rights, industrialization, foreign
relations; for any of the two leading parties in our history, innate ideological differences would
understandably gouge a deep fissure in the unity of America over these issues, as well as
countless more. In analyzing the five party systems- the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth
systems spanning until the Lyndon Johnson administration in 1968- this essay will explain the
direct sources of division, the factors resulting ​in​ or a result ​of​ political polarization, and the
precedents which have been set as a model guideline- intentional or inadvertent- for modern
politicians.

7
 Chapter One:​ Origins of the American Republic

The American Enlightenment Era

Founding the American republic was almost something of an experiment, even with the
existence of the British Parliament. As Thomas Paine- the famous American Enlightenment
thinker- once wrote in his persuasive piece ​Common Sense-​ “To say that the constitution of
England is a ​union​ of three powers, reciprocally ​checking​ each other, is farcical; either the words
have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions… But the provision is unequal to the task; the
means either cannot or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a ​Felo de se:​ for as
the greater weight will always carry up the less, and all the wheels of a machine are put in
motion by one, it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight…”
(Paine, 72, 74). This concept of ‘divine kingship’ and ‘social contract theory’ thus became heavy
topics for the efforts of early English and American Enlightenment philosophers.
Some, like Paine, included John Locke; whose beliefs mixed though generally leant on
support of free will, as argued in his work ​Two Treatises of Government,​ specifically the ​Second
Treatise of Government.​ Similarly, David Hume wrote in ​A Treatise of Human Nature​ that social
concepts were a natural state of mind, and the ‘mind’ of that state (representing the populace)
desired freedom. As Jonathan Israel notes in ​A Revolution of the Mind,​ when discussing the
views on the state of nature- “David Hume (1711-1776) loosely followed Rousseau in this line,
commenting 'Tis utterly impossible for men to remain any considerable time in that savage
condition, which precedes society; but that his very first state and situation may justly be
esteem'd social. This, however, hinders not, but that philosophers may, if they please, extend
their reasoning to the suppos'd state of nature; provided they allow it to be a mere philosophical
fiction, which never had, and never cou'd have any reality.’” (Israel, 25-26). Many more wrote of
their own opinions, and while they often differed, generally came to the conclusion that freedom
itself was an inalienable right of nature.
Others- namely Thomas Hobbes and Sir Robert Filmer- argued ​for​ the millenia old right
of kings. Surely, history went to prove that the strong must have some meaning behind their

8
status as a ruler and for their kin to rule as well. Hobbes’ famous argumentative piece ​Leviathan
opposes Locke’s view of freedom, opting instead for servitude to kings and the presence of
totalitarian rule. “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to
keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of
every man against every man” (Hobbes, 77). Thus, without a figure of central power, a state
would run itself into anarchy. Later, Charles Maurras- a French monarchist- used this concept of
‘universal wisdom’ in his piece ​Inscriptions​ to dissuade parliamentary procedure and democratic
thought.
Philosophy then came to a crossroads. As with Greek Rationalism, the words of
Enlightenment thinkers scarcely reflected the opinion of a popular majority. Centuries and
centuries had trained civilization to rely on these principles of totalitarian rule. Religion further
played its part by justifying how kings were able to ​retain​ their power. Enlightenment figures
justified their rights through the new interpretations of the Bible brought forth with the Protestant
Reformation centuries earlier. John Ferling recounted this in ​A Leap in the Dark​, when quoting
Christopher Gadsen at the Second Continental Congress- “At the Stamp Act Congress he fought
to base America’s opposition to parliamentary taxation ‘on those natural and inherent rights we
all feel and know, as men and as descendants of Englishmen.’ What he meant was that the
colonists’ rights transcended Crown-granted charters, as they were derived from God and
affirmed in the Magna Carta” (Ferling, 41). This altered view of the Magna Carta additionally
assisted philosophers in justifying their case, claiming that England had assured the rights of man
in writing in relation to the king over 500 years ago.
The evidence had been set forth; now, it was the moment for other contemporary thinkers
to bring these concepts into America as a whole. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin
Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton; while they would later go on to argue the technicality of the
subject, all agreed, undeniably, upon a single, general point: democracy. Man should have the
right over himself by electoral procedure; money and the economy should not belong to the
ruling class, but by all citizens; and, tyranny through a sole power must be avoided at all cost. As
Benjamin Franklin referred, “‘For I argue… that freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other
men, rather a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature’” (Waldstreicher, 25). The

9
seeds of American imparity had not yet begun to take root, for the more pressing concern lied in
achieving the goals set out by the American Enlightenment.

The Revolutionary Period

In understanding the goal of this essay, one must first understand the origins of division.
In proposing this hypothetical line of questioning, Richard Buel of Harvard University
rhetorically asked in ​Securing the Revolution​, “Why a political generation so deeply hostile to
political parties created a tightly structured party system has long been a standard- and serious-
historical conundrum...how did it happen that a cluster of leaders who had agreed so vigorously
on the essentials of the Constitution come, in less than a decade, to distrust each other
intensely?” (Buel, 39). Obviously, the role of government does not take a negative stance. On the
contrary: the purpose of government and civilization is to rise above the carnal instincts of man
to propagate a better world for all who accept it (Winterer, 3). The Enlightenment had simply
made this fact come to light; that it was not the destined sons of God that ruled, but men.
Answering Buel’s question, one will thus analyze the reality of the situation. Inspirational
words may jolt a movement to action, but it is the ​action​ therein which matters the most. Should
early American thinkers have remained divided on the small, there would have been little
consequence for the large; in this case, democracy as a whole. A rebellion comes down to the
internal and external opposition. External is rather straightforward, representing the direct
opponent to a revolution; internal, conversely, is more complex. The ‘internal’ of a rebellion
represents the very heart and soul of itself; and, without it, a rebellion has little chance of
success. Israel references this when discussing the French Camisard Rebellion- which followed
the Huguenot Wars- and the Austrian “Rákóczi’s War of Independence”, both of which failed
from a weak internal linkage of beliefs (Israel, 87). A plethora of other examples exist- from
peasant rebellions to holy uprisings- which collapsed because of their instability. Allegorically:
there is little sense in starting a fight when you cannot support your own two feet.
The Revolutionary Period was not without its own internal struggles. Much like the
nation which would succeed it, the ragtag band of revolutionaries did not found themselves
without discourse. A nation must not even be formally recognized for a rebellion to even occur;

10
shown in the case of the Newburgh Conspiracy. ​The Newburgh Address​ as it was called,
unsigned, found itself on the doorstep of Congress in 1782. Numerous officers- represented by a
hero of the war General Alexander McDougall, among others- demanded their promised
pensions. “It denounced Washington, whose ‘moderation and… forbearance’ sentenced the
officers to live out ‘the miserable remnant’ of their lives in the ‘vile mire’ of poverty. It was
contemptuous of the citizenry for having betrayed the army that had won for them ‘the chair of
independency.’ Finally, it proposed that if the communication scheme was not funded, Congress
would be confronted with an ultimatum: Should the war continue, the soldiery would disband;
should there be peace, the soldiery would refuse to demobilize” (Ferling, 251). Luckily, by May
of 1783 with the Paris Agreement, Washington had finalized a compromise through pay with
‘Morris notes’ (Ferling, 254) and ​just​ dodging political and military catastrophe.
Additional Revolutionary-era issues continued to threaten the stability of the war effort;
and, went back much further than the Newburgh Conspiracy. Not everyone in America found
themselves supporting the war effort, and in fact, terms were drawn up to describe the three
existing parties- patriots, loyalists, and fence-sitters (neutrals). Patriotic expression is well
known; but Winterer explains the feelings of loyalists from the pseudonymous writer Candidus-
“Another rebuttal, by an American loyalist signing as Candidus, asserted that the happiest era in
humankind had existed in the American colonies from the restoration of Charles II in 1660 to
1776: happiness lay not in the republican future but the royal past” (Winterer, 240). Another
example of early, personal political difference includes the ‘Conway Cabal’. Only two years into
the war, Thomas Conway- an Irish-born Frenchman- scrutinized the leadership of
commander-in-chief George Washington. “In early November, Washington learned from a
friendly source that Thomas Conway, had supposedly written Gates that ‘Heaven has been
determined to save your country; or a weak General and bad Councillors…’” (Ferling, 205).
Pressured by the publication of his discreet words, Thomas Conway resigned from his position
and Horatio Gates- the ‘Gates’ of correspondence in Conway’s letter- formally apologized.
For the most part, these incidents were few and far between; and, their endings were
resolved peacefully. As previously said, there were more pressing concerns on the minds of the
Founding Fathers, namely: involvement of an external financier and ally (in the end, France).

11
Scholars have noted the importance of unity in the past for revolutions; to defeat internal
divisiveness leaves only half the battle of defeating the external threat. As a result, America’s
patriot leaders by and large set aside their differences to rally behind the cause of freedom from
the yolk of British imperialism. In spite of this, it cannot be ignored that these incidents ​did ​occur
and, indirectly, acted as precedents for what was to follow in the grand scheme of American
politics. With the bloody culmination of the War of Independence, the
smile-through-gritted-teeth attitude could be forgotten, and replaced by open interactions and the
freedoms put forth by the heroes of the Revolution. Now, it was no longer acceptable to delay
the inevitable; sides must be chosen, and opinions solidified. America must now begin to make
concrete decisions.

The Critical Period

Concerning the majority of this chapter are the eponymous ​origins​ of American political
division. Why we’ve come to be as divided as we are, and how we’ve survived the up-and-down,
cyclical nature of partisanship. Also, there are the origins of the ‘precedents’ discussed during
the introduction. In some way, a majority of government actions have faced some sort of
precedent since the nation’s founding. What is finally necessary then to introduce the party
systems is explaining the foreshadow for things to come. Commonly called the Critical Period,
this era ​technically​ was encompassed by the First Party System- lasting from 1783 to the
ratifying of the Constitution in 1789- marked by its beginning at our nation’s founding. Indeed,
this definition is well founded; however, for the purpose of analyzing the division of American
politics, the Critical Period acts more as a precursor to parties and their observable differences.
In this sense, I am treating the end of the Critical Period as the ‘official’ founding of the national
government, as marked by the adoption of the US Constitution.
On that note, the United States Constitution remained perhaps the subject of largest
debate during this time. Setting the stage were the ​Articles of Confederation​; a loose collection of
documents which outlined the duties of the state and central government, allotting a majority to
the former. Inefficient and slow, the articles allowed for the loose dealings of a war-time

12
government but were not suitable to sustain such a large body with a weak central government.
Interstate commerce became a subject of heavy deliberation, but there would be little discussion
when more and more politicians failed to attend meetings (Ferling 274). Many politicians also
felt threatened by the issue of the power of state versus federal government; and as concerns
rose, debate and violence ensued. “As New England’s fiery autumn burst forth, western protest
turned to insurrection. Led by Daniel Shays, a Pelham farmer who had fought at Bunker Hill,
Saratoga, and Stony Point, and suffered battlefield wounds, the insurgents armed and mobilized
in several counties” (Ferling, 278). Shays’ Rebellion from 1786 to 1787 marked one of the first
struggles in America’s history. It prompted further investigation into the strength of the Articles
of Confederation when a private militia was called due to the central government’s lack of
powers to direct the military. “It was imperative,” Washington concluded, “that the national
constitution must be changed to give ‘energy and respectability to the Government’” (Ferling,
281). George Washington’s sympathies were shared among a multitude of fellow politicians,
including James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and others. In this, the seeds to change the course
of American political history were sown.
Given the background, it can be no surprise that the philosophies of these politicians-
now free to expose and share with the end of the war- openly differed. In 1787, the
Constitutional Convention was called, joining together delegates from all states and included
George Washington to look over as the convention’s president. At the convention, notable
disagreements were made clear in how this new constitution would be formed. Which states
should hold the most power, and why? For that matter, should any state hold more power over its
fellow bodies (Winterer, 113)? In spite of compromises, the fight was hard, and the convention
lasted over 4 months. “...at the Convention itself the delegates foresaw unmistakable signs that
ratification would be a grueling battle. Some dismayed delegates had quit the Convention and
returned home, while Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia, as well as Elbridge
Gerry, stayed on until adjournment but refused to sign the finished product” (Ferling, 294). So,
the first source of America’s quarrels were put to light.
The most evident of these debates arose over whether to decide upon the ​Virginia​ ​Plan
over the ​New Jersey Plan​. Its drafters- James Madison and Edmund Randolph- supported a plan

13
much matching our modern government, except that representation was proportional in ​both
houses of Congress (Ferling, 288). The ​New Jersey Plan​ conversely proposed a single house of
Congress equally representing every state. In this debate lies one of the first, emerging divisions
over the issue of state representation, later seen during the second party system and Civil War
(Ferling, 301). Although party lines were not drawn, the ​representatives​ of states differed for
their own, self-interests. Most pressingly: how would (a) state(s) ever hope to compete against a
state with multiplicities of their own population? Vermont against Virginia? Settled by Roger
Sherman with his Connecticut Compromise, little would the Founding Fathers realize in
assembling a proportional House and equal Senate, the three-fifths compromise would require
creation (Ferling, 290). Despite the lack of official walls between politicians, parity was still
evident before even the establishment of the proto-parties (to be discussed later); geography was
a matter of debate; and even slavery had already become a problem.
While some would say the Constitutional Convention found itself amended, the source of
America’s divide now began to take shape. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison- allies at the
Convention- would now find themselves plagued by acting out the responsibilities of the new
Constitution. For one, unlike the ​Articles of Confederation​, the US Constitution established a
central executive figure- the president. George Washington would prove to be a shoo-in for
election, but trouble stirred. The existence of these new rules- “...eventually helped split the
political spectrum into two competing parties in the 1790s, the agriculturally oriented
Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, who favored greater development and
manufacturing” (Winterer, 199). New problems arose as parties struggled to find themselves in a
world dominated by the prestige of George Washington and appeasement of the populace. As the
Critical Period came to a close, the disgruntled peace found in the US Constitution would be
taken over by the new woes in the first party system of the 18th and 19th centuries.

14
 Chapter Two:​ The First Party System

The Age of Federalism

Unity and a desire for change had brought countless representatives from every state
together for over four months, much like it had during the Revolutionary Period (Ferling, 294).
Within only a year of its ratification, calls to arms would be in its wake. As Gordon Wood
recollects regarding Washington’s presidential reelection in 1792, “When the electoral votes
were counting in February, 1793, Washington had once again received every electoral vote, the
only president in American history to be so honored” (Wood, 157). Under Washington’s first
term, Alexander Hamilton was assigned the secretary of the treasury.​ ​Hamilton understood the
threat the ​Articles of Confederation​ had posed (Elkins, McKitrick, 97), and now desired to use
the new Constitution to consolidate government power through a strong central government with
stable influence in the dealings of states and foreign entities; private and public businesses alike
through Hamiltonian economics.
As early as 1789, Hamiltonian Federalism became a prime focus in early American
economics, but the party itself had not yet formed. Instead, unofficial coalitions sprung up within
the House and Senate urging fellow representatives and Washington himself to turn one way or
the other. Pro-Administration members, like Hamilton, included John Adams and John Jay.
Washington most often sided (unofficially) with Federalist policies, though he tried his best to
keep from infighting. Those at odds with Hamiltonianism called themselves the
Anti-Administration Party, and their birth was an apparent reaction to the growth of Federalism.
It was unofficial, and included Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, even though the latter was
an ally during the Continental Congress (Wood, 141). “Madison had been a nationalist in the
1780s, but not, it was now becoming apparent, Hamilton’s kind of nationalist… he had already
emerged as a strong defender of the interests of… the South, often talking about justice and
equality among what he now referred to as a ‘Confederacy of States’” (Wood, 141). Politics
were now dominated by these proto-parties- the Pro-Administration and Anti-Administration
Parties- that represented the predecessors of key players in the party system to come.

15
 Ultimately Hamilton was destined to formally establish the Federalist Party. “Among the
most striking traits of Hamilton’s personality was one that flashes forth in the earliest glimpses
we have of him… This was an intense need to lay hold of whatever operation he had any
connection with, either to run it himself or to instruct others how it ought to be done” (Elkins,
McKitrick, 95). Elections, even still, remained uneventful and quiet. The presidency was
reserved by a silent agreement between Jefferson and Hamilton to continue Washington’s
incumbency for the stability his status as a hero brought (Wood, 156); despite the existence of
both parties, the majority was indeed Pro-Administration. Politicians- either for personal reasons
or to maintain public support of Washington- strongly leant more to the Federalist side, and
during his presidency numerically overran the Senate (though were lesser in his second midterm
within the House). Because of this, Washington’s presidency was mostly spent attempting to
balance the butting heads of Jefferson and Hamilton; monitoring Gallomania for the
Anti-Administrators (Elkins, McKitrick, 27) and promoting equal representation for states.
This uneasy peace was not destined to last. Gordon Wood addressed Washington’s
feelings perfectly throughout his presidency. “Washington wanted to retire in 1792. He felt old
and tired, and he continued to worry about what people would think about his continuing in
office when he had promised way back in 1783 to retire from public life… By early 1796,
President Washington had had enough. He was determined to escape the ‘serious anxiety…
trouble and perplexities of office.’... Every act of his office, he had said, had been tortured and
misrepresented, as well as himself” (Wood, 157, 206). In essence, the first president had lost his
willpower, and was happy to relieve the mantle. Before he departed, Washington delivered his
famous ​Farewell Address​, noted for its powerful message about parties and the status of growing
partisanship in the United States. In a last ditch effort to quell the splintering of government,
Washington declared “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… But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a
spirit not to be encouraged” (Elkins, McKitrick, 427). In spite of these efforts, it was already too
late: with Washington’s leave, parties were now even more free to pursue a role in elections.

16
 It would not be easy, of course. “During the Presidential election of 1796 few Americans
foresaw how bad things would become. With Washington retired, for the first time political
leaders were confronted with the prospect of actually choosing someone to be president, and no
one was sure how this should be done” (Wood, 209). The election of 1796 was also important for
another reason: proof of internal instability with the dispute which occurred along the Federalist
ticket. Alexander Hamilton was not in direct support of John Adams, the Federalist candidate,
and instead rallied Southern electors behind Thomas Pinckney, the Minister of Relations to Great
Britain. With Washington’s memory still alive to the American eye, though, his direct support
assisted in Adams ​just​ pulling an extra three electoral votes. Adams undertook the presidency,
and Jefferson the vice presidency.
This Federalist dominance would turn out not to be long lived. Adams was known to be
hot-tempered, Jefferson once commenting “‘He is distrustful, obstinate, excessively vain, and
takes no counsel from anyone.’” (Smith, 22). The relationship between Hamilton and Adams
would birth a commonality within the Federalist party of factionalism (Banner, 116) when the
two disagreed on the moderation of nearly everything, despite both being Federalists. Adams
thought of Hamilton as a sycophant; Hamilton thought of Adams as a coward; and although this
feud was personal, it bred the precedent for politicians to come in enforcing partisanship even
within​ parties (Kling, 54). Overall, with Jefferson in command alongside him, and the charisma
of Washington gone, “...Adams was never in command of his cabinet let alone the government.
Indeed, he seemed to many to be escaping the troubles of the capital in Philadelphia by spending
more and more time away in Peacefield with Abigail” (Wood, 272). Nothing would put Adams
more at odds, however, than the French Quasi-War and its devastating political aftershocks.
Commonly revered is Adams’ handling of the Quasi-War with the easy Treaty of
Mortefontaine, but for the long term it helped to stretch the divide between Federalist and
Republican (Wood, 205). Initially Adams’ handling of it was discrete. Openly submitting to the
French was seen as a party embarrassment, given Federalist Anglophilia, and so the matter was
instead to be handled from the commission of Charles Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge
Gerry. Charles Tallyrand-Pèrigord, the French Foreign Minister along with cohorts referred to in
dispatches as ‘X, Y, and Z’, “...demanded that the American government apologize for Adams’

17
hostile May 1797 speech to Congress and assume responsibility for any outstanding French debts
and indemnities owed to Americans. At the same time, these agents demanded that America
make… a substantial bribe of fifty thousand pounds… to receive the commission” (Wood, 242).
Outraged by the proposal, relations collapsed, and tensions continued to rise.
By the Federalists wanting to reserve the power of English trade, Adams kept the “XYZ
Affair” a secret, further outraging Republicans when the information was published. What would
follow was a war both at home and abroad; Federalists scathingly rallying behind Adams as
Republicans rebuked what they considered a violation of the publicity that is the public office of
president (Wood, 243). Within, Hamilton struggled with Secretary of War James McHenry- a
staunch supporter of Adams- in control of the military. McHenry attempted to pursue “...the
element of peace…”, while Hamilton succeeded in serving as an active nuisance, wishing to
expand the war effort to show the strength of America along with the Federalist “Ultras” (Wood,
265) who sought total war with France to support Great Britain. Toward the end of his
administration, Adams indeed brought peace, but at a cost to himself. Although Republican
French-supporters cheered at this, his Federalist peers- now hanging onto Adams by a thread-
rejected his bipartisanship- especially the Ultras- feeling that he’d betrayed the unofficial mantra
of the party drive the course of America ​against​ the French.
Meanwhile, from the war effort would be born the Naturalization, Alien, and Sedition
Acts, each passing to give even more power to the centralized Adams administration in
prosecuting those deemed dangerous to the state. All of them worked in halting the overgrowth
of immigrants and contributed to the standard of defense set by Adams. Ultimately, although
“...the Federalist government never actually deported a single alien under the auspices of the
Alien act.” (Wood, 260), the Republican Party used this- as well as the Sedition Act which had
claimed many careers of Federalist opponents (Elkins, McKitrick, 28)- to exemplify the
tyrannical possibility the Federalist government possessed. Eventually, Thomas Jefferson and
James Madison went on to pen the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions respectively. They
differed in their extremes, but both intentionally wrote them to detail opposition to federal
majority strength. “Jefferson labeled this remedy for abusive federal actions ‘nullification’, but,
fortunately for his subsequent reputation, the Kentucky legislature edited out this inflammatory

18
term when it adopted Jefferson’s draft…” (Wood, 269). ‘Nullification’ would pop up later for the
country in the South Carolina sectional Nullification Crisis during the term of Andrew Jackson in
the 1830s. This is just one of many ways in which the precedents of the first party system
gradually built up to the problems of the second party system.
In the end, Adams had lost the confidence of both his party and the rest of the
government (Wood, 272). Adams’ track record was stained by paranoia and a failed means of
showing up to Washington’s binding force. Defeated in the election of 1800, Adams scrambled
to attempt to bridge the power of Federalists with his “Midnight Judicial Appointments” through
the creation of circuit courts; putting 200 preferred federal judges in power (Smith, 24). Among
these was Chief Justice John Marshall, who had delegated during the XYZ Affair and had more
recently come into active politics. “Marshall’s dispatches to the United States during the XYZ
Affair electrified the nation and made him an instant celebrity. The many toasts and banquets
honoring him, coupled with the sudden revival of the declining fortunes of the Federalist party
and pressure from George Washington, convinced Marshall to join Congress and later the Adams
administration as secretary of state. By 1800, Jefferson thought that the spirit of ‘Marshallism’
had come to dominate the Federalist party… and ‘nothing’, Jefferson told James Monroe,
‘should be spared to eradicate’ such a ‘spirit’” (Wood, 435). The Republicans had come to
officially target Federalist ideologies.
Although Washington managed uncertain peace throughout his terms, his departure
immediately shattered any faux respect between enemies. Parties were now a definitive part of
politics, and with Adams’ failures to appease opponents, his party, or the people alike, electors
strongly favored the rejuvenation of a new face to the scene. Furthermore, it embodied what
would become a running trend within the scheme of politics: for party allegiance to be almost
necessary​ for a politician’s survival. The losses of Adams did not necessarily spell out the ​death
of the Federalists, though it did mark the end of their dominance for the remainder of their
existence in either houses of Congress. The Republican Party, led by Adams’ vice president and
known polymath Thomas Jefferson, would come to take charge. Even still, this domination by
the new party wouldn’t equate to a shortage of divide in the remainder of the first party system.

19
The Age of Republicanism

It should not be misunderstood that ​this​ Republican Party, in any regard, has connection
to the Republican Party of our times. Quite the opposite, as Thomas Jefferson’s Republican
Party- the Jeffersonian Republican Party- organized his own beliefs in accord with the precursing
Anti-Administration Party. “...Individual liberty, separation of church and state, strict
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and limited federal government with strictly limited
powers.” (Smith, 24). In a sense, then, the Republican Party was a precursor itself to the modern
Democratic Party- the GOP’s mirror- giving it the spliced name of the Democratic-Republican
Party. Given this clarification, for the sake of space, in the current and following chapters they
will collectively be referred to as the “Republican Party” until the emergence of the Lincoln-led
Republican Party of modern conscience.
As said, the Republican Party was largely born of reactionary measures, and was joined
together under Thomas Jefferson immediately after the Federalist Party’s formation (Wood,
141). “Of all the events that shaped the political life of the republic in its earliest years, none was
more central than the massive personal and political enmity… which developed in the 1790s
between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson” (Elkins, McKitrick, 77). The stocky,
irritable Adams- described by many- was practically a counter to the shining beacon of Jefferson.
The election of 1800 was, to many, even worse in terms of the split in party politics. Unlike in
1796, parties were now more rigidly defined, and candidates understood what must be done to
win; that campaigning was essential, and defining distinct differences helped voters to choose
between one party and another. The Federalists found themselves shrunken and defeated. Now, it
was not Jefferson vocally calling out Adams, but Hamilton, who said that Adams was
“...emotionally unstable, given to… impulsive and irrational decisions, unable to coexist with his
closest advisers, and… unfit to be president.” (Smith, 25), and he once again rallied for Charles
Pinckney. Overbounded by its own internal disputes, the failures of the Adams administration,
and the external dominance and unity which the Republican Party held from the popularity of
Jefferson, Adams himself was nearly overtaken by Pinckney by a mere 2 votes (Smith, 25). Even
still, the victory by the Republican Party did not mean their immediate incumbency.

20
 Aaron Burr- another rival of Hamilton and a staunch Republican after the
Anti/Pro-Administration divide- additionally won 73 votes. Called the “Jeffersonian Revolution
of 1800” (Wood, 275), the Federalists now had a new focus: wavering the opinion of the House
in favor of either candidate. Once again, the split of the Federalists were close at hand, with most
vying for Burr as others supported Jefferson. “Federalists figured that Jefferson was a doctrinaire
democrat who wanted to take the country back to something resembling the Articles of
Confederation, and that he was in the pocket of France and would likely wage war with Great
Britain. Burr posed no such threat… Beyond what politics could do for his friends, his family,
and him personally, it had little emotional significance for him” (Wood, 278). Burr’s lack of
personal allegiance or virtually any political compass prompted Marshall and others in favor of
him (Wood, 277). As a Federalist, Hamilton obviously had issues with both members, but in a
layer of personal desperation, he ended up supporting Jefferson’s election. He noted in a letter to
New York representative Harrison Gray Otis “Jefferson is in every view less dangerous than
Burr” (Gilder Lehrman Institute). In a chilling 36 ballot turn out, the House ultimately voted in
favor of Jefferson on the basis of his popularity, electing Burr as his cohort. The Republicans
were completely in dominance in two of the major branches of government.
Jefferson would go on to win two terms, and of both, the former certainly saw more
personal successes. Nothing disgusted Jefferson or his Republicans more than what the
Federalists had attempted in ‘fixing’ the new nation; and for it, they damned industrialization,
factories, and manufacturers alike. Instead, the new president had dreams of an ideology which
was “Permeated by an agrarian imagery and an ideal of rural prosperity and peace, and it
certainly had its attractive side for most people of that day… In the nation’s cultural memory this
rural vision is referred back more often to Thomas Jefferson than to any other of the Founder’s
generation” (Elkins, McKitrick, 193). Some of the first steps were to either replace or
iconoclastically tear down any of these principles; as Jefferson filled his cabinet with important
members of the Republican Party. On the surface, Jefferson embraced a level of reconciliation
with the Federalists, declaring in his inaugural address in 1801, “We are all republicans- we are
all federalists.’” (Elkins, McKitrick, 740). Even so, Jefferson- as referenced when discussing his

21
vision of John Marshall’s influence as a Federalist and national idol- took no leniency in building
a resonating dominance for the Republican Party.
Some of Jefferson’s actions mirrored his party, while others were more self-driven.
Opponents of Jefferson at that time were outraged by the Louisiana Purchase. To cut their
[French] losses following the Haitian Revolution the French agreed to a purchase of the territory
and a collection of Floridian islands for nearly $11 million dollars (Wood, 368), and supporters
rallied the approval. “Not only did it end the long struggle for control of the Mississippi’s outlet
to the sea, but it also, as Jefferson exulted, freed America from Europe’s colonial entanglements
and prepared the way for America’s eventual dominance in the Western Hemisphere” (Wood,
369). America’s landmass had now doubled in size, and was declared by the majority to be a
national success. Furthered too was to be parties’ debate over westward expansion. With such an
enormous boost in physical size, Americans were now free to travel through new states and
territories, and this then indirectly fueled the matter of Manifest Destiny and the American
frontier for the open Republicans against the traditionalist Federalists.
Here, however, Jefferson received his first accusal of hypocrisy. Jefferson stood for large
government and specifically, then, for a small executive power. To stretch the Constitution- it
not stating anywhere that a president may buy land to increase the size of the country- to fit his
own goals was seen as a violation. “Former Massachusetts congressman Fisher Ames declared-
‘We are to give money of which we have too little for land of which we already have too much’”
(Wood, 201). Aggravating countless Federalists, a new point was brought into the debate-
perceived dissimulation. Before, Washington had meant to appease all sides of the growing
partisan gap, even when it seemed his stance was Pro-Administration. As well, the ​Declaration
of Independence​ asserted that ‘All men are created equal…’. Washington freed his slaves;
Jefferson did not. Contrastingly, Jefferson’s precedent set the idea that party politics would not
yet be that which defined the behavior of a president (Wood, 160). Additionally, Federalists
often held onto their religious affairs tightly; and although the Constitution spoke of a separation
between church and state, Republican politicians rejected rule of God entirely. Instead, Jefferson
was a true Enlightenment thinker and pushed against the message of the church. “...Many of the
leading gentry abhorred ‘that gloomy superstition disseminated by ignorant illiberal preachers’

22
and looked forward to the day when ‘the phantom of darkness will be dispelled by the rays of
science, and the bright charms of rising civilization’” (Wood, 577). Later, ​Tertium Quids​ or “Old
Republicans” would come up as strong opponents to Jefferson as a cross-breed of disgruntled
Federalists and constructionist Republicans. Jefferson was now rebuked throughout both terms as
a heretic, traitor, and disappointment by the Federalist and Old Republican minorities which
weakly held on to their seats of Congress.
Discussed earlier was the power of John Marshall, recognized not only by Federalists, but
as well by leading Republican politicians. Much like the feud of Hamilton with Burr and
Jefferson, his resignation could be analogized almost as the end of an inning; with Marshall
coming from the bench. Marshall was revered by his Federalist peers, and it is important to refer
back to the wording with the finality of paragraph 4 that the Republicans retained dominance in
two​ of the branches of government: Congress and the Executive branch. Judiciary, on the other
hand, was cleverly woven by Adams into the hands of the Federalists (Smith, 24). Republicans
across the board despised Marshall, and for some part this hate was without cause. In looking for
reasons, Jefferson simply disliked his character, once telling Madison “‘Why, if he were to ask
me if it were daylight or not, I'd reply, "Sir, I don't know, I can't tell’” (Wood, 62). Irrational as
these reasons were, for most it was justified when compared to their own perceptions as Marshall
duly reduced the power of state governments. He would continue to be a nuisance- such as
during ​Marbury v. Madison​ with the process of ‘judicial review’ and his leading of the Marshall
Court- for the Republican Party until his death in 1835 (Wood, 441). For this, although he faced
little significant resistance in his executive actions, Jefferson spent the majority of both terms
butting heads with the stalwart John Marshall and Federalist dominance in the judicial area.
Progressively, Jefferson found himself attacked from multiple sides externally. Great
Britain- much like the Federalists feared- grew to take advantage of America with the Essex
Decision (Wood, 640), declaring that unless a U.S. ship could prove its origin and destination, it
could impress its people and claim the cargo by maritime law. Believing he could press the
British into submission and not wanting to negotiate, the Non-Importation Act was passed,
banning goods such as hemp, flax, and brass from crossing into their territory. Unmoved, the
British continued, and with incidents ranging from the failed Monroe-Pinkney Treaty to the

23
Chesapeake-Leopard Incident (Smith, 30), Jefferson “...announced a policy, which eventually
became an expanded version of economic retaliation- perhaps, with the exception of Prohibition,
the greatest example in American history of how ideology brought to bear on a matter of public
policy” (Wood, 649), the Embargo Act and later the Enforcement Act in 1807 and 1808. The
latter of these would anger states to the point of refusal to comply, with minority Federalist
Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut asserting “It is whenever that Congress exceeds its
constitutional power, that the state must have a duty to protect the people against such unlawful
powers” (Smith, 31). These rash decisions by Jefferson and future incidents would pave the way
for the Anglo-American War of 1812.
Unlike his predecessor, Jefferson faced great successes during his first term, though in
the end, Jefferson left in a precarious situation. He had multiplied the landmass of the United
States pre-election; yet, found himself attacked by mudslinging Federalists and his own
discontent party. The Republican Party itself remained unified; yet, fractional spliters of ​quids
and stricter politicians broke off. The relationship with France was maintained; yet, clearly
Bonaparte was inardent toward the US. Jefferson managed peace; yet, in doing so, left both
parties angered, and more and more the writing on the wall seemed to spell out the marks of war
with Great Britain. Congress would go on to repeal the Embargo Act, replacing it with the less
intense Non-Intercourse Act (Risjord, 103), but it could not amend what had been set. In a
modern sense, Jefferson is praised- and rightfully so- for his numerous victories in paving the
way for a greater United States, fit to describe the ‘Empire of Liberty’ he’d dreamed about. It
should not be forgotten, though, that Jefferson’s actions were ultimately divisionary in their
nature, providing fuel to the ever-growing flames of political divide. But as a result of
Jefferson’s largely successful presidency, the Republicans would continue to dominate the
political scene for another 25 years, until the end of the first party system.

The War of 1812 & The Era of Good Feelings

The first representation of a physical precedent may be seen in Jefferson’s refusal to take
a third term, mirroring the actions of Washington and setting a standard until Harry S. Truman in

24
the 20th century upon which the action became ​forced​ by the 22nd Amendment. Jefferson
personally nominated James Madison. “After eight years of Democratic-Republican rule, the
Federalist Party in 1808 was a shadow of its former self. Alexander Hamilton was dead and John
Adams retired. The Federalists were essentially leaderless” (Smith, 34). Although Charles
Pinckney was nominated for the Federalist ticket, his overwhelming loss spelled out the
unofficial snuffing out of the Federalist Party. James Madison went into his term with bright
hopes, wishing to fix the messes which Jefferson had made during the latter half of his second
term. Either he would negotiate a total peace or he would pursue a total war. Madison promptly
agreed to France’s acceptance of Macon Bill No. 2, reissuing the Non-Intercourse Act solely
against Great Britain. Although this would anger numerous remaining Federalists, with a mere 7
senators to the Republican’s 27 their calls went unheard. In addition to this, Hamilton’s dream of
a central banking system would come to a simultaneous ruin and success under Madison as he
oversaw its initial death in 1811 and its subsequent revival in 1816. Although against it both
instances, this once again saw the twisting of interpretation and party politics skewered to
support individual opinion. Even in spite of his actions, Great Britain showed no sign of stopping
(Elkins, McKitrick, 616). It was clear that America had two options: to submit or reassert itself.
Both options showed some support, though in the end the latter was heavier. Although
Madison had sent Monroe to Britain in search of diplomacy (Smith, 34), “The Twelfth Congress
contained a number of young ‘War Hawks,’ such as Henry Clay of Kentucky, Felix Grundy of
Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who were eager to take strong measures
against Britain” (Wood, 661). The term ‘War Hawk’ evolved to denote any member of Congress
who thought Britain should be given a taste of its own medicine and supported a war effort. They
included not just Clay, Grundy, or Calhoun, but a number of other vocal representatives (Wood,
672) in the House and Senate. “Wilson Cary Nicholas of Virginia put his finger on the problem
early in 1810. The failure of ‘every mode of coercion short of war,’ he told Jefferson, now left
little room for choice” (Wood, 669). In a vote of 79-49 in the House and 19-13 in the Senate,
Madison declared war on Great Britain on June 19th, 1812 (Smith, 35). Those who were against
the declaration made their calls known, but it was near silent ​initially​.

25
 As addressed previously, those for the war made themselves abundantly clear, with Clay
and Calhoun leading the charge of Congress. However, the people against the war were, for the
most part, quiet (Risjord, 90). True that there were those outspoken, namely Daniel Webster; but
individuals did not want to be seen as traitors to a national effort, fearing they they might lose
their reputation and influence. John Randolph was one of these many people, as “On March 26th,
1812, Randolph wrote to Monroe that he was breaking off his correspondence lest Monroe’s
reputation be damaged by clandestine contact with an ‘opponent’” (Risjord, 92). In some cases,
speaking out did yield the consequences, such with the case of William Eustis who was replaced
with John Armstrong less than a year into the war. With this in mind, public opposition to the
war remained minimal sans the election of 1812. During this, DeWitt Clinton ran on the basis of
anti-war, though purportedly “...ran a campaign both condemning and supporting the war,
depending on the audience that he was addressing’” (Smith, 37). Winning a mere 39 electoral
votes less, Madison remained in power from the strength of the Southern and Western parties.
It would be the very opposition to the war which most Federalists held that is often seen
as the official killing blow to its active status. The Federalists had not been majorly active since
the end of Jefferson’s administration, and the dying influence they held onto diminished with
every victory or sign of peace on the horizon. After nearly 2 years of war, the Hartford
Convention was held, bringing together a number of Federalist delegates from “the Maine
frontier of Massachusetts to the Vermont and New Hampshire forests, or farther west beyond the
Alleghenies and Northwest” (Banner, 15). Now, this did not mean that each member of the party
was represented; in fact, Elbridge Gerry, a prominent former, Federalist openly supported the
war (Wood, 690). However, a good number of Federalists were prompted by the success of the
South in reelecting Madison to meet, and the group polarization which followed promoted even
further action than initially proposed: total secession of New England. The Hartford Convention,
though, was public. The initial strategy wasn’t to simply separate from the Union. “Many
Federalists were convinced that the theory of a confederated republic justified secession, yet it is
a measure of their caution which showed their preference to an alternative to interposition”
(Banner, 119). Eventually, seeing no clear end in sight to the war effort and wanting to express
opposition, “Using language similar to that of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions… the

26
delegates threatened to secede New England from the Union” (Smith, 39). Unfortunately for the
Federalists, this move would be their demise.
The Federalists immediately publicized their opposition to the war effort and their
meeting, but it was met with the untimely publication of two other reports. First, the Treaty of
Ghent officially ending the war. Though the treaty was not yet ratified, this brings us to the
second, primary point. As Wood describes, the effects of the Hartford Convention were startling
at first, “But news of Jackson’s victory,” this being General Andrew Jackson at the Battle of
New Orleans, “did in fact clinch the treaty, and news of it thoroughly discredited news of the
Hartford Convention, which many thought was a treasonous act. The Federalists were scorned
and ridiculed and they never recovered politically” (Wood, 696). The treaty was ratified on
February 15th, 1815 (Smith, 39), and with it, “the death of the Federalists was sealed forever”
(Banner, 304). In the ensuing election of 1816, Rufus King would be nominated, and unlike
Pinckney’s management of 47 votes 8 years earlier, only scrounged 34 total electoral votes with
no independents running. In the end, these votes would only come from major Federalist hold
outs such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware (Smith, 42). The term Federalist would
come to be practically synonymous with treason, mismanagement, and received boundless
amounts of scrutiny from the already overwhelming Republican Party (Banner, 7). With all but
the official dissolution of the party, many were absorbed by the Republicans or faded away and
died, damned by their contemporaries .
James Monroe, secretary of state under Madison and a close Republican, acknowledged
the changing times and the death of the Federalists. A new generation of Republicans had
emerged since the war- one that was conducive of the principle of the dying Federalist Party- and
Monroe also adapted his beliefs to incorporate Federalist principles. This was based on Monroe’s
“amalgamation” principle, whereby the ideologies of both sides could peacefully coexist while
being propped up by the Republican Party (Unger, 91). Monroe’s period is often characterized as
an Era of Good Feelings, quoted from a passage by the ​Columbian Centinel​, which said upon a
visit to Boston, Massachusetts that he “…would help to allay ‘the storm of parity…. remove the
prejudices, and harmonize feelings, annihilate dissension, and make us ​one people​… rest assured
that the president will be president, not of a party, but of a great and powerful nation’” (Unger,

27
380). This feeling largely was a result of the collapse of the Federalists, as well as the resounding
nationalism that took hold from the war. Although seen from a realistic light today, in that time,
people only saw that normal life could continue and peace would reign (Unger, 290). Most
importantly to the future of political perspectives, Monroe oversaw the Monroe Doctrine- a
pronouncement that the Americas were to be free from European subjugation, that the threat of
colonization was a threat to America, and that the U.S. would not take any part in a European
war not directly involving the United States (Smith, 45). Expanding upon Washington’s earlier
lull to domestic focus, many were astounded. Yet “Monroe’s speech draw universal acclaim
across America. ‘Sir,’ declared one Kentucky legislator, ‘you have made me prouder of my
country than I ever was before…’ With the Monroe Doctrine, most European leaders realized it
would be far less costly to trade with the Americas than to try and subjugate them” (Unger, 444).
Monroe promptly served two terms with a majority of successes; in a political atmosphere
untainted by the air of partisanship.
The memory of the Era of Good Feelings is remembered- usually solemnly- as simply
that: a memory. Although Monroe would lead a successful presidency, in the long-run, issues
were growing on the underbelly of America. Despite the north Atlantic slave trade being
officially cut off by the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves in 1808 (Smith, 31), smuggling
operations continued, and slavery itself- for those African slaves in the nation at the time- was
not stopped. Minor tactics were used to combat it, but the growing question on the mind was not
the condition of plantation slaves during this era, but more so the international economic
relationships and the war effort. In addition, Native Americans could not be dismissed as the
Louisiana Purchase and further territorial gains pushed America closer and closer into untamed
lands. The United States could no longer be simply recognized as an experiment; it was now a
tried and true nation, with precedents to set. Unfortunately for Monroe, a growing bubble within
the Republican Party was set with the compromises of his administration, as well as the issue of
states rights coming to light. It was time for the reputation of the last Founding Fathers to be
disregarded, and for the gains of thoroughbred politicians to come to the scene.

28
 Chapter Three:​ The Second Party System

Division of the Democratic-Republicans

“It is commonly taught in history class in school that a handful of states, formed into a
weak republic after the American Revolution, were welded into a nation in the crucible of civil
war” (Volo, x). Of course, this is hardly the case: what these years did in shaping the nation
certainly led to the American Civil War; and indeed, every action acted as a precedent. But, in
the analysis of political divide, the Antebellum Period can be said to be one of the ​most
important, in that it sets the exact stage for what will become the worst period of open political
divide in all of American history. The Era of Good Feelings were certainly that: a time of relative
bliss and prosperity for ​most​; despite the credit crisis that developed in the earliest part.
Nationalism was, for the first time, evidently made apparent, and people were proud to be an
American (Unger, 445). This was for a number of reasons, but most prominently it was based on
party unity, birthed from Monroe’s decision not to include any Federalist members within his
cabinet. “Equating secessionism with treason, he excluded Federalists from the cabinet, and
pledged ‘to prevent the re-organization and revival of the federal party’” (Unger, 375).
On that note, it’s important to point out the topics to be addressed here. Explained shortly
within the conclusion of chapter two, the first party system ended with the dominance of states’
rights through the Republican Party. It would be this issue itself which would go on to tear apart
the nation. Most of the time, this boiled down to ‘minor’ disputes- financially or capitally tied-
settled by Marshall whose favorance of the Federalists garnered centralization and power to the
federal government (Unger, 371). But in the earlier part of the 19th century, this issue more and
more became centered around slavery. Again, the slave trade itself had been banned; but, the
plantation-dependent economy of the South required that slaves continue to be domestically used
or traded in mass quantities, and so the government refused to acknowledge. To some degree,
this was hurt from humanist ideologies, and many Enlightenment thinkers- namely Benjamin
Rush and numerous Founding Fathers- thought of it as an “‘Inhuman practice’” (Winterer, 158).
However, fear lied mostly in violating the sanctity of state’s rights; something not even Marshall

29
was willing to impose. This problem would mostly grow out of the later Antebellum Period, as
for now, Monroe had managed to finalize the Missouri Compromise, which “...established
latitude 36°30’...as the dividing line between free territory and slave territory.” (Unger, 428).
Instead, a greater issue was at hand for the politicians following Monroe: reputation.
Compared to earlier presidents, from Monroe onward, there was no longer the aura of the
‘Founding Father’ status to uphold a person’s reputation. The Revolution was 36 years ago;
participants were either retired, dying, or dead (Winterer, 246). This multiplied the affliction of
the Federalists, and thus, the election of 1824- like the election of 1800- was, to some, seen as a
political revolution (Smith, 48) wherein all candidates were of a single party. John Quincy
Adams, son of president John Adams and an accomplished diplomat and scholar from Harvard
College, faced off war hero turned politician Andrew Jackson, who’d pulled himself from the
bootstraps to the rank of general unlike any other candidate before him (Smith, 48, 52). Others
included William H. Crawford and Henry Clay, both outspoken members from Congress. In
spite of the absence of interparty parity though, nothing could stop factionalism within the
Republican Party ​itself​ as Monroe’s dream of an “amalgamated republic” (Unger, 198) began to
die. Adams (going forward, ‘Adams’ to mean John ​Quincy​ Adams unless specified) was set as
the ‘successor’ to Monroe, much like how his father had succeeded Washington and Madison
had succeeded Jefferson. Each candidate held their own strengths, but as other candidates were
still “...playing the game the old-fashioned way…Jackson’s cause, based on his popularity,
exemplified and benefited from the changing nature of presidential campaign and the changing
role of the electorate” (Howe, 208). Even still, the election of 1824 ended in a standstill.
Although Jackson- hero and celebrity- won the ​most​ electoral votes, no candidate had won the
majority​, and for that reason, the decision once more fell to the House of Representatives.
Clay, believing not to be capable of winning, largely abandoned his efforts to force
himself into the presidency. “Then fate intervened: Crawford suffered a mysterious illness,
perhaps a stroke, in September, 1823, though he was but fifty-one years old” (Howe, 206). It was
here that the Republican Party fell apart completely: As Adams was sympathetic to Clay’s
economic “American System” (Howe, 271), Clay proposed an alliance. Jackson’s supporters
immediately jumped at this, and “...charged that Adams and Clay had devised a ‘corrupt bargain’

30
to steal the presidency from the popular hero” (Smith, 50). Adams had won; but much like any
‘revolution’, the reaction was loud and unsettling. From its center arose a new set of parties,
casting aside the hybrid efforts of Monroe: The Democratic Party and the National Republican
Party (Howe, 210). Easily enough, the Democrats were marked by support to strong Jacksonian
policy, while the National Republicans (called Republicans for short) embodied the ‘true’ spirit
of the Old Republican identity. The Adams administration would find itself no better than
Adams’ father John: marked by internal instability, strife, and failure. “Virtually all of Adams’
proposals met with resistance from both Southern advocates of states’ rights, who opposed such
expansive new federal programs,” those being promised within his inaugural speech for
universities and observatories, “and from supporters of Andrew Jackson, who remained bitter
about the 1824 election” (Smith, 50). These same signs marked John Adams’ administration all
those decades ago, and Quincy Adams now struggled to reign in any of his power from the
divided Congress.
Protectionism from Southern planters and the open opposition of Jackson’s Democrats
overbounded Adams’ single term. When Adams attempted to reach out through the Panama
Congress from Mexico and Colombia in accord with the Monroe Doctrine, Congress met with
resistance to claim he did not uphold Washington’s desire to avoid international ties (Howe,
258). When Adams attempted to line the gap in representation from a wool tariff with the
Harrisburg Convention, Jackson supporters and Southern opponents alike inflamed it until the
election of 1828, when it was passed only to deprive him of an issue as the Tariff of
Abominations (Howe, 274). With no real issues to debate, the election of 1828 came down to a
conflict of personal ties. Socially bankrupt and tired, public belief of the Corrupt Bargain and
“righting the wrong” of Jackson’s loss of the presidency in 1824 produced support for Adams
only from National Republican (previously Federalist) states in New Jersey, Maryland, and
assorted others (Smith, 54). Once again, the Corrupt Bargain was a heavy contributor to this fact,
as Adams was completely unable to recover from the lines drawn from the new parties. With
Adams leaving the country in a once more divided time, Jackson and his Democratic supporters
were now not only in executive office, but the witch-hunt had routed any major National

31
Republican presence in Congress. Jackson would spend both terms in office free of any major
opposition ​externally​.
Even still, Jackson was not without his own internal issues. Part of this was created
because Jackson was influenced more by those ​outside​ of his direct cabinet than within; disliking
a number of his own members and creating an abundance of conflict. Instead of heeding Forsyth
or Butler, Jackson preferred his long-time allies like William B. Lewis and John Overton
(Kahan, 118). His Vice President- John C. Calhoun- was a Nullifier (Howe, 406). Calhoun and
many others claimed that the War of 1812 and Crisis of 1819 had particularly hurt states in the
South and so they rejected the Tariff of 1828. Once, at a banquet, the two exchanged wits:
Jackson said to him in a toast “Our Union: It must be preserved.’ The startled vice president
countered, “The Union, next to liberty, most dear. May we always remember that it can only be
preserved by distributing equally the benefits and burdens of the Union.’” (Smith, 54-55).
Jackson further found himself at odds after the Indian Removal Act (Howe, 353). The vote
passed, but not before continued debate over the matter. Nothing would engulf Jackson’s
presidency more than the “Bank War”, dubbed between Jackson and bank president Nicholas
Biddle (Kahan, 15). Long had parties- the Federalists and Republicans before- debated the value
of a national bank. Jefferson had allowed the First Bank of the United States’ charter to run out,
but Madison signed a second into existence. Democrats- now spouting the views of
representation for the common man- followed in Jeffersonian thought in rejecting the bank; in
contrast to the National Republicans led by Adams who followed the desire of the elite. They
were replaced by Jackson’s “pet banks” (Kahan, 115), or rather his decentralized state banks.
Jackson’s later policies- such as universal male suffrage- were similarly topics of great distaste
for the National Republicans and grew the divide further.
With the collapse of the Democratic-Republican Party, the American government system
saw nothing but infighting, and it led to a belief that perhaps this was a necessary evil despite the
theories of Washington and Monroe alike (Howe, 93). The beginning of the Antebellum Period
saw a slew of new theories, including the political convention to hold party nominees and open
mudslinging in the election of 1828. Adams, in spite of his many shortcomings, would found the
National Republicans, a genuine opposite to the Jacksonian Democrats. Jackson, in all his

32
successes though, also saw failure (Smith, 59). The ​Specie Circular​ restricted westward
expansion, and both Houses saw themselves vowing its destruction immediately after Jackson’s
departure (Howe, 422). Still, Jackson left harboring peace and prosperity for the Union, and
proposed that the only way to avoid civil war- as it had done through the years of Jackson’s
presidency- would be to compromise. As the second party system continued, the young republic
would find itself facing new challenges: war, independent parties, and an ever-growing problem
of slavery at the back of the mind.

The Rise of New Parties

Many Enlightenment thinkers understood that parties could be a ​tool​ to convey a group’s
beliefs. Over the years, though, parties came to dominate the political scene; to represent
collective interest, yes, but with time, they came to represent an entire group ​conscience
(Winterer, 199). The second party system is unique in that parties were no longer a tool; it was
rather the people that were to be used. With the second party system came not just new primary
parties, but also a confused amalgam of independents. Antimasons, Nullifiers, Free Soilers,
Know Nothings; all of them bound together as minor pieces which would inevitably shape and
mold into more larger parties (Howe, 489). The first of these was the Anti-Masonic Party;
founded in New York, 1828: “Strongest in rural areas and small towns, their movement nurtured
a provincial suspicion of metropolitan and upper-class values (Masonry was strongest in the
cities)” (Howe, 269). Author Daniel Howe in ​What Hath God Wrought​ acknowledges the
Anti-Masons not as a ‘party’ as more of a ‘movement’. Really, it shaped the social climate of the
era, and helped to formulate opposition on a smaller scale to larger parties and later to split the
vote during uncertain elections. It was the effort of these independents- on a small, progressive
scale- to make changes in a large, astounding way.
For the primary parties, the National Republicans reformed with Adams and Clay: the
Whigs “The new Whig Party included supporters of Clay and John Quincy Adams; states’ rights
advocates aligned with John C. Calhoun; former Jacksonians miffed over the bank policy;
Southern planters, Northern merchants, and the Anti-Masonic Party” (Smith, 58). Effectively,

33
these Whigs represented the larger-scale and clearer opposition to Jackson. Even still, a
relatively peaceful 8 years under Jackson had groomed the public to prefer the Democratic
option (Smith, 62). Van Buren argued of parity that “...it not only behooved Jackson supporters
to embrace partisanship openly but also to define the parties in advantageous a way as possible”
(Howe, 280). What immediately followed Jackson was president Martin Van Buren, his second
vice president; whose policies never managed to shine through as a result of his predecessor.
Despite his best efforts, Van Buren faced the ongoing troubles of deficits from the Panic of 1837
as well as a growing war with Canada along the Maine-New Brunswick border (Howe, 674).
Although he avoided war, the damage to Van Buren’s career was done: Calhoun declared “‘He is
not of the race of the lion… he belongs to the lower order- the fox’” (Smith, 64) as his person
was made an open mockery to opponents as Martin Van ​Ruin​. William Henry Harrison- a war
hero much like Jackson- would take to the nomination along John Tyler in the election of 1840
for the Whigs.
Although the Whigs had made their purpose clear, Harrison made very little effort to run
on a specific platform: targeting the faults of Van Buren or stating how he would improve.
“William Henry Harrison brought to the White House credible qualifications. Born into a
prominent family, son of Benjamin Harrison V, signer of the Declaration of Independence and
governor of Virginia, William attended Hampden-Sydney College, entered the army, and
distinguished himself in several important battles against Indians and British, including Fallen
Timbers, Tippecanoe, and the Thames” (Howe, 571). It was thought, perhaps, that Harrison
could be the one to place the country back into order. Harrison’s untimely death of pneumonia
left Tyler to take the reigns, something that no one had expected. “Their campaign slogan,
‘Tippecanoe and Tyler Too,’ showed that John Tyler was a political afterthought that no one
dreamed would become president” (Smith, 70). The Whigs were internally stricken with debate
when Tyler undertook the presidency, his person completely violating Whig ideology. Tyler was,
after all, a Virginian, and thus more aligned to the classic theories of Jacksonian democracy.
Even still, he didn’t align with the Democrats ​either​, and by his investment to the presidency, he
had not only left the Whigs but refused pursuit of entry into the Democratic Party. Tyler’s
backward policies- rejecting a bill for a central bank, promoting states’ rights and decentralized

34
power- prevented the Whig Party from ever truly holding any power. It even sparked one of the
first impeachment ​attempts​, since Tyler was perceived to have overstepped executive boundaries
with the most vetoes in history up to that point (Howe, 428). When he left in 1845, the seat was
left deeply engraved by the effect of the Tyler Doctrine (Howe, 706) and the growing issue of the
annexation of the Republic of Texas. Angered by his political upheaval, the Whigs nominated
Henry Clay hoping to clinch as many votes as possible before Democrat James K. Polk won the
election of 1844 (Smith, 78). The Tyler administration had not agreed upon the growing debate
over the territory of Texas, leaving Polk to pick up the pieces.
Polk’s inaugural address was short and sweet, but it maintained a number of key goals
which would all be met. “The speech was characteristic of the man. It rehearsed Democratic
orthodoxies… as abolition and a national bank he roundly condemned” (Howe, 701). All of the
things he promised were accomplished, and it made Polk an immensely popular president, even
as debates between both parties loomed on the House and Senate floors. Jackson said about him
“‘To extraordinary powers of labor, both mental and physical, [Polk] unites the tact and
judgement which are requisite to the successful direction of such an office as that of Chief
Magistrate of a free people’” (Smith, 80). Polk’s largest issue remained acquiring Texas and
California. A bloody conflict, the Mexican-American War was fought shortly over the claim for
land in regions which contained a majority of Americans but were still held by Mexico (Howe,
736). It was not exactly a popular war everywhere: with every gain, Whigs and other abolitionist
or anti-slavery groups worried. In every state gained, in every territory acquired, the government
risked creating yet more room and representation for slaveholders and supporters of slavery
(Howe, 708). Former president Quincy Adams made his assessment known, having vocally
opposed slavery’s expansion since the 1830s (Howe, 405). The Wilmot Proviso to completely
ban new states from adopting slavery split Congress even more. Even when not focused on the
prevalence of Slave Power, Whigs preferred to industrialize rather than expand; amplifying the
party differences even more. Despite protests, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo sealed American
gain of California, balancing the slave status of the former Republic of Texas from its annexation
in 1846.

35
 Toward the late second party system, the issue of slavery could no longer be avoided. Try
as they might, figures such as Calhoun and Polk attempted to either avoid the problem
completely or were uncompromising, delaying the problem even more. Later politicians would
further enrage the problem with inaction, and the vocal ones grew more and more restless with
federal inadequacies. With the end of the Mexican-American War, the important Free-Soil Party
formed, a combination of anti-slavery Democrats, the remnants of the Liberty Party, and
Conscience Whigs (anti-slavery Whigs) which nominated Martin Van Buren and would later go
on to be one of the adjuncts of the Republican Party (Smith, 81). The middle of the second party
system was certainly not devoid of divide, but it came with a striking twist in how parties could
be interpreted. Unlike the chapters prior, entire pages consist of a single president’s feats and
accomplishments, yet now the format has shifted to include a president for perhaps a page or
two. Granted, this may be attributed to the short time spans in which these presidents served, but
it may also be acknowledged that this coincides with the change of party ​behavior​. People were
no longer the more pressing issue of divide, it was the parties themselves; they’d come to
embody all of that which they represented, so much that it overtook the figures themselves and it
matters, as we explore further, the actions within the party and its interactions rather than
personal relationships. Additionally, all presidents of this era- sans Jackson and Polk- failed to
leave a lasting impression from their action. Rather, their inaction built the problem more and
more. With the end of Polk’s presidency, the issue of slavery as a topic atop states’ rights had
thunderously surfaced.

States’ Rights & The Coming Storm

At the end of Polk’s presidency, there were a number of routes that might be pursued if
the nation were to avoid dividing itself to its base extent by separating completely. As said, the
United States had faced its fair share of secession crises: the Essex Junto; the Hartford
Convention; most recently, the Nullification Crisis (Detzer, 93); but for the most part they
remained on paper at best and all had been resolved. The late second party system saw the
greatest strain put on the government in its history as parties seemed to no longer control

36
themselves let alone Congress as the very fiber of the political system ripped at the seems.
Players like Stephen Douglas, Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln, William H. Seward, and
Thurlow Weed would mold this later system, each representing their own faction as the United
States collapsed upon itself. Henry Clay from Kentucky, representing western interests; John C.
Calhoun of South Carolina to represent the South; and, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts to
represent Northern Whig interests (Detzer, 94). This Great Triumvirate of the Jackson era was
soon to go (Howe, 389); and much like how the era had began, the end of the second party
system became evident when these great leaders began to retire and, inevitably, die. Again, a
power vacuum was left; confusion was abound as parties rose and fell from election to election
and as politicians struggled to compromise.
The Antimasons had dissolved by the 1840s, merging into the Whigs; The Free Soilers
formed themselves directly ​from​ anti-slavery Whigs, Barnburner Democrats, and the fading
remnants of the Liberty Party; and even the Whigs found themselves insignificant in the
long-term (Smith, 82). The end of the Polk presidency ​should​ have ushered a new era for
Democrats, but instead the election of 1848 was stolen by the former president Martin Van
Buren and given to the Whigs (Silbey, 150). Only Zachary Taylor was found suitable for the
Whigs and not for the reason of party allegiance; rather, his reputation called a familiar tune as
that sung during the campaign of Harrison. Between the gruff hero of the Mexican-American
War Taylor and experienced former general Lewis Cass of the Democrats, a close election was
found with Taylor’s 163 to Cass’ 127 electoral votes (Smith, 84). “Once again, as the Van Buren
group saw it, they had encountered treachery from Polk’s southern-dominated government… If
the purpose of the Van Burenite revolt was to punish the Polk-led Democratic party even if that
meant helping a Whig slaveholder gain the presidency, they were successful” (Silbey, 156, 165).
For the first time, the election of 1848 displayed the importance of independents.
Taylor’s presidency marks an unofficial end in Congressional certainty for the next
decade up until the election of Lincoln. The South had developed almost its own culture, unique
to that of the bustling, urban, industrialized landscape of the North, and even today we can see
that regions of the United States have built their own subtraditions. “As one editor put it, ‘there
never existed so thorough a separation and discriminate… They are the same in New York as in

37
Virginia, in North as in the South, in the center of the Union as at either or every extreme’”
(Silbey, 42). Partisan commitment became almost a way of political life for Americans. Unlike
the unifying force of Washington, no president had since held that special spark. Taylor would
oversee opening talks to the Compromise of 1850, proposed by Henry Clay before passing away
(Smith, 85). Millard Fillmore was not as anti-Whig as Tyler, but his actions failed to mirror the
party exactly. It eventually led to his entire cabinet resigning in protest to his actions. Though a
contrarian for many of Taylor’s policies, Fillmore managed to fully approve the Compromise of
1850, which oversaw a lasting peace for almost a decade more.
Party distinctions were ever more becoming evident on a geographical level; the once
nominally clear fact that industry flourished in the North and thus led to support of
industrially-focused parties had expanded. Now, it had become an indirect split: free states to
support anti-slavery or abolitionist interests ​above​ and slave states to support slavery or sectional
interests ​below​ the Mason Dixon Line (Olsen, 35). The Compromise of 1850 was effective, and
although some were dissatisfied under its terms, it accomplished its goal in securing unity or at
least postponing what some saw as the inevitable. “No one was completely happy with the
Compromise of 1850, but it appealed enough to moderates in both sections who wanted to avoid
both secession and war, and both Whig and Democratic leaders endorsed it in hopes of
preserving their national organizations.” (Olsen, 22). On the surface, it seemed like quite an
equal trade, but in reality it majorly benefited the free states and abolitionists. The Fugitive Slave
Act, for example, expanded upon already present terms that individuals were required to report
runaway slaves. Instead of increasing the number of slaves caught, this merely prompted
abolitionists not to report the issue, and the commission itself- the Supreme Court in most cases-
rejected a majority of the concerns. The Compromise also created a legal distinction between
slave ​trading​ and slave ​holding​, meaning that holders in Washington D.C. could continue
owning slaves, and simply stop their domestic exchange of them, stopping the trade and pleasing
most plantation holders in the district. Finally, Utah and New Mexico were given up to popular
sovereignty, meaning that there was no stipulation that these state ​had​ to accept slaves, meaning
their votes did not automatically support the now waning South (Olsen, 54). Southern politicians
more and more became outraged, and John C. Calhoun, having expected this, remained adamant

38
that the North must give more leniency to the South rather than attempt to balance the scales
with new states. Dead shortly after the passing of the Compromise, the voice of the South died
with him, and representatives met more and more to propose new and desperate solutions.
One of these was the Lopez Expedition, led by Cuban exile Narciso López escorted by a
number of Southern soldiers and proponents of the Monroe Doctrine- expanded upon by Tyler-
to include many islands off of America’s coasts. It lead to riots from both parties against
Fillmore either for failing to formally support the expedition or for his apology to the Spanish
from the New Orleans consulate (Smith, 89). Southern supporters of slavery continued to bicker,
and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 inflamed Southerners further since it failed to appeal to
states’ rights. “They saw it as the latest in ‘a chain of sinister events beginning with the
annexation of Texas and including the war with Mexico, the passage of the fugitive slave act in
1850, and the adoption of the Kansas-Nebraska Act’” (Silbey, 188). With every passing law,
events promoted the greater division of the Democrats and uncentered parties including the
Whigs and Free Soilers. ‘Bleeding Kansas’ became a running nickname to the events of Kansas,
which included arson, theft, and murder (Olsen, 57). By the end of the second party system, the
state of affairs had degenerated to the wholesale killing of American against fellow American.
Try as politicians did to prevent chaos, the second party system was dominated by a lack
of focus for the government; and may be regarded, in my view, as one of the single most
tumultuous times in American history. Although assuredly the third party system would go on to
experience the Civil War, political machines, and rapid industrializations to reshape culture and
politics in turn; the second party system did not have the advantages of more structured parties.
The young republic, succeeding the troubled experiment, was afflicted by the pains of
uncertainty and misdirection. Slavery- a singular issue- managed to tear the Democratic Party
asunder, creating the Hunkers and the Barnburners (Silbey, 155). Numerous parties arose,
simultaneously vying to reject the opposing candidate on the basis of personal relationships
rather than doctrine or policy. Even moderates of the two largest parties of the era- Whigs and
Democrats- took nearly 30 years with the slavery issue surfacing with the Missouri Compromise
in 1820; clenching a broken Union for only a decade more. The sins of the father would become
the ails of the son; as the second party system failed to alleviate tensions, burdening the third

39
party system with its newest contender- the Republican Party- to pick up the pieces; lest the
Union break forever.

40
 Chapter Four:​ The Third Party System

The New Republican Party & The Civil War

After a disastrous eight years under the young, naïve Pierce and the old, indecisive
Buchanan, the Democrats had lost a great majority of their power in the public eye. Now,
America looked to new candidates from a fresh party to lead the country. The Lincoln-Douglas
debates propelled both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas to the national spotlight,
eventually prompting both to run for their respective party’s ticket for the election of 1860
(Olsen, 61). With the death of the Whigs in 1852 and the growing division of the country, a final
party was formed in the ashes of the second party system, finally coming to fruition during the
election of 1856: the Republican Party. The Republicans were the final stage of what had once
been a bickering group of anti-slavery Free Soilers, Liberty and American Party members, and
Unionists; it also joined together Conscience Whigs and Barnburner Democrats. For sake of
clarification, abolition did not mean pro-black, and in many cases it was quite the opposite.
Many abolitionists preferred to send freed blacks to Liberia (Finkelman, 57) through the
American Colonization Society back to Africa, and others were not exactly for the ending of
slavery so much as for stopping its spread westward. But the Republicans set a peg: that the
Union must be maintained, and for the sake of how it seemed, slavery’s complete retraction to
remove it as an issue entirely seemed to be the only method. In clarifying further, we cannot also
misunderstand that Democrats were all for secession: indeed, Stephen Douglas ran for the
Democratic ticket trying to further save the Union (Smith, 102), but John C. Breckinridge would
yield many more electoral votes. In a last ditch effort to save the Union under the Buchanan
administration, Kentucky senator John Crittenden proposed that the Missouri Compromise
extend westward to the Pacific through the Crittenden Compromise (Olsen, 87). Lincoln though,
having won the election of 1860, was unyielding, and at once, for the first time in American
history, states would officially secede from the Union.
Starting with South Carolina a confederacy was born. Dubbed the Confederate States of
America, it included states from Virginia to Florida and from North Carolina to Texas. The split

41
was initially ‘peaceful’, or rather, was not sparked by outright fighting (Olsen, 75). However,
Fort Sumter in South Carolina waters- still occupied by Union troops garrisoned by Maj. Robert
Anderson- was fired upon, and so the war began. Lasting well over 4 years from 1861 to 1865,
the American government did not see the political unity it had during the War of 1812, and
instead was infested with different ways of thinking. Some Democrats in the Union thought that
the secession was constitutional and within the states rights, and were dubbed Copperheads in
contrast to the aggressive War Democrats (Harper’s Weekly). Notable members included Ohio
representative Clement Vallandigham, who later rank for the governorship after being exiled to
the Confederacy for support of the rebellion by a court martial (Olsen, 109). Lincoln also spent
the duration of the war playing foreign advocate; sending Charles Francis Adams and secretary
of state William Seward to Britain constantly to prevent the Cotton Famine from pressing the
UK to support the CSA (Trudeau, 107). Some issues that arose included Lincoln’s decision to
halt the standard of ​habeas corpus​ for convicted felons, namely opponents of the war effort.
Finally, bloody and defeated, the Confederacy was forced into submission; one by one its armies
fell, and by June of 1865, the surrender in April had finalized. The war had ended.
As much as one may assume Lincoln ran unopposed in 1864, George McClellan of the
Democratic Party ran on an anti-emancipatory (Smith, 105) and general anti-war campaign. The
war, although finalized in April, took nearly two months in routing out deserters and hold-outs of
Confederate troops as Union armies continued to move south after capturing Richmond. In
addition, there was damage in both a political and physical sense. Physically, many areas were
torn from the war with damaged infrastructure and burned cropland. Politically, Lincoln had
declared in the Emancipation Proclamation that slavery in the Confederacy was to be completely
outlawed, and the 13th Amendment under Johnson in 1865 would go on to end slavery in all
twenty-seven states. This rush of new citizen voters drastically tipped the scales in favor of the
Republican Party, and for the next 15 years the Republican Party reigned unequivocally
supreme. Even still, opposition was abound, and perhaps this post-Civil War America was even
more split than it was before. With the assassination of Lincoln a mere 5 days after the surrender
of the Confederate forces, Andrew Johnson- Lincoln’s vice president- was left to undertake the
Reconstruction. A Southern Democrat at heart, Johnson’s ideas to rebuild the nation would take

42
a drastically different direction compared to his predecessor. There were many questions to
answer- how should the country handle these Americans who were once traitors and enemies?
Furthermore, how should we handle the new population of black voters? What then of the
infrastructural damage? The debate over these would inevitably come to a head when Johnson
became the first of only two presidents to ever be impeached, and a violent splintering later of
the party into Liberal and Radical Republicans.

The Reconstruction Era

Showing that the country was not immediately remolded by the war, Lincoln lost his life
when John Wilkes Booth fatally shot him; jumping from the catwalk and shouting “​Sic semper
tyrannis​”, “Thus to all tyrants”, and that the South would “rise again” (Smith, 107). 56 year old
Andrew Johnson took hold, and by the standards of scholars from a modern standpoint, Johnson
butchered the position. “The nation was presented with a window of enormous opportunity,
however brief; but that moment was soon lost. The window began to close as early as Good
Friday of 1865, not so much, perhaps, because Lincoln was the only person capable of restoring
the nation, but rather because Andrew Johnson proved to be utterly the wrong man for the job…
For this accidental president, black liberation was the end of the process, not the first step toward
a march for political and social equality, and he had no intention to use the military to ensure the
rights of newly freedmen” (Egerton, 18). Not only did Johnson face off against his own, internal
conflicts- whether to follow his own course or the one set by Lincoln- but also spent his entire
administration fending off against the Radical Republicans. Lyman Trumbull, a Republican
senator from Illinois, was one of Johnson’s harshest critics, often noting in personal and public
correspondences that Johnson was only fueling the fire of further divide (Egerton, 175). By
1866, he had become so overwhelmed by the Radical Republican majority that he officially left
the Republican Party. Toward the end of his term, Johnson had managed to be culled to violate
the Tenure of Office Act and he just barely avoided the first removal of a president in all of US
history by a single vote (Egerton, 230). Johnson left humiliated, and retreated within the
Democratic Party, serving as a senator for the rest of his career. The Radical Republicans

43
continued to control Congress, nominating Ulysses S. Grant to the presidency and seeing a
sweeping election against Democrat Horatio Seymour in the election of 1868.
While Johnson was busy duking it out against his own Congress of the opposing party,
the country itself was relatively- in a broader sense- ​peaceful​ (Egerton, 208). This is not to say
that it matched the Era of Good Feelings; instead of taking the route of combining the beliefs of
both Democratic-Republicans and Federalists as Monroe had, the Radical Republicans instead
took measure to eradicate opposition to the Reconstruction policies ​entirely​. The Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments, proposed by the Trumbull group and by John Bingham of Ohio
respectively spelt that African-Americans would not be denied. “‘One cannot deny the partakens
of their country,’ observed one black Republican, ‘universal emancipation was inevitable’”
(Egerton, 35), and his estimation was confirmed by the very creation of the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction. In addition, a further notion which outraged Southerners was the election of
some of the first black congressmen, including Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi (Egerton, 279).
Oftentimes, their elections were met with violence, such as the New Orleans riots of 1866 where
white mobs murdered dozens of blacks and pro-Union whites (Smith, 112). With Grant’s
incumbency, Reconstruction continued.
Grant’s presidency consisted of two goals: protecting the rights of African-Americans
created by Congress and creating a stable platform for the Republican Party (Smith, 116).
Though he succeeded in the short term to protect the new rights of black voters, he proved not to
be savvy in choosing cabinet members. “By the election [of 1872], popular discontent with the
growing corruption within the Grant administration, together with northern weariness over the
seemingly endless Reconstruction battles, led some reformers to believe that Grant should be
denied a second term” (Egerton, 280). The results of Reconstruction had begun to wane on
many, and toward the election of 1872, the Republicans had splintered, with one faction forming
the Liberal Republicans and the original led by Grant and the Radical Republicans (Egerton,
280). Liberals felt that Lincoln’s vision wasn’t being fully seen through, as civil service reform
began to gradually break down. Nominating New York representative Horace Greeley, the
Liberal Republicans lost in a landslide to Grant by over 286 electoral votes to Greeley’s three.

44
Upon their loss, the party promptly ceased to exist and in the long term aided the Democrats by
bolstering their ranks.
Grant’s second term and his successor Rutherford B. Hayes found their administrations
rampant with divide. Although Grant’s administration is said to have officially ended the era,
issues were still abound, and the Amnesty Act opened up the door for the South and its
‘Redeemers’ (Egerton, 308). The Amnesty Act flooded the South with Democrat sympathizers,
who saw the Republican Party as the enemy and who overtook the black vote in these areas.
Despite Grant’s other Enforcement Acts which were found with popular acclaim (Smith, 119)
the Ku Klux Klan and the Knights of the White Camelia were born. While the KWC died off by
the early Reconstruction era, the Ku Klux Klan would dominate racial politics; and even by their
‘death’, they had spawned numerous counterparts, including the White League and Red Shirts,
who both played integral parts in influencing the election of 1876 and- for the latter- elections up
until the election of 1900 (Tischauser, 25). These groups most often thought of themselves as
vigilantes (Egerton, 328), and were supported- sometimes directly- by the Democrats who sought
segregation in the wake of the Civil War that had abolished slavery. New terms were painted for
politicians of this era, including ‘carpetbaggers’ (Tischauser, 9) and ‘scalawags’ (Egerton, 307).
The divide over how to accomplish successful Reconstruction remained deeply engraved, as
Republicans opted to support a crippled Union and for minority- particularly black- rights while
Democrats promoted what would later become Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws.
The split of the Republicans came at an inopportune time, and in spite of the unity
Lincoln had brought to a country fraught with a literal divide, later Republicans continued a
trend of a downward spiral. No president was able to capture quite the magical aura which had
surrounded Lincoln. It is not to say that Abraham Lincoln was ​without​ any divide; as discussed
previously, he faced numerous opponents to his strategies. However, the controversial decisions
of the Reconstruction Era, as well as the even more specifically shocking Civil Rights Act of
1875- encompassing the duties of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments- led to
a complete split of the Republicans, and pushed the Democrats into a new position on the issue.
The economy had begun to weaken and the national debt grew; Black Friday had killed the gold
trade, and the expenses necessary to maintain a constant supply of troops for Reconstruction

45
policies put a further drain. The South’s plantation economy had all but collapsed since
antebellum, and the influx of minorities posed a greater threat to the ‘common man’. With the
close of Reconstruction, race politics became a minor issue, overbounded by political machines,
tycoons, and the growth of foreign politics.

Industrialization & The Gilded Age

Hayes’ largely unpopular and uneventful presidency made him promise to pursue only a
single term, and James Garfield was selected by the new convention. “Garfield was a
compromise candidate after he promised to appoint the Stalwarts in civil service positions. To
unite the party, Chester A. Arthur, a Stalwart, was chosen as the vice president” (Smith, 128).
Stalwarts and Half-Breeds had been born out of the corruption of the Grant administration and
the unchanging nature of the Hayes administration. The Stalwarts desired more power, having
been born from the political machines, while the Half-Breeds wanted reform to the patronage
system devised by Grant (Morris, 238). Civil service had devolved since the early Gilded Age,
having been corrupted through political machines.Tammany Hall in particular gained its
notoriety and strength through the emerging immigrant population of Catholics, giving them a
large basis for influence in elections. It wouldn’t be until Franklin D. Roosevelt that these
machines would face an actual rival; and until that time, president James Garfield with his vice
president Chester A. Arthur and many others would face the consequences of these machines.
Garfield took power the midst of a literal split in the senate- 37 Democrats to 37
Republicans with a Readjuster and an Independent- with a Republican majority in Congress.
With the adoption of Arthur as his vice president, Garfield had seemingly connected the two
factions together and he probably could have worked to push through civil service reform
(Golway, ​Machine Made​). On the morning of July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot him. The
only meaningful and major contributions Garfield had made during his time in office were to
further anger the political machines (Morris, 137). When Arthur took over, it was thought that
the machines would have gained even more power, but even today it is considered a surprise that
Arthur began to prosecute his past friends in the Republican Party with mail fraud and the veto

46
of pork-barrel spending projects (Smith, 132). In spite of his successes, Arthur was cut down in
the election of 1884 by Stalwart James G. Blaine. The division between the Half-Breed and
Stalwarts continued to dominate politics as the Democrats stood to the side. The Stalwarts had
proven triumphant, but a larger issue arose with the Democrats.
Much like the election of 1840 or of 1848, the election of 1884 resided on which
candidate was seen as a better moral choice for the position instead of whether they were the
most qualified. With Cleveland’s election, race once again became a noted issue yet not with
blacks- it was instead immigrants from across the Pacific which turned heads. This population
boom had startling effects: for example, harboring support for Tammany Hall (Golway, ​Machine
Made​). Their cheap labor allowed for the rise of new and more powerful businessmen; also
contributing to these pocket-lined machines. “Still, large-scale immigration- 5.2 million
immigrants in the 1880s alone, on an 1880 population base of 50 million- exerted constant
downward pressure on entry-level wages” (Morris, 166). These tycoons all profited off of the
monopolization efforts of new industries. They became ‘robber barons’, whose wealth set them
apart from the rest; built off of the backs of cheap labor and kept in their high place by their
influence in the political machines.
These two separate issues became hot topics during the Gilded Age, and it soon became a
matter of divide for the major two and even the entire focus for minor independents. Republicans
were supportive of these monopolies; after all, in some cases it was the tycoons themselves in
their position as Stalwart Republicans. “Once in office, and freed from the obstructionism after
the attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln and his Republican majority unleashed a blitz of
prodevelopmnet legislation almost without a parallel in human history- a ‘second American
Revolution’ in the words of historians Charles and Mary Beard” (Morris, 10). On the other hand,
the Democrats were a direct successor to the Democratic-Republicans who stood for large
government and the agrarian dream (Smith, 136). Other parties additionally began to pop up,
including the Greenback Party, Readjustment Party, and the Populist Party, which aligned their
beliefs behind the Democrats. What further put a strain on the parties of the time was the issue of
metalism, and whether to keep the gold standard or to adopt silver to stabilize the market.
Republicans and Populists were originally proponents of the bimetalist ideology, until the Panic

47
of 1893 under Cleveland’s second non-consecutive term shifted it (Morris, 247). The election of
1896 proved to be a period of realignment for the system, and with its close, Republican William
McKinley was elected against the free-silver Democrat William Jennings Bryan. Through this,
we saw the creation of often what we conceive as modern political parties; with McKinley
expressing the small government and militaristic Republicans while Bryan stood for support of
the everyday man and expansion of liberties with respect to consideration of morality.
McKinley was another product of the machines with the donations of industrialist Marcus
Hanna (Smith, 148). His single full term in office would be spent battling two things:
immigration and Spain. On the problem of immigration, the split was once again opposite:
Republicans felt that it was a ‘necessary evil’ which helped to expand industry while Democrats
were actively against it since it hurt the ‘common man’, as shown with the Chinese Exclusion
Act of 1882 which only passed under a Republican due to rampant racism (Morris, 98).
McKinley’s solution was to instead promote global trade; and in this was reflected his belief in a
United States larger than Monroe or Tyler had ever dreamed. Using the destruction of the ​USS
Maine​ and worsening conditions for Cubans, America was able to shoehorn itself into a war
against a weakened Spanish Empire. A quick and decisive conflict, it proved to be supported
almost unanimously by Congress, though some still felt that worsening relations could result in a
backpedal in relations with other countries (Smith, 151). McKinley was hailed a hero. Congress
was given to the Republicans, and in the election of 1900, Democrat Bryan was once again
defeated. Elected for a second term in a sweeping 292-155 election, his next office would be cut
short when he was shot in the stomach during the Pan-American Expedition in New York.
The death of McKinley signaled the end of the third party system. Technically, America
faced the end of this system with McKinley’s first election in 1896 due to its realignment
importance. For the sake of this paper though, we regard the end of the Gilded Age with
McKinley’s death and a segue into the Progressive Era with Theodore Roosevelt’s
administration. Roosevelt’s time in office would be categorized with a large shift in
consideration for how parties now worked, as the realignment had solidified the views of the
major parties. True ideologically, it proved even greater in a moral sense as parties began to see
others not as just the wrong choice, but themselves as ​superior​ to the rest. Nations can be

48
analogized as living creatures; and much like any organism, it grows and changes. Every system,
including the third, had been encompassed by domestic issues, and was shaped by Washington’s
very advision never to bind the United States to any foreign power. Of course, America had
involved itself to some degree (Farrow, xii), but with McKinley’s war, America gained land
completely separate from its continental body, a feat that only empires had ever been able to
claim. America was something far different from what the world had ever seen. Moving into the
fourth party system, the United States’ growth would prompt bigger changes in how parties
choose to deal with problems. How should minorities be treated? How should immigration be
handled? Should alcohol continue to be legal? Whether domestic or foreign, the divide between
the Republicans, Democrats, and Minors would grow ever wider with the 20th century’s dawn.

49
 Chapter Five:​ The Fourth Party System

The Progressive Era

Theodore ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt took office on September 14th, 1901 (Smith, 158).
Roosevelt entered at an easy time for America: the economy was booming from the waning
recession of the 1890s, corruption was considered to have died off (whether or not it actually
had​), and nationalism was on the rise from the successful war (Okrent, 48). A hero of the Cuban
campaign- notably the Battle of San Juan Hill- Roosevelt made it his job to succeed McKinley’s
popular stature, and with his use of the Sherman Antitrust Act, he was able to combat the still
active monopolies which plagued America (Morris, 246). Completing McKinley’s term and
winning himself a second, Roosevelt would go on to accomplish many a feat before handing off
power to William H. Taft, his vice president and chosen successor. Taft would lead a dreadfully
less popular campaign; and although he furthered the interests of the Republicans, his status as a
moderate upset voters who preferred the Roosevelt style. By 1914, Dr. Thomas Woodrow
Wilson under the Democratic ticket had stolen the race, with Roosevelt finishing second as a
Progressive member and Taft coming in third as the Republican nominee (Smith, 172). It was
these three men- despite their own partisan differences- which helped to shape the era of rapid
change.
Simply because Roosevelt entered at a time of economic prosperity does not equate that
all was right for America. In fact, the United States was facing immense cultural and social
fluctuations even without the effect of revolutionaries in the executive chair. “‘Take away the
spirit of Individualism from the people,’ warned Wall Street veteran Henry Clews, ‘and you at
once eliminate the American spirit- the love of freedom,- of free industry,- free and unfettered
opportunity,- you take away freedom itself’” (McGerr, 9). Most pressing was the teetotalism
movement which called for the abolition of the sale or production of alcohol (Okrent, 10). By the
late 19th and early 20th centuries, the temperance movement had been given three sources of
ammunition: race, the lower/middle classes, and women. Racially, alcohol was thought to be the
beverage of the savage- the undesired Irish or inferior Germans. Nearly every unsavory,

50
stereotypical immigrant was portrayed with a bottle in his dominant hand. “For the next
three-quarters of a century, immigrant hostility to the temperance movement and prohibitory
laws was abating and unbounded by nationality. The patterns in European immigration were
represented in the ranks of those most vehemently opposed to legal strictures on alcohol: first the
Irish, then the Germans, and, closer to the end of the century, the Italians, the Greeks, the
Southern European Slavs, and the eastern European Jews” (Okrent, 12). Class also played a large
part, as the lower classes saw that alcohol seemed to be a tool for the upper class to use against
the lower to keep them in check. Who owned the distilleries and manufactories but the aristocrats
who kept themselves high aloft while the ones on the lower pegs suffered (Jones, ​The Rise of the
20th Century Middle Class​)? In addition, who were the sufferers of drunken smacks or garbled
yells but the wives of drunkards and their children? Each of these factors played their part in
narrowly supporting the movement and furthering these changing times.
Plenty of minor parties had sprung up either in direct support or rejection of a prohibition
bill: namely, the titular Prohibition Party. The Prohibitionists campaigned under the notion that
despite of its importance in American history and culture, many parts of the past were
detrimental to a growing society (Okrent, 36). Right-wing, they fell behind the Republican Party-
who championed the interests of Protestants through speakers like Wayne Wheeler and William
E. Johnson of the Anti-Saloon League and Andrew Volstead, later author of the Volstead Act
(Okrent, 356). Opposingly, the Democrats pushed against prohibition. Figures for the
Democratic platform included Adolphus Butsch, a bottler, and famous gangster Al Capone. As
the issue continued to develop, it would later lead to its own amendment- the Eighteenth
Amendment- as well as an opponent amendment to repeal the effects of the Eighteenth- the
Nineteenth Amendment- only 13 years later. For now, though, the seeds of these efforts would
fester until the amendment’s evident effects during the 1920s. Both parties continued to disagree,
and both parties continued to split on the basis of principle and morality.
Every time period coinciding with rapid change will ever face its own set of rivalries, and
the Progressive Era was no exception. Roosevelt had proven throughout much of his
administration to be a man of the people, but furthermore, he was a staunch expansionist.
‘Defending’ Panama during its separation from Colombia, Roosevelt often told listeners to

51
“‘Speak softly, and carry a big stick’” (McGerr, 288). Conversely, when Taft heard of what
Roosevelt opted to call “‘New Nationalism’ that would increase conservation efforts, protect
labor, begin a graduated income tax, and enlist the federal government in efforts to help women,
children, and the poor, Taft parted with his friend” (Smith, 164). Taft and the conservative
Congress deemed these actions unconstitutional, and it was here that the truth behind Roosevelt’s
ideologies became clear in that he was not a Republican at all. Roosevelt called for a new party,
the Progressive Party (dubbed the ‘Bull Moose Party’ by supporters) which called for
interventionism in the environment and with consumer rights. In spite of his popularity, he only
managed to accumulate 88 votes to the Democrat’s 435 who ran behind ‘a man on the make’
(Smith, 172). This 1912 split would result in a win for the Democrats who stood behind Wilson,
and it was a ​direct​ impact of the disunity in the Republican Party which prompted a Democratic
success in the first place. Had conservatives had been more lenient or open to accept Roosevelt’s
policy ideas (however contrary to their beliefs), they would have won. Facing little open
opposition during a total war, the Democrats became unpopular for later damages to the
economy from the war and breaking their promises. Wilson left disgraced and control was
handed back to the Republicans in the election of 1920 and for the rest of the system.
The Progressive Era was important mostly as a jumpstart for the rest of the Fourth Party
system. Advocacy for prohibition would result in the Eighteenth Amendment; supporting
women’s suffrage in the 1920s; and being repealed in the 1930s to help with the Great
Depression. Additionally, the Progressive Era began to create the Republican and Democratic
Party we know and recognize today. Although the Republicans had stood for small government
since the 1860s, it would be the late 1910s which promoted a favorance of large capital and
banks to help with the economic crises of the mid fourth party system and form the Republican
basis for strong banking and corporate support in the coming era. As the teens came to a close,
the 1920s would become known as the Roaring Twenties for its emphasis on big business,
prosperity, and nationalism; but, also for the prevalence of political and financial corruption,
wealth inequalities, and a decaying service system which would ultimately lead into the domestic
responsibility for the Great Depression of the 1930s. Short but sweet, the Progressive Era left a
lasting impact on the fourth party system and our modern day as well to the behavior of parties.

52
Postwar America & The Roaring Twenties

As war volunteers and the Lost Generation returned to their homes, within the span of a
year America had changed drastically. Popularly observed are America’s happy times during this
era; flappers with rich men, bountiful feasts and flowing wine (in spite of prohibition laws)
(Okrent, 208). It gave the era the well known name of the Roaring Twenties; representing the
roar of industry and fulfillment of the American Dream. This vision though- much like the
prosperous 1950s- was reserved only to a select few: the rich, white man. Although the
Progressive Era had advanced many groups to a higher standing with the suffrage movement, no
group stood equal or even close to the power which the white man held (McGerr, 277). Parties
were shaped by this constant, but also by the change which the Progressive Era had started,
including the effects of prohibition and the suffrage movement. The twenties would also become
categorized by increasing political corruption and a rising stock bubble to popped by the Wall
Street Crash, beginning a global depression for the next decade into the fifth party system.
When Warren G. Harding was elected, Wilson departed from his office in shambles. The
look-out approach that Roosevelt had once pursued was now shunned from the deaths of the war,
and instead, isolationism became the focus of the United States. Harding immediately reversed
course for the country, instating a number of incredibly conservative guidelines. With former
president Taft in the chair of the supreme justice, the Republican Party faced a greater presence
than Jefferson’s Republican Party in 1800 ever could have. “In a 1923 decision known as ​Adkins
v. Children’s Hospital​, the Supreme Court ruled that Washington D.C.’s minimum wage law for
women was unconstitutional.” (Goldberg, 58-59). Harding chose to focus on raising the
employment rate, protecting the upper class, and native Americans (Smith, 181). In running with
stereotypical fashion, many Republicans were bankers, brokers, and entrepreneurs; and
corruption ran abound. Even still, the Teapot Dome Scandal- discovered after Harding’s death of
ptomaine in 1923- did little if nothing to calm the growth of the Republicans in this era.
Progressives and Democrats alike could do little to stop it.

53
 Of course, not everybody was content during the 1920s, and this was accentuated by the
adoption of alcohol Prohibition in 1918 with the Eighteenth Amendment. Republicans had
originally run under the guise of representation for the lower class against the upper class during
the early 20th century temperance movement (Jones, ​The Rise of the 20th Century Middle
Class​); but now, it was the corrupt gangsters and aristocrats that benefited off of it (Okrent, 146).
Some took it as a conspiracy; former Anti-Saloon League ​de facto​ head Wayne Wheeler went as
far as to claim the government may have even planned for this outcome (Okrent, 270). Whether
or not this was the case of corrupt politicians, many conservatives continued to desire more
control over the market; instead using systems like the Volstead Act to monitor former bars and
ensure that no new ones would arise from bootleggers. Prohibition continued to be used as an
excuse for organized crime to begin for organizations like the Sicilian, Jewish, and Irish Mafias.
The election of 1920 also marked the first time that women were ever allowed to vote in
a presidential election, and had arisen from the Nineteenth Amendment of only 4 months earlier.
Politically, America was also split on this matter- with both major parties taking a once gain
opposite stance (Bausum, 23). Similarly to prohibition, women’s suffrage had been pressed since
the 19th century, but did not raise the awareness it did in the early 20th century (Bausum, 5).
Neither party found itself actively ​willing​ to give women the right to vote; the Fifteenth
Amendment had given blacks suffrage under the pretence of Reconstruction Era policies, but it
did not encompass women. There were some attempts to accomplish women’s suffrage, but most
failed. When the Nineteenth Amendment finally ​did​ pass, it was on the heels of a Republican
congress and a Republican judicial branch, along with pressure from the Progressive Era culture
(Smith, 177). The Democrats on the other end stood behind common morality at the time. The
Bible dictated that women were to be subservient to men, and from this single pretence, Western
culture had developed around the superiority of men over women. It was bad enough that the
Democrats had nearly split during the 1924 election. “Meanwhile, the Democratic Party became
so torn by disputes that its 1924 convention turned into a prolonged donnybrook between
factions supporting William Gibbs McAdoo and Al Smith” (Goldberg, 40). They had little care
for suffrage, and instead became the party to advocate for the typical American way of life
practiced for so many centuries before. On the treads of a ‘successful’ 5 years with Republican

54
successor Coolidge, and with the success of the Republicans in keeping up the growth of the
economy and the support of prohibition, tax cuts, and opposition to regulation, Herbert Hoover
went on to win the election of 1928 with a margin of 444 to 87.
Little would Hoover know that the speculation bubble caused by the growth of Wall
Street would lead him to cover one of the darkest clouds to ever shroud the presidency. In a
moment, the high-class life of so many investors, bankers, and real estate traders was dashed
away by the collapse of the stock market. It was not only America that suffered but Europe,
South America, and Asia as well; for their reliance on the New York Stock Exchange and on
reparation payments from the First World War crippled many. For the remainder of the fourth
party system, concerns of either party would rest on economics and how to handle the financial
disaster. As a subset of this, eyes would also look to the arising combative government systems
that challenged democracy. For the first time since the Revolutionary War, the world set its focus
to America to dig itself out of the hole of instability from the Great Depression.

The Rise of the Democrats

Across the nation, regulation was considered a bane to the growth of industry and big
business. This was despite the fact that over 60% of Americans in pre-crash 1929 were said to be
below the federally established poverty line (Smith, 188), and stock prices were pushed to an
all-time high from speculators. With Coolidge’s promise to ‘Keep Cool’ having been fulfilled,
his quiet personality pushed him not to seek another term, and Herbert Hoover gained the
Republican bid for the election of 1928 (Goldberg, 198). Standing for traditional Republican
values, Hoover was a conservative for strict interpretation of the Constitution and the least
amount of government regulation possible; he stood by that “‘The sole function of Government
is to bring about a condition of affairs favorable to the beneficial development of private
enterprise’” (Smith, 188). This mantra however, would prove not to work in the environment of
the Great Depression; and it would further pave his downfall.
When the market crashed, neither party had any exact idea of how to immediately fix the
situation, especially given that it came as a shock and no economic condition prior had been this

55
overwhelmingly difficult. In effect, the government was without any idea on how to solve the
problem (Goldberg, 182). It’s important to note that in the 1928 election, Al Smith of New York
had ushered in a new voting bloc belief which centered around ethnic support, Catholic support,
and garnering the vote from the working class in big cities and concentrated communities
(Goldberg, 174). This created the precedent for voting standards which we understand today, and
similarly helped to set the Democratic belief in the working class citizen and interventionism.
For the time being though, the dominant Republicans continued to believe that as an economic
problem formed from the stock crash controlled ​by​ the people, that it had to be the people to ​fix
it. This meant that there was to be no intervention form of any kind from the government except
for base accomodations (Goldberg, 168). Most of the early Great Depression would be spent as
Republicans desperately clung to Hoover’s method of solving a problem which required the
government to intervene despite the promise ​not​ to intervene.
One of the party’s greatest blunders was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff. Before the exact
reasoning could be determined- aside from the wholesale panic of brokers and investors to return
as much as possible from their investments- the government assumed that the problem might be
fixed by furthering its isolationist stance (Goldberg, xiii). It had worked for over a decade now,
and perhaps by pushing it even ​further​, America could at least save itself. It placed massive taxes
on a number of foreign goods. Numerous opponents recognized the threats the bill posed even
before it had reached the senate (Goldberg, 178): Magnates like Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan
begged Hoover to veto it, and a petition even circulated with a thousand signatures from
legislators and outside economists alike to halt it from advancing. Democrats were, however,
rather fond of it, as it did support the interests of domestic farmers and manufacturers. But even
Hoover declared the bill “...‘vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious’” (Smith, 189). It also
contradicted the philosophy initially thought by Hoover and his followers to pursue international
cooperation during the crisis. The government was quite visibly divided, with the Republicans
and its business-person majority against it and the Democrats for it or neutral. With immense
pressure placed by the public for a solution though, Hoover yielded; passing the bill, and
founding the fears that he and so many other had shared. Only days after its passing, Canada

56
placed high tariffs upon the United States, and much of Western Europe soon followed. It proved
to be quite possibly one of the worst decisions during the era.
Hoover faced opposition in other areas with many more of his more ‘successful’
strategies, but he also was forced to sacrifice much in order to improve conditions at all. Once
again, Republicans were completely against ​any​ intervention (Goldberg, 178). Finally, in late
1930, it was clear that this was no mere dry spell, and Hoover found himself commissioning over
4.5 million workers using $100 million from the treasury to fund public works projects;
something that FDR would later match to an extended degree. In another of Hoover’s unpopular
moves, he issued a ‘moratorium on debt’, meaning that for one year, loan payments owed to the
United States as well as the reparation payments from Germany. The bankers Realizing that he
had hardly done anything to fix the nation from his own standpoint, Hoover made his most
divisive move yet, creating the revolutionary Reconstruction Finance Corporation (the RFC) in
1932 to lend money to banks, insurance companies, and a number of other important institutions
(Okrent, 57). Democrats were outraged by this belief in trickle-down economics, believing in
their own faith that these groups would simply continue hoarding money for themselves.
Around this time, Americans began to recognize that the Republican way simply wasn’t
working anymore. If anything, the Republican economic past was one paved by recessions and
depressions as well as great wealth inequalities and political corruption; and now, by an
inconsistent ideology (Patterson, 328). With the Republicans out of the question then, who was
left to choose from? Minor parties were always an option, and in fact were considered by a
number of voters. The turnout for the election of 1932 saw nearly a million voters in favor of the
American Socialist Party (Smith, 192). The party, though, was accused of being anti-American
during the Cold War, as the Soviet Union was in direct opposition to the continuation of
capitalist, democratic thought (Goldberg, 255). This made the other alternative- the American
Communists- even more unpopular. James Renshaw Cox ran the unofficial Jobless Party, which
stood for an increase in wages though had no set method on how exactly to accomplish its own
goals to fix the economy (Goldberg, 46). Finally, the Democrats were indicated in very few
scandals aside from those involving political machines. It was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt
came to the scene, though, that voters already understood who they would press their ballot

57
toward. Roosevelt, titled FDR to distinguish from Theodore Roosevelt, was truly a man of the
people with his history considered. Unlike the staunch perspective of Hoover, “Roosevelt saw
his role in office as far greater than simply to be the chief administrator of government policy; a
president's job was also to lift the nation’s spirit, to educate, and to provide vision” (Smith, 190).
In the election of 1932, Hoover managed to take only Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts,
Delaware, and Pennsylvania. The dominance of the Republican Party had come to an end.
FDR would go on to be the only president serving more than two terms (elected to four in
total), and in doing so set the country on the path we recognize today. FDR’s instistance for the
United States to fight to secure democracy from the greedy hands of Nazi Germany, Imperial
Japan, and Fascist Italy made America into the ‘world police’ which some praise and others
criticize today. The Great Depression had been a great burden on both parties, but it was simply
bad timing and conditions which set a line of losses for Hoover and his Republicans. As David J.
Goldberg explains in ​Discontented America​, “Certainly, if Al Smith by some miracle had been
elected in 1928, the Democrats would have been blamed for causing the crash and would have
been forced to deal with unparalleled economic decline. Instead, Hoover, who never lost faith in
American business, tried to work with business in coping with the economic crisis of the early
1930s” (Goldberg, 183). Regardless, the event had happened and the deed was signed; over to
the Democrats the majority of elections would go for nearly 30 more years through Lyndon B.
Johnson up until Richard Nixon. The presidents of this time would go on to not simply be
presidents of a nation, but of a global powerhouse, with an impressive economy, a strong
military, and a backbone of nationalism to support it in its fight to contain the Soviet Bloc from
expanding. In addition, the seemingly forgotten matter of race relations and its influence on
politics would also resurface, as the Civil Rights Movement began and expanded to encompass
the domestic front of the mid 20th century. Thus, the fifth party system began.

58
 Chapter Six:​ The Fifth Party System

World War II & The New Deal Coalition

Before the finality of our research into this topic begins, some clarification is in order.
For the last four chapters, analysis into political divide and the precedents set by our forefathers
has been confined to the definition of the sole systems addressed. The first lasting from the
signing of the Constitution to the Era of Good Feelings; the second lasting from the Era of Good
Feelings to the fall of the Whigs; and so forth. The first two ended with the dissolution of one of
the pair of rival parties while the third and fourth finished with realignment or shifts in the nature
of politics. The propulsion of the United States into a global-reaching power and the domination
of the Democrats in securing the Congress and the executive seats. It was only the Supreme
Court which remained a majority conservative during the fifth party system. Whatever the case,
the following chapter will not only comprise of the fifth party system, but also of the sixth party
system. Why is this? While it is generally agreed where and when the first, second, and
succeeding systems began and ended, what is less universal is the consideration of the fifth party
system. Given that it is in more contemporary times, consideration of where the scene changed is
less agreed upon. But for the most part the end of the fifth party system is believed to rest at the
election of 1968. For the purpose of this piece is addressing political divide, it has been chosen to
incorporate both the fifth and sixth party system within this penultimate chapter: detailing the
divide within and after the New Deal Coalition; the rise and accomplishments of the Civil Rights
Movement; and, times of both prosperity and suffering.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt- commonly referred to as FDR and will continue to be within
this text- solidified what was to come from the Democratic Party. Shaped during the third party
system and leveled during the fourth, the major parties during the fifth party system will further
shape up to become what we understand today. Ironically, Roosevelt was not largely a
Democrat, and many opposed him whether in or outside of the party. “Rep. Edward H. Rees, a
freshman Republican congressman from Kansas, wrote William Allen White to say ‘Honestly,
this beats me. He [FDR] was not fair to his party… and not decent to the people when he did

59
disclose this kind of plan’” (Patterson, 91). FDR’s curative plan to revitalize the economy
through government regulation, interventionism, and other revolutionary means set precedents
for the United States’ social welfare system and its greater society alike. Successful, by
expanding upon what Hoover had preset, financial institutions were reborn and infrastructure
was massively redone. Ignoring these immediate successes, some politicians were wary of
change, and others even felt he wasn’t doing ​enough​. Understandably, FDR drew a lot of
criticism for his New Deal from outspoken congressmen and influential speakers. Pelted with
claims of “socialism by stealth” (Patterson, 320) from insulted Republicans, he faced criticism
from the left side of the spectrum as a ‘huckster of panaceas’ (Patterson, 309) simultaneously.
Huey “Kingfish” Long, Francis Townsend, Charles Evan Hughes, Charles Coughlin; whether
directly or indirectly involved in the Washington Scene, these men and many more aligned under
a congressional coalition to oppose his legislation; ironically briefly uniting the parties
(Patterson, 252). Some of FDR’s plans- such as FERA and the AAA- were deemed
unconstitutional, but for the most part his broad schemes remained intact. Today, much of the
New Deal’s influence lingers, and so too does the open opposition which aggressively faced it.
Along with the economic boom from WWII (Jones, 50), the New Deal was deemed a success:
effectively ending a broader term of the Great Depression. Rural communities were still hit hard
by the ecological ramifications of the Dust Bowl and debts were yet to be repaid in full, but no
longer was America facing its worst period of economic history. The New Deal’s majority
successes spelt a new trend for the entire fifth party system: dominance of the Democratic Party
in Congress and the executive branch.
The outbreak of World War II initially introduced some problems for Americans, but the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor silenced a better party of the opposition. All that remained were
political minorities such as: socialists, communists, fascists (mostly Nazis), and pacifist groups.
As a result, the time during WWII found a ​just​ cause for a grand majority of Americans (Jones,
66), even oppressed African Americans undertaking a role to fight under the Double V
Campaign. Polio complications snuffing out FDR led to the inauguration of Harry S Truman,
who much like Chester A. Arthur was a compromise candidate to replace George Wallace from
FDR’s previous (third) term. During the war, Truman faced little opposition for his actions as

60
nationalism ran high even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 (Jones, 11).
Unsurprisingly, the end of the conflict which drove behind force did not stabilize the country to a
trend of unity, and in fact a new threat emerged to confound politicians: the Soviet Union. Our
brothers-in-arms during the war, the Soviets now posed a threat unforseen at any point in history
prior to the Second World War. How then should America deal with communism: by force or
peace? Directly or indirectly?
Very few politicians (counting the members of innocuous independents) believed that we
might coexist peacefully with the USSR. A telegram from ambassador George F. Kennan
explained the threat which the Soviets held to America, yet described it almost as inactive in its
immediate threat (Jones, 125). War-torn Western Europe was a different story, and the loss of
markets or ideologues in Britain or France could spell an end for America’s superiority, and so
General George Marshall advised the ‘Marshall Plan’. By rejuvenating the West, America might
gain both allies and future trading partners. Opponents for the idea were numerous; the feeling in
Congress was unsure, and a number of conservatives wished to sustain the isolationist stance
America had held prior to the war. “This view of the postwar situation in Europe led several
isolationists to argue that the funds appropriated for all European countries under the Marshall
Plan would come to better use if they were all invested in Germany” (Bjerre-Poulsen, 94).
Republican opposition to a number of Truman’s other plans was enormous, including his
decision on the Taft-Hartley Act, seizing of steel mills, and his proposal of the Fair Deal to
match FDR’s New Deal (Smith, 210-211). Yet even when Truman had defeated Rep. nominee
Thomas Dewey in the 1948 election, the Conservative Coalition continued to dominate congress.
Republicans strongly opposed Truman’s action to interfere in Korea, claiming that he was
responsible for the death of “...‘our boys over there’” (Bjerre-Poulsen, 98) and supporting
General Douglas MacArthur despite his foreign interventionist policies. With efforts deemed
unconstitutional, expansion of social security, and now an ongoing, relatively unpopular war so
recently after the last, Truman rejected renomination. In the 1952 presidential race, war hero
Dwight D. Eisenhower swept the nation through clever campaigning and won the seat.
Returning to the traditional style, other problems additionally plagued the era: JFK found
trouble through his Great Frontier Program, LBJ experienced similar opposition to social

61
security expansion with the Great Society. Kennedy’s only term left him to face more foreign
than domestic problems, namely the Cuban Missile Crisis and the USSR’s construction of the
Berlin Wall. During the former, members of EXCOMM instructed Kennedy to back down in
spite of his own desires (Caputi, 77). Johnson’s Job Corps, HUD, Minimum Wage Act, and
much more played a familiar tune which Republicans had recognized during the Truman
administration (Smith, 229-230). The environment became a concern of the Democrats who
opposed the wasteful nature of pure capitalism through actions like the Clean Waters Restoration
Act and Conservation and Beautification Bill (Smith, 233) in contrast to the Republicans who
seemed not to care for the effects (Bjerre-Poulsen, 32). All the while, Kennedy and Johnson
provoked fear of the communists and used it as a means to broaden the powers of the federal
government in fighting it (Paterson, 209). Action upon action, the parties found themselves
bickering through filibusters and speeches against eachother on the congressional floor.

Containment, Civil Rights, & Consumerism

There has long been some level of debate about the Eisenhower administration,
considering the 1950s themselves are hard to tack a definition onto. Prosperous with the rise of
the consumer (Caputi, 14)? Or destitute from the great inequalities of America’s underbelly
(Caputi, 18)? In addressing the general feel of the 1950s, Mary Caputi in ​A Kinder, Gentler
America​ points out the protagonist of the 1998 film ​Pleasantville​’s character David- “In similar
fashion, Americans know how to read midcentury’s vast array of encoded meanings along with
him. We know the deeper meanings of the newspaper delivery boy and the friendly repairman,
the malt shop and haberdashery, the impeccably tended homes with geometric furniture and
flowery drapes… In fact every source of harshness, tragedy, and irrationality has been extracted
from this locale, such that it never rains in Pleasantville, the basketball team always wins, and
the fire department knows only how to save cats from trees” (Caputi, 20). The reality is, of
course, quite different from your fifties sitcom, and the government was not itself without
established divide. Given the reality of the conservative coalition, Eisenhower did not outright
face a great amount of divide, but also for the matter that he himself did very little (Smith, 212).

62
Instead, the era was shaped politically by the Red Scare of Joseph McCarthy, seeping into every
aspect of American life. Again, for the reason of nationalism, neither party was directly able to
stand on one side of communism or the other without great loss of reputation, but both did have
their own system- Republicans preferring to stay out of international affairs while the dominant
Democrats choosing to uphold the soft power Truman Doctrine (Jones, 11). Meanwhile, larger
issues brewed during the Eisenhower era, namely the foundation for the Civil Rights Movement.
This matter is large in of itself, so deviating from the writing style temporarily we will
analyze the Civil Rights Movement alone. The remaining presidents of the fifth party system-
Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson- each handled the issue of civil rights in
about the same manner. JFK was perhaps the strictest on the matter, yet Eisenhower and LBJ
each contributed in their own ways; particularly the latter who signed the Civil Rights Acts of
1964 and 1968 into existence from the efforts of Kennedy (Bjerre-Poulsen, 266). There was a
heavy​ split between parties regarding racial, gender, and sexual equality on a social, political,
and professional level. According to a number of scholars, the Civil Rights Movement remains
controversial in partisanship on the ​geographical​ level (i.e. North vs. South) (Bjerre-Poulsen,
131). By and large the Republican Party was prompted by the growth of activist groups to once
more champion the cause of equality, much like they had during Reconstruction. Even still,
while some Republicans like Everett Dirksen openly protested the filibuster of Democrat Strom
Thurmond, many more like Barry Goldwater found it easier to walk a finer line on the issue and
either twist the debate or simply not take a definite side (Bjerre-Poulsen, 264) which also
contributed to his loss in the election of 1964. The southern-majority Democrats conversely
continued to stand for common ‘morality’ and ‘justice’, such as in the case of George Wallace in
his bid for the gubernatorial election of Alabama. He declared “‘Segregation today, segregation
tomorrow, segregation forever’” (​University of Knoxville, Tennessee​). It created the distinction
we see today and late during Richard M. Nixon’s Southern Strategy (Purdum, 331). Many
particular cases faced their own debate, such as the ​Brown v. Board ​decision; for the most part,
however, the Democrats came to reject civil rights before finally splitting off temporarily into the
latter half of the 1960s. Along the duration of this piece, the Civil Rights Movement will be

63
addressed in terms of its importance to that time, showing the evolution of party disagreement on
the topic.
Returning to the commonality of this text’s writing style, Eisenhower faced conflicting
arguments over how to continue Truman’s legacy. On one hand, the Eisenhower administration
could follow a deviant course and once more align with the isolationist policies of yore
(Bjerre-Poulsen, 289). It wasn’t too late; America had certainly already intervened, but it
wouldn’t become the ‘world police’ both admired and despised today until the Vietnam War.
Republicans, in favorance of building this burgeoning economy and preventing a second Great
Depression, supported focus on domestic matters. On the other hand, Democrats were
burgeoning supporters for international intervention and expansion of the Truman Doctrine. A
number of issues arose as a result of this debate over foreign policy: namely over Eisenhower’s
‘New Look’ perspective and the Eisenhower Doctrine (Paterson, 205). By using these,
Eisenhower successfully intervened in Korea, the Suez Canal, Iran, and Latin America, but not
without looks of disapproval from the right. Upholding the belief that Nixon would later voice,
the problems of foreign countries should not be the ​direct​ concern of America (Paterson, 225).
Democrats applauded Eisenhower, and it displayed just how much of a compromise nominee he
really was in a time for America’s split over which party should control the government. Foreign
policy was certainly not devoid of political divide during the Eisenhower era.
In analyzing the 1950s, one can find a number of problems which are often ignored when
looked through the eyes of nostalgia with rose tint: civil rights, foreign and domestic issues,
income inequality, rural vs. urban. Problems were abound. In our analysis of political division
however, despite the overwhelming pressure of issues presented, the exact volume remained
lesser. Eisenhower was not a ‘unified’ president, so much as he governed over a time when
America cared less about the happenings outside of their own bubble. Despite wide nationalism,
fulfillment of the American Dream and to one’s ​own​ pursuit of happiness overtook the
responsibility of conflicts elsewhere, and this feeling bled into politics too (Caputi, 151). In this
final chapter, we will analyze the issues which had been mounting for so long, including
containment, civil rights, the Space Race, and the Vietnam War.

64
New Ideologies & Old Wounds

For Kennedy, politics continued to complicate themselves. Foreign relations continued to

delve deeper into just how far America should go in either protecting the ‘free world’ or
protecting itself first (Paterson, 188). This was observable in several incidents, namely the Bay
of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Berlin Wall Crisis. Addressing these on a respective basis,
each found their own support and opposition in the government. The Bay of Pigs attempted to
overthrow the revolutionary government placed under Fidel Castro with use of Cuban capitalists.
Technically, Eisenhower had approved the plan (Paterson, 189), but Kennedy oversaw the
operation in full. Opposition was little until after the programs failure, at which point a number
of politicians revealed that they had been against direct intervention- again, Republicans running
in this trend. When Cuba was discovered to have been holding missiles from the Soviet Union,
the problem reached a breaking point and nearly resulted in war between the US and USSR.
Members of EXCOMM instructed Kennedy to back down in spite of his own desires (Caputi,
77). Finally, the Berlin Wall prompted Kennedy’s personal travel to West Germany in explaining
the power of the West, further instigating the Soviets. As Paterson describes it in ​Meeting the
Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan​, “The Russia of Khrushchev was not the Russia of
Stalin… Yet, Kennedy effectively made an enemy of the Soviet Union; and though Khrushchev
knew that he was the key to negotiations of peace between the two, he also recognized that
Kennedy had made aim to have made an enemy” (Paterson, 139, 203). There was a great amount
of reaction to all of these foreign responses, with Republicans fearing a total war under JFK as
Democrats believed he wasn’t going far enough to contain communism.
Commonly acclaimed from a modern perspective is the magic of the Space Race: two
nations duking it out with their best leads in physics, engineering, and astronomy. Often, there is
little opposition portrayed to the billions of dollars spent on the necessary elements to completing
an operational space program. The reality of the American situation was that many politicians
were, in fact, opposed to what was essentially an elaborate PR stunt (Purdum, 201). Why should
America spend dollar upon dollar to send a handful of men up into space in a capsule the size of
a bathroom for a few days when there are good men and women starving on the streets?

65
Suffering from unemployment or homelessness? Kennedy had declared that within the close of
the decade America would plant freedom onto the moon (Herman, Chomsky, 44), and by the
Johnson administration, this had proven true. Yet, still, parity was a silent tool in the decision of
many opponents, such as MIT president Jerome Wisener who- albeit not being entirely against
space flight- spoke out against manned exploration (Purdum, 224). Republicans were of course
generally ​against​ this “‘...wasteful spending practice’” (Purdum, 225), while Democrats
generally approved space projects to fight the communist threat. It was a means to fight without
directly fighting. Opposition was not widespread, of course, but it did factor in to the overall
atmosphere of the program and made it integral to advocates fighting for their cause.
On the matter of causes, Vietnam had been a heated case ever since troops were first sent
over all the way in the early and mid 1960s. Indeed, this was a matter of agreement for both
parties: being a war effort and an unpopular one, neither side chose to outright dismiss the public
outcry (Shambaugh, 36). Numerous congressmen and senators ran their platforms on pacifism.
Then again, there were still those who believed that allowing Vietnam to fall to the communists
meant that other countries might too fall: something the closely adhered containment protocol
strongly went against. This was mostly because of Kennedy, who “...exaggerated the threat
posed to the United States by insurgencies and the Soviet Union, clouded distinctions between
Communists and insurgents by espousing the ‘domino theory’ and the ‘zero-sum game’ that a
victory for Communists anywhere equaled a loss for the United States” (Paterson, 210). No party
was officially ​for​ the war past its initiation, but it was argued ​how​ we might end it. Republicans,
by and by, were naturally anti-communist as communism posed a massive threat to business and
international commerce. In fact, some support was made directly ​for​ the war then, for its
attraction to the arms and war-time industries (Shambaugh, 35). On the other hand, others were
intently paranoid of the Iron Curtain’s expansion, and so advocated for nuclear weapons use to
wipe out the communist threat for good (Paterson, 238). Democrats ran for the common man and
as such rallied against the war. When the Pentagon Papers were released revealing Truman- a
Democrat- had started the war, it seemed evident that successive Democratic presidents wished
only not to be the one to ​fail​ rather than support it for ideology’s sake (Paterson, 265). Because
of this, the parties remained split not on the ​what​, but on the ​why​ and ​how​.

66
 When Lyndon Johnson came to power, very little changed. In fact, Johnson largely ran
on continuing the legacy of Kennedy’s New Frontier through his own brand of the Great Society
(Purdum, 382), speaking for focusing on domestic matters like improving the state of poverty.
While noble, LBJ clearly lacked any real sense of direction: a congressional veteran, it’s likely
that he believed it would be another New Deal-esque social program come to rescue the country
from the doldrums once more. (Purdum, 17). Johnson’s Job Corps, Housing and Urban
Development Act, Minimum Wage Act, and much more played a familiar tune which
Republicans had recognized during the Truman administration (Smith, 229-230). A due question
was asked: how might we pay to comfort the impoverished masses while maintaining a costly,
determinate war effort? Once minor problems began to rear their head during the LBJ era.The
environment became a concern of the Democrats who opposed the wasteful nature of pure
capitalism through actions like the Clean Waters Restoration Act and Conservation and
Beautification Bill (Smith, 233) in contrast to the Republicans who seemed not to care for the
effects (Bjerre-Poulsen, 32). All the while, Kennedy and Johnson provoked fear of the
communists and used it as a means to broaden the powers of the federal government in fighting it
(Paterson, 209). Action upon action, the parties found themselves bickering through filibusters
and speeches against each other.
The fifth party system perpetuated the divide which had grown for so long, and the scene
we recognize today was beginning to shape ​recognizably​. From the commencement of Al
Smith’s city voter attraction during the 1920s to the shaping of Republican economic policy
during the election of 1896, the fifth party system solidified what had been building for some
time. Upon the virtual collapse of the Democrats in the election of 1968 in the wake of countless
assassinations, resignations, and challenges (Purdum, 141), the Republicans were a shoe-in with
acclaimed former vice president and California senator Richard Nixon. More radical groups had
emerged in the countercultural revolutions of the 1960s, and even as the Summer of Love faded,
its overall atmosphere did not. America was certainly not absent of divide on the matters of the
continuing Vietnam War, the oil crisis, a recession, continued civil rights issues, and much more.
Later, the Republicans would dominate from the Moral Majority of the religious right, and pave
the way of free market conservatism, corporatism, and later still be opposed by neoliberalism.

67
Drawing from the quote by Toni Morrison, “‘One of my own kids was born in 1968… there
were going to be difficulties, but they were never going to have that level of contempt and hatred
that my brothers, my sister, and myself were exposed to’” (Purdum, 2). With just a single year,
America showed the evolution it had performed with the end of the fifth party system in civil
rights and social stratification. In spite of the radical changes seen during the fifth party system,
though, nothing can ever be done to stop the natural continuum of political divide.

68
 Conclusion
There is no doubt that America is in a divided state. America’s dissonance grows greater
and greater every day; a point proven by the work of influential figures. Donald Trump actively
combats the media in attempting to fight what he considers to be ‘fake news’; whilst the defeated
DNC nominee Hillary Clinton draws strength from the party to declare Trump to be a miser and
to be corrupt. Lobbyists actively work to prevent bills from passing through, stopping legislation
through their vast monetary power (Korten). Scandals are abound; and attempts are made- most
of the time intentionally- to downplay either major parties or independents for any action.
With that said, America has withstood much worse in terms of division, polarization, and
groupthink across both houses of Congress. There is a single foundational pillar which has
affected politicians for over two and a half centuries: precedents. From a linear mindset,
America’s political evolution has been a series of evolutionary reactions sparked by precedents
set by past politicians. Washington served only two terms; and, so, the only president to accept
office or to run more than twice was Franklin D. Roosevelt at 4 terms ​before​ the 22nd
Amendment. Washington suggested isolationist policies, and so isolationism dominated America
until the late 20th to early-mid 21st century. Monroe established the ‘Monroe Doctrine’, and its
expansion can be seen in direct building upon by the ‘Tyler Doctrine’, ‘McKinley Doctrine’, and
so on. No one action by a president or politician has ever been ignored, and whether followed or
rejected, they serve as reminders for us even today as proper or inadequate governing.
In the same way, the belief that there must always be some level of discourse is the nature
of politics, and personal rivalries have always held a seat to discourage complete harmony in the
US government. This, too is nothing new: numerous scholars at the time took this as fact
following the Era of Good Feelings. When the Federalist Party fell, the National Republicans
arose to take their place, soon renamed as the Whigs. When the Whigs collapsed, the
Republicans arose immediately. The Democratic-Republicans- a party founded on the
Jeffersonian philosophy of unity and strength through numbers- was, itself, divided in half
during the Jacksonian Era. The Republicans have shown a history of splitting: the Liberal
Republicans in 1872 and the Progressives in 1912. As states rights and slavery took hold, an

69
entire ​war​ was fought in determining future policy. Corruption and avarice controlled the late
19th century; and even the early 20th century- an age of purported prosperity- found itself
divided on the issues of temperance, the middle class, women’s suffrage, and immigration laws.
Although the New Deal Coalition united Democrats and enticed bipartisanship from
Republicans, new problems took the place of old, pitting the coalition against the executive
branch. The 1960s to 1980s were perhaps the most heated moments in American history, as the
Civil Rights Movement, Communist containment, and the effects of cable news took hold. Even
today, the ramifications of the Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama administrations are
felt. The rise of talk show radio and now the rise of internet news have furthered the grip of
media, starting from the mid 20th century with cable news. True, the United States has seen eras
of defined political peace as well- the Era of Good Feelings, the New Deal Era- but these are few
of the whole. Moreover, news agencies push clickbait and yellow journalism to its bare limits
before becoming outright fiction and lying- enticing people to believe there is greater division in
the world.
Although this piece only goes up to the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, it leaves us off
at [one of] the definitional ends to the fifth party system. Since then and up to today [according
to some scholars], we have been in the center of the sixth party system. To reiterate the
previously addressed stance, this text is in ​no way​ intended to claim that America isn’t divided.
The very ​nature​ of a ​de facto​ two party system all but enforces that divide will come about over
nearly every topic. Certainly, the beliefs of the parties have evolved over time; the rights of
minorities was in no way a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. But the change of social order
and cultural issues prompted the political system to take a stance on the matter for representation
of one majority or the other. Twisting words and beating around the bush to claim that America
is in its most divided time, however, is plain lack of education. This is not the fault of anyone of
course, it’s simply a misrepresented fact- almost that of a ​rumor​- which has passed around for
decades. The present is, to those who believe it, the most divided time.
Cognitive closure attempts to find some connection to explain a ‘why’. ​Why​ there are
racial barriers, ​why​ economics play such a huge role; and so, political thinkers and historians use
an invisible explanation. But America’s division has nothing to do with it. Rather, it is one of the

70
status quo that has been present for centuries. As Arnold Kling puts it in ​The Three Languages of
Politics,​ “Americans appreciate the value of cooperation, and we’re skilled at it. However, when
it comes to politics, politically aware Americans seem to split into tribes, and those tribes use the
skill of cooperation not to work with each other, but instead to mobilize against each other.”
(Kling, 2). Dividing it into the ‘primary tribes’ of “Progressives on the left; Conservatives to the
right; and, filling the gaps and holes of either or branching off themselves, Libertarians…”
(Kling, 22), Kling’s take- and one that solidifies the argument- is that America is inherently a
design- whether or not flawed- taken to unavoidably be divided. Being such a large nation- such
a ​diverse​ nation- among the divide of culture or race there is the divide of politics which have
lingered since its founding. Instead of the narrative proposed by Gairdner, America instead has
experienced- and by Kling’s estimation will ​continue​ to experience- varying levels of unity with
the presence of determining factors. America is divided today, but not at the most divided point
in its history.

71
 Annotated Bibliography

Paine, Thomas. ​Common Sense​. Stonewell Press, 2013

Published shortly after the beginning of the American Revolutionary War against Britain

in January of 1776, Thomas Paine’s ​Common Sense​ is a short yet concise perspective on the idea

of American Independence and the purpose of kings. In this 80 page pamphlet, Paine points out

that kings are ​not​ a part of the natural order and, in fact, likens the reign of King George and his

claim of relation to William the Conqueror to be nothing more than nonsense. Rather, the natural

order of man is to follow representative democracy; describing thoughts which would later

formulate to become the legislative body of the United States. Though he applies our legislative

system from the House of Lords & House of Commons, he rebukes the thought that they’re at all

just; portraying them as puppets to the king. In addition, ​Common Sense​ spurs the idea of ​full

American independence from Great Britain, as opposed to greater representation in the British

parliament. In Locke’s words, “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of

God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

72
Israel, Jonathan. ​A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of

Modern Democracy​. Princeton University Press. 2011. Print.

Racial equality. Democracy. Free speech. These beliefs, and many more- although argued

today as common place- were once seen as radical if not ​backward​ ideals. The philosophies of

social contract theory, divine kingship, and racial hierarchy or superiority were what ruled, and

were what shaped the globe from the beginning of time up until the Age of Exploration. All of

these matters acted as excuses or justifications for the wrongdoings of the aristocracy and

kingship; preventing the strides in free thought and expression that we see today. An

award-winning author; having taught at the University of London; and, teaching now as a

Professor of Advanced Studies at the University of Princeton, Israel outlines the basic principles

which exploded into the American Age of Enlightenment from the Colonial Period until the

American Revolution. Sources for American Enlightenment philosophy are found, and the

purpose of American systems (i.e. rep. democracy, checks and balances, etc.) is explored.

Winterer, Caroline. ​American Enlightenments: Pursuing Happiness in the Age of Reason​. Yale

University Press. 2016. Print.

With a doctorate in history and a Professor of History at Stanford University, Caroline

Winterer is both a learned scholar and experienced author. Looking at the matter of the American

Enlightenment- as opposed to the simultaneous Scottish, English, and otherwise European

Enlightenment occurring across the Atlantic Ocean, the common perception that the philosophies

founding America came from a righteous guidance are anecdotal and false at best, argues

Winterer. Instead, the American Enlightenment acted as a time for Americans to set boundaries

73
to determine ​who​ we were going to be, instead of holding on to antiquated beliefs. Winterer

claims that the rose-tinted look that Americans were inherently more ethical is an idea

promulgated by Cold War era techniques to separate Capitalism from Communism. However it

came about, the American Enlightenment was an era which set the course for how Americans

would view matters from religion to science to slavery for the next 2 centuries. Much like

Israel’s work, it assists in displaying the early sources of inspiration for the American form of

government and ideology.

Waldstreicher, David.​ In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism,

1776-1820.​ Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press. 1997. Print.

Before America was a country- and even for a short time after its foundation- the seed of

nationalism had not yet sprouted. A colony and, now, a nation of immigrants, there wasn’t much

room for Americans to find a source of pride in their country. This would largely change by the

end of the 18th century into 19th century, as sources of inspiration and proof of America’s

strength were found. The War of 1812 provided proof for America’s survival; before then,

democracy was largely an experiment. ​In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes​ explores the early jumps

of American nationalism, by Temple University professor Waldstreicher. This piece shows the

origins and foundations of American nationalism which will gradually expand throughout the

course of the First Party System.

Buel, Richard, Dr. ​Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789-1815,

iUniverse, 2000. Print.

74
 A 2 time Pulitzer Prize winning author for both this respective book and ​In Irons,​ Richard

Buel is a respected historian. A professor at Wesleyan University, Dr. Buel received his Bachelor

of Arts at Amherst and his PhD at Harvard University. In ​Securing the Revolution,​ Dr. Buel

explains the preceding nature of the Revolutionary War and both the logistical and opinionated

facts as explained through primary sources from the period by George Washington and Thomas

Jefferson, among others. The turmoil of the populace under the Revolutionary War is shown; and

parties become personified, represented more as singular bodies than as individuals, since this is

how the populace saw them. The tale of the Revolution, America’s Critical Period, and the tail

end of the First Party System is told in the eyes of both the higher-ups and the common

everyman through Dr. Buel’s words.

Ferling, John E. ​A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic,​ Oxford

University Press, 1st Edition, 2004. Print.

Like Dr. Buel’s ​Securing the Revolution,​ John Ferling’s ​A Leap in the Dark​ follows the

history of the United States from its earliest Revolutionary ideas in the Stamp Act of 1765 to

President Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801. An alumnus of Sam Houston State University-

gaining his master’s in history from Baylor University- and recipient of the Lifetime

Achievement Award, John Ferling taught as a professor at the University of West Georgia until

2004. ​A Leap in the Dark​ details the ​subject​ of the American Revolution far from how it is

commonly portrayed. Whilst internal division is often exchanged for a clear-cut “us vs. them”

mentality, Ferling’s portrayal of the Revolution is instead ​exactly​ that. Bitter rivalries and

75
uncertain futures which culminate in all-out struggle before, during, and after the Revolution.

The tumultuous beginning of America’s government is explored.

Banner, James M.​ To the Hartford Convention: The Federalists and the Origins of Party Politics

in Massachusetts, 1789-1815.​ Knopf Publishing. 1970. Print.

Overviewing the life and the death of the American Federalist Party, ​To the Hartford

Convention​ paints the physical reasons for the party’s dissolution. A major player in politics up

until the Election of 1800, the Federalist Party worked to promote centralization of government

and found support from industrialized sectors or those that did ​not​ agree with an Agrarian

America. Ultimately, losing support from a majority of America- which was, at the time, from

some form of agricultural sector- the Federalist Party met its own demise at the Hartford

Convention, a discussion of Federalist delegates whom promoted- though did not agree upon-

New England’s secession in the wake of the War of 1812’s drain on the economy. James Banner,

a Columbia University graduate and recipient of the Guggenheim Award, delves into the how,

when, and why regarding the birth, life, and death of the Federalist Party.

The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History. ​Letter to Harrison Gray Otis on the Election

of 1800.​ The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, 23 Dec, 1800. Web. 11 Oct. 2017

Written by Alexander Hamilton shortly after the the Election of 1800 which saw the

majority win by the Democratic-Republicans but also a deadlock, Alexander Hamilton-

Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury and a Federalist- wrote to a Massachusetts

representative, Harrison Gray Otis, in an attempt to convince him to vote for Jefferson. The

76
Election of 1800 was a confusing situation; the drafters of the American Constitution’s inability

to anticipate political parties resulted in a standstill between voters for Thomas Jefferson and

Aaron Burr. As a Federalist, Hamilton obviously had issues with both members. In a layer of

personal desperation though, he ended up supporting Jefferson’s election; noting “Jefferson is in

every view less dangerous than Burr.” This highlighted the significance of political divide during

the period.

Risjord, Norman K. ​The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson.

Columbia University Press; 1st US - 1st Printing Edition, 1965. Print.

A professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Norman Risjord’s words on the

topic of Republicanism during the Presidency of Jefferson and- to some degree- Madison reflect

the feelings of division during the period. Parties were not completely unified; and although

argued that the Democratic-Republicans had much more unity than the Federalist party, this

doesn’t add up to complete agreement on every issue. This was most notably seen during the

Election of 1808, when the tertium quids- the ‘Old Republicans’ of the title- supported James

Madison while others supported Madison’s rival, George Clinton. Though the Dem-Reps are

often considered to be the more collective of the two main parties of the First Party System, they

certainly had their own factions, as shown by Risjord in his book.

Elkins, Stanley, McKitrick, Eric. ​The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic,

1788-1800​. Oxford University Press, 1995. Print.

77
 With a Bancroft Prize, ​The Age of Federalism​ is a must-have in explaining the divide and

power of the Federalist Party. Spanning 1789 to 1801, the authors effectively cover the glory

days of the Federalist party and their dominance in all branches of the government. Also covered

is their fall from grace in the Election of 1800, as members of Adams’ own party turned on him

to prevent ​his​ election and secure a Jefferson over Burr finalization in the House of

Representatives. Effectively, McKitrick and Elkins both of Columbia University, explore the

better part of the Federalist party’s lifespan. This source explains the lifetime of the Federalist

party and its relationship to the Dem-Reps prior to the Election of 1800.

Unger, Harlow Giles. ​The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to

Greatness​. Da Capo Press, 2009. Print.

Winning both Pulitzer and Bancroft prizes, ​The Last Founding Father,​ written by Harlow

Unger in 2009, details the interregnum period between Jeffersonian Democracy and Jacksonian

Democracy under president James Monroe from 1816 to 1825. The Era of Good Feelings

marked a great shift for the United States; notably, in its attitudes. A cluster of states manifested

itself, with the ‘victory’ in the War of 1812, into a true ​country;​ with national pride, interest in

foreign affairs, and the government proving that democracy was capable of surviving. In this

book, Unger points out the changing feelings toward American democracy, and how they would

go on to affect the rest of the Antebellum Period up until the American Civil War.

Smith, Carter. ​Presidents: Every Question Ever Answered​. Smithsonian Institution, 2007. Print.

78
 Presidents: Every Question Answered​ reviews our leaders’ time in office and examines

how their distinct characteristics became evident in the laws and improvements (or regressions)

made during their terms. Biographical facts, first ladies, and the administrative personnel that

shared each president’s days are contained in these pages. Written and supported by the

Smithsonian Institution, as well as a co-authorship between Carter Smith and Allen Weinstein

puts together a comprehensive compilation of facts and figures that may be used to provide

scholarly support for quotes or events great or minor.

Wood, Gordon S. ​Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815​. Oxford

University Press. Print.

Gordon S. Wood offers a brilliant account of the early American Republic, ranging from

1789 and the beginning of the national government to the end of the War of 1812.

As Wood reveals, the period was marked by tumultuous change in all aspects of American

life--in politics, society, economy, and culture. The men who founded the new government had

high hopes for the future, but few of their hopes and dreams worked out quite as they expected.

They hated political parties but parties nonetheless emerged. Some wanted the United States to

become a great fiscal-military state like those of Britain and France; others wanted the country to

remain a rural agricultural state very different from the European states. Instead, by 1815 the

United States became something neither group anticipated.

Howe, Daniel Walker ​What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848

Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

79
 A prolific author and experienced writer, Daniel Walker Howe- an alumnus of

Northwestern University- writes in ​What Hath God Wrought​ how the new republic formed from

the ashes of the War of 1812 was shaped. Not through peace; and not certainly through the unity:

instead, the world of the Antebellum period was one shaped by an innate split in the

Democratic-Republican party and growing tensions between the new Democratic Jacksonians

and Whigs. It also discusses details regarding the system of slavery and the governmental

relation between it. This source is a compiled listing of information which generalizes

information, quotes, and more on the era.

Finkelman, Paul. (April 6, 2006). ​Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619–1895: From

the Colonial Period to the Age of Frederick Douglass Three-Volume Set,​ Oxford University

Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-19-516777-1. Retrieved October 15th, 2017.

In the ​Encyclopedia of African American History​, Paul Finkelman tells the story of how

the idea of chattel slavery came to be present in America-before and after its revolution.

Specifically used within this source is the introductory section; which pertains to the creation of

Liberia- an American ‘colony’ created by the American Colonization Society (ACS)- to facilitate

the sponsored transport of African slaves back to their home continent. Comprised of political

members from John Randolph to Henry Clay; the ACS established itself on a loose confederacy

of parties which had their own reasons to return African slaves to Africa, ranging from full desire

to seek justice for them, or, simply to get them out of the way. A legal historian and graduate of

both Syracuse University and the University of Chicago, Paul Finkelman has been held in high

regard from both parties which support and disagree with his points.

80
Volo, James M, Volo, Dorothy Dennen. ​The Antebellum Period​. Greenwood Publishing Group,

2004. Print.

The Antebellum Era was a complex time in American culture. Young ladies had suitors

call upon them, while men often settled quarrels by dueling, and mill girls worked 16-hour days

to help their families make ends meet. Yet at the same time, a new America was emerging. The

rapid growth of cities inspired Frederick Law Olmsted to lead the movement for public parks.

Stephen Foster helped forge a catalog of American popular music; writers such as Washington

Irving and Ralph Waldo Emerson raised the level of American literature; artists such as Thomas

Cole and Thomas Doughty defined a new style of painting called the Hudson River School. All

the while, schisms between northern and southern culture threatened to divide the nation. This

volume in Greenwood's ​American Popular Culture Through History​ recounts the ways in which

things old and new intersected in the decades before the Civil War.

Kahan, Paul Dr. ​The Bank War: Andrew Jackson, Nicholas Biddle, and the Fight for American

Finance.​ Westholme Publishing. 2015. Print.

In the since called ‘Bank War’, Andrew Jackson- 7th President of the United States and a

member of the Democratic-Republican Party- declared a full out war on the Second Bank of the

United States. Having been reluctantly passed under the Madison administration in a panicked

response to the War of 1812’s financial strain, the Second Bank of the United States was viewed

by the Jacksonian politicians as unconstitutional and invalid since it favored elites. This became

more apparent after the Panic of 1819, when conservative action by chartered members put the

81
United States in its first major economic crisis of its history. Prosperity would not return for over

5 more years. In response, Jackson and others like fifth Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and later

11th President of the United States James K. Polk rallied against the Second Bank to counter

outspoken politicians like Daniel Webster and President of the U.S. Second Bank, Nicholas

Biddle. In ​The Bank War,​ Dr. Paul Kahan- alumnus of Temple University and Alfred University

and author of several other books- the path from centralized banking to Jacksonian ‘free

banking’ is explored.

Silbey, Joel H. ​Storm Over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to Civil War​.

Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

An established author and long-time member of many historical societies including

National Science Foundation and National Endowment for the Humanities; in ​Storm Over Texas,

Silbey explores how the annexation of Texas. Up until the policies of many politicians at the

time, slavery had become an ignored issue or one to be handled by the state; leading to the failed

Kansas-Nebraska Act, the 1850 Compromise, and the Fugitive Slave Act, all which either

inflamed the situation more or failed to help. In ​Storm Over Texas,​ Silbey explores the inclusion

of new Free States would enflame the situation of slavery and states rights; lead to the collapse

of the Whig Party and the birth of the GOP; and, the final actions of contemporary politicians to

prevent or to ignite the American Civil War.

Ordinances of Secession of 13 Confederate States of America.​ Online, ​Civil War.​ 16 Oct, 2017.

82
 Although the war was only in full swing by 1861, the original qualms for the war began

much earlier with South Carolina’s direct succession from the Union. Followed by Mississippi,

Florida, Alabama, and so on; this precedent set the stage for the Confederate States of America.

While the Union was a ​Federation,​ implicating that the federal government has the majority of

power, a ​Confederation​ the opposite, implying that the state governments have a majority of the

power. Furious over bickering by politicians in Congress; the ignorance of numerous Presidents

to acknowledge the issue of slavery; and, incentivized by an origin of revolution, the CSA took it

upon itself comprising of southern plantation states to secede from the Union.

Detzer, David. ​Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston, and the Beginning of the Civil War​.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002. Print.

Master of popular history and a highly acclaimed novelist: David Detzer’s work

Allegiance​ is a direct analysis of the events leading up to the American Civil War. Attending and

teaching at the University of Connecticut, Detzer For his book ​The Brink: The Cuban Missile

Crisis, 1962,​ Detzer received a Pulitzer Prize. In the 12 months prior to the actual fighting,

Detzer gives a 400 page deep analysis of the events leading up to the actual fighting and why

tensions were how they stayed during that time period. He also points out that the war was more

a matter of states rights than slavery. This source is used primarily as a lead-up to the Civil War

and an eventful analysis of what led up to the American Civil War.

Olsen, Christopher J. ​The American Civil War: A Hands-on History​. Macmillan, 2007. Print.

83
 Christopher J. Olsen's ​The American Civil War ​is the ideal introduction to American

history's most famous, and infamous, chapter. Covering events from 1850 and the mounting

political pressures to split the Union into opposing sections, through the four years of bloodshed

and waning Confederate fortunes, to Lincoln's assassination and the advent of Reconstruction,

The​ ​American Civil War ​covers the entire sectional conflict and at every juncture emphasizes the

decisions and circumstances, large and small, that determined the course of events. This source is

used as a general pass of information.

Reception of the Copperheads at Richmond​. Harper's Weekly, Richmond Virginia. January 31,

1863. Online, 16 Oct, 2017.

Much like with the War of 1812 and the Mexican-American War, the Union saw its share

of Republicans who did not desire war for a number of reasons; namely that of trade,

unconstitutionality, or simply fear of death and destruction. These Republicans were called

‘Copperheads’, in reference to the fact that they were seen as snakes of the north. In this political

cartoon, northern Peace Democrats, including Clement Vallandigham and James Brooks

knocking on Confederate President Jefferson Davis' front door. Pompey answers the door and

replies, in dialect, that President Davis has no friends in the North and that even if Davis wanted

friends he would not look to the “Peace Sneaks.” The cartoonist criticized the Copperhead belief

in negotiation with President Davis to end the war.

Trudeau, Noah Andre. ​Out of the Storm: The End of the American Civil War, April-June 1865​.

Little Brown & Co. 1994. Print.

84
 As the American Civil War drew to a close, conflicting views came onto the scene. Since

the Confederacy was only a loose alliance of states, there was no general consensus on how

surrender should be handled- or if it should be handled at all. Some believed that surrender was

the best and only way for the South to survive, if still attached to a Union which they considered

to be corrupt and wrong. Others sought persistence to the end; values were more important, and

it sent the message that if there was no free South to live in, there was no use living at all. Noah

Trudeau, an alumnus of New York State University and a speaker for NPR, portrays the final

days of the Confederate States of America and the last efforts to carve an equal peace or a

proverbial Alamo for the Civil War in ​Out of the Storm.

Ku Klux Klan. ​A Ku Klux Klan Threat, 1868.​ 1868. Gilder Lehrman Institute of American

History. Retrieved 17 Oct, 2017.

The Confederacy, of course, did not go down without kicking and screaming. In the wake

of their loss in the civil war; veterans and citizens of the south alike joined together in southern

nationalist pride. Thus, the Ku Klux Klan was born. In this source, a member of the Ku Klux

Klan was threatening Davie Jeems: An African American elected official to Lincoln County,

Georgia. Jeems was, like many African American government officials at the time, elected to

promote Reconstruction and the will of the Union. Since the Emancipation Proclamation freed

the slaves, black Americans could now take these positions. However, this threat and laws

passed such as Black Codes worked to create both ​de facto​ and ​de jure​ segregation between

races. The Ku Klux Klan’s prominence in American racial politics had just begun.

85
White, Deborah Gray; Deverell, William. ​United States: Beginnings to 1877.​ Holt McDougal,

Publisher, 1st Edition. Print.

A subsidiary of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Holt McDougal represents an educational

publishing company famous for their information regarding US History. William Deverell and

Deborah White- both novelists of award winning books- touch upon the entirety of American

history, ending off at the end of the Reconstruction Era. The time of Reconstruction was one

paved by insecurity, corruption, and a Union which was divided between itself. As the New

Republican Party took a great precedence over the Democrat Party- having been the ones to win

the ​war-​ divisions were now as sharply drawn as ever. In one of America’s darkest moments,

White and Deverell analyze the events of the time period and how both Congress, the common

people, and even the President himself.

Egerton, Douglas R. ​The Wars of Reconstruction: The Brief, Violent History of America's Most

Progressive Era​. Bloomsbury Press. 2015. Print.

Nothing would have shocked the staunch abolitionists of the American Civil War than

the Dred Scott Decision; the election of two African-American U.S. senators; or, the

appointment of African-American Jasper J. Wright to the United States Supreme Court. The era

of the Reconstruction Period was one of both progressive and ‘unusual’ change in the United

States, prompted by the Emancipation Proclamation and the effort to reverse the century-old

effects of slavery to polarize black and white groups. In ​The Wars of Reconstruction,

award-winning author and Professor of History at Cornell University Douglas Egerton covers the

86
revolution following the American Civil War in the effort of politics on race relations and

desegregation.

Tischauser, Leslie V. ​Jim Crow Laws (Landmarks of the American Mosaic).​ Greenwood

Publishing. 2012. Print.

Although the Civil War had been won and political figures actively pushed for

African-Americans and Caucasians to live in legal harmony, it was seen that America could not

possibly reverse centuries of discrimination. Segregation, it was thought, would be the only way

to minimize the effects of racial discrimination in the United States. If blacks weren’t anywhere

around whites, surely there wouldn’t be any issues, right? Deriving from ​Plessy v. Fergusson

which segregated railroad cars for blacks and whites, the Jim Crow Laws- named for a

discriminatory term for African-Americans- officially created a ‘separate but equal’ policy in

America which would survive up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this section of the

Landmarks of the American Mosaic​ series by Prof. Leslie Tischauser of Prarie State College,

Illinois, the legal and cultural origin and effects of Jim Crow Laws are explored.

Act of July 2, 1890: Sherman Antitrust Act​, ​July 2, 1890; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of

Congress, 1789-1992.​ General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11.

National Archives. Retrieved 17 Oct, 2017.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, with the rise of industrialism and a strong,

prominent upper-class dominated by tycoons and business owners- replacing the power of

plantations- “trusts” defined monopolies. Monopolies describe a business which owns all, or

87
more realistically a ​significant​ amount, of market value. They can exist in sectors from food to

textiles; but, in this period, trusts primarily existed with individuals such as John Rockefeller

with his oil monopolies or Andrew Carnegie with his steel monopolies. In a sense, these moguls

began to control the United States; and in a response, the Sherman Antitrust Act was one of

many pioneer pieces of legislation to reduce the threat or chance of monopolies forming. Passed

under President Benjamin Harrison, the Sherman Antitrust Act worked to encourage competition

between businesses as well as enticing the government to investigate trusts if deemed to be

acting immorally or, moreso, illegally.

Morris, Charles R. ​The Tycoons: How Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould, and J.

P. Morgan Invented the American Supereconomy.​ Holt Paperbacks. 2006. Print.

As the tycoons of the late 19th to early 20th century continued to expand, ​this​ economic

way of life translated to affecting ​all​ aspects of the American economic way of life. The most

important of these tycoons included Andrew Carnegie with his monopolies in the steel industry,

John D. Rockefeller with his petroleum and railroad monopolies, Jay Gould also with his railroad

monopolies, and J. P. Morgan with his banking and electrical consolidations. These men were

the most notorious of the robber barons of the era, and were the exact people which the Sherman

Antitrust Act, among other pieces of legislation, were attempting to knock down a peg. As

former banker and current journalist Charles Morris explores, it was these people who shaped the

Gilded Age and the politics surrounding its backroom deals and corruption.

88
Golway, Terry.​ Machine Made: Tammany Hall and the Creation of Modern American Politics​.

2014. e-Book.

As the Gilded Age continued to press on, the corruption of economics and banking

inevitably bled into the corruption of the political system. As trusts rose and tycoons gained more

private power, the public power in the form of office seats and even the Presidency were bought

out. Most influential among these ‘political machines’ was Tammany Hall, New York City-

where the Democratic-Republican Party was born and where much of New Yorks’ politics were

run through. In ​Machine Made,​ Terry Golway- a Kean University Professor of American History

and Pulitzer-Prize winning author- explores how these political machines worked, who

influenced them, its practical collapse during the FDR administration, and how it affects politics

even today.

Farrow, Lee A. ​Seward's Folly: A New Look at the Alaska Purchase.​ University of Alaska Press.

2016. Print.

Having held the territory for decades, the Russian Empire’s Alaskan territory constituted

its only North American colonial outpost and a center for unprofitable trade. The United States-

hoping to expand its territory and having run out of room to encourage Manifest Destiny- would

go on to buy the Alaskan Territory in an event recognized as “Seward’s Folly”, considered a

pointless purchase at the time, would prove to be an important political decision in the expansion

of the United States’ territory and its trading ties with Asia. In ​Seward’s Folly,​ Lee Farrow- head

of the Department of History at Auburn University- offers here a detailed account of just what

the Alaska Purchase was, how it came about, its impact at the time, and more.

89
Jones, Jim. ​The Rise of the 19th Century European Middle Class.​ West Chester University of

Pennsylvania, 1997. Web. Retrieved 17 Oct, 2017.

For the vast majority of human history, societies have been marked by either an entirely

equal collective which works for their own gain or a hierarchical society marked by an upper

class with lesser and lesser lower classes, ending with laborers. With the Industrial Revolution;

the rise of banks and trusts; and, the wider availability of common goods, a ‘middle class’ was

created, which was able to enjoy luxuries while still being below the upper-class. Signs of the

rise of the middle class included the mass marketing for cheaper goods and- later on- the

establishment of the suburb. Additionally, this created an entirely new demographic for

politicians to target. In the past, politics were confined, at most, to a ‘rich vs. poor’ dynamic; but

with the creation of a new major group, politics gained a new angle to shape their tactics around.

Goldman, Emma. ​Speech Against Conscription and War.​ Berkeley Institute, 1917. Retrieved Oct

18, 2017.

Though war was perceived as a necessary retribution for the loss of American lives and

the threat to US sovereignty, not everyone in the United States sought entrance into war. In fact,

Wilson had run his Election of 1916 platform ​specifically​ against entry into the ‘Great War’ or

official dealings with Europe. Emma Goldman, an outspoken anarchist and advocate for the

abolition or reconstruction of the American government, spoke out against the recently enacted

Selective Service Act of 1917, which saw anyone aged 21-30 eligible for the military draft. In

this speech, Goldman also makes reference to insults toward Wilson and the ‘majority’ of the

90
populace; pointing out that her audience comprised mainly of those that the American way of life

did not benefit. “...foreigners, by workmen, and illkempt, poorly washed people of the East

Side”. This speech showed the rise of differing political opinions and the outspoken nature of the

common man against the government with the coming of the 20th century.

Neiberg, Michael S. ​The Treaty of Versailles: A Concise History.​ Oxford University Press. 2017.

Print.

With the end of the First World War, there were extremist views which centered on how

to treat the division of land and the blame for the war effort. For the part of the British, an

effectual part of the treaty was to blame Germany, but also to only take reparations and to avoid

such an issue from happening in the future. The French had a more extreme view; not only

blaming Germany, but taking land such as Alsace Lorraine and preventing Germany from ever

rearming or becoming a global threat in the foreseeable future. Finally and most importantly, the

American effort on the part of arbeiter Woodrow Wilson was to mediate and keep the peace, as

well as to establish the United Nations. In this book by professor and head of the Department of

National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College Michael Neiberg, the causes of

desires, purposes of each nation in the Treaty of Versailles, and its effects are outlined.

McGerr, Michael. ​A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in

America​. Simon and Schuster, 2010. Print.

The Progressive Era, a few brief decades around the turn of the last century, still burns in

American memory for its outsized personalities: Theodore Roosevelt, whose energy glinted

91
through his pince-nez; Carry Nation, who smashed saloons with her axe and helped stop an

entire nation from drinking; women suffragists, who marched in the streets until they finally

achieved the vote; Andrew Carnegie and the super-rich, who spent unheard-of sums of money

and became the wealthiest class of Americans since the Revolution. Yet the full story of those

decades is far more than the sum of its characters. In Michael McGerr's ​A Fierce Discontent

America's great political upheaval is brilliantly explored as the root cause of our modern political

malaise.

Bausum, Ann.​ With Courage and Cloth: Winning the Fight for a Woman's Right to Vote.

National Geographic’s Books. 2004. Print.

Women’s suffrage was a primary purpose of the Progressive Era into the Roaring 20s,

and encompassed much the way of life and the perspective by politicians at the time. Most in

Congress sought to either ignore the problem or to prevent women from being given the right to

vote; seeing that it wasn’t their place. Others- seen as radicals and key proponents of the

Progressive Era- saw that now was the time to cast aside the preconceptions of the centuries

before and to embrace a more equal and empowering movement. The work by individuals from

Susan B. Anthony to Elizabeth Stanton also prompted this change through peaceful protest. Ann

Bausum, a key author for National Geographic on an assortment of topics including past and

present women’s suffrage, outlines the primary components which prompted change and incited

the evolution of women’s suffrage to a possible concept.

Orkent, Daniel. ​Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition​. Simon and Schuster, 2010. Print.

92
 From its start, America has been awash in drink. The sailing vessel that brought John

Winthrop to the shores of the New World in 1630 carried more beer than water. By the 1820s,

liquor flowed so plentifully it was cheaper than tea. That Americans would ​ever ​agree to

relinquish their booze was as improbable as it was astonishing. Yet we did, and ​Last Call ​is

Daniel Okrent’s dazzling explanation of why we did it, what life under Prohibition was like, and

how such an unprecedented degree of government interference in the private lives of Americans

changed the country forever. This source is used primarily to describe the governmental

influence and reasoning behind the temperance movement and what affected it.

Goldberg, David J. ​Discontented America: The United States in the 1920s​. Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1999. Print.

Too often, notes historian David Goldberg, the mythic allure of the "Roaring Twenties"

has deafened our ears to the real voices of those who lived through the decade. In ​Discontented

America​, he integrates social and political history to provide a new take on the 1920s—an

account deeply rooted in the perspectives of that time. Goldberg argues that this contentious and

fascinating decade should be viewed now as it was viewed then, as a distinctive postwar period,

during which many of the conflicts generated by World War I continued to reverberate

throughout American society.

Patterson, James T. ​Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal.​ University Press of

Kentucky. 1967. Print.

93
 As Lyndon Johnson began to consolidate another Democratic majority into Congress and

winning a landslide victory, the seeds of what we commonly refer to as ‘modern’ political

polarization began to sprout. In this book, James Patterson reviews the importance of the

informally named ‘Conservative Coalition’ present during the time between FDR and Lyndon

Johnson. Comprised of both Republican and Southern Democrats, the conservative coalition

would grow to incorporate those opposed to Roosevelt’s New Deal policies- even in their own

success- and who vied for Republican dominance in the political realm. Eventually, with the

success of the Southern Strategy undertaken by Nixon, the southern Democrat element of the

coalition would fade off to incorporate only Republicans from across the country; defeating its

purpose as unique and being absorbed by various coalitions within Congress.

Moreland, Will, Jones, Bruce D.​ The Marshall Plan and the Shaping of American Strategy.

Brookings Institution Press. 2017. Print.

With the end of the Second World War, much of Europe had been decimated by the

ongoing fighting between Nazi Germany and the Allied Powers. In eastern Europe, countries

which were occupied by liberating Red Army soldiers- Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Baltic

States, among others- were swallowed up to become satellite states of the Soviet Union. This

created the “Iron Curtain”; a figurative term describing barrier between communist and capitalist

states in Europe. In an attempt to save other countries from falling to communism and to

preserve long-term allies and trading partners, the Marshall Plan was created to show the value

of capitalism. In this book by Bruce Jones- Vice President of Brookings Publishing and an

accomplished historian- and Will Moreland- with a B.A. from Yale University and an

94
experienced expert in geopolitics- Marshall proposes the creation of an economic agreement

between all states hurt by the war effort to revitalize them, saving both the economies of theirs in

the short-term, and our own in the long-term. Mee also shows how it would later go on to push

the improvement of Allied or Western powers after the Second World War.

Goldwater, Barry. ​1964 Speech At the 28th Republican National Convention.​ Arizona Historical

Foundation. 1964. Retrieved Oct 18, 2017.

Though Kennedy had been a beloved President and Johnson did nothing in his short

tenure after his assassination to hurt the chances of the Democratic party’s reelection to the

presidency or to Congress, Barry Goldwater was still an influential figure in the 1964 race.

Though the Democrats were loved, oftentimes, they were rebuked for being ‘too soft’ on

Communism and the USSR. Because of this, many Republicans ran on the idea that even more

extreme measures should be taken to contain Communism stretch and its presence in the United

States. In his 1964 nomination acceptance speech, Goldwater stated “The Republican cause

demands that we brand communism as a principal disturber of peace in the world today.”

Although he would go on to lose the election by a landslide victory, Goldwater’s failure would

later lead to long-term success in its wake, with the internal realignment of the party and the

elections of Nixon and Reagan to support this.

Wallace, George. ​Gubernatorial Election Speech.​ University of Knoxville, Tennessee. 1963.

Retrieved Oct 18, 2017.

95
 George Wallace stands as a hallmark proponent of segregation during the Civil Rights

Movement, and encouraged schools not to accept the desegregation acts passed by the Supreme

Court in ​Brown v. Board of Education,​ or to allow protests to pass through. As the governor of

Alabama, Wallace had a huge amount of power in politics and regional areas, allowing him to

push for the reestablishment of Jim Crow-era laws. Originally a moderate on the matter of racial

rights like many of his precedents, in his inaugural address of 1963, just following his election to

the governor’s chair, George Wallace spoke out against Civil Rights formally. This speech is

best remembered for the Neo-Dixiecrat and racist rallying cry- “Segregation now, segregation

tomorrow, segregation forever!”.

Herman, Edward S; Chomsky, Noam. ​Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the

Mass Media.​ Pantheon Printing. 1988. Print.

In wars prior, the American public was generally accepting of America’s presence in the

war effort, sans some specific cases. Though World War I saw rebuke by anarchists and

communists, and World War II saw deserters not willing to risk their lives, for the most part, the

American public accepted America’s involvement and the outcome. In the Korean War, the

result was moreorless the same, though the shortness of the war as well as the ‘uncertain’ loss or

victory left it confusing for many and disregarded by for most sans those who fought in it.

Instead, though, the Vietnam War was the first war in American history to receive a majority of

the populace against its involvement with the United States. This is primarily, to Chomsky and

Herman’s claims, a result of media prevalence in the war scenes of Vietnam. No other war in

American history received the public attention that the Vietnam War did; and its war crime

96
coverage by NBC, the release of the Pentagon Papers, and My Lai Massacre were felt in

America’s gradual distrust of the government and the military during the period.

Purdum, Todd S. ​An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle

for the Civil Rights Act of 1964​. Henry Holt & Co., 2014. Print.

In a powerful narrative layered with revealing detail, Todd S. Purdum tells the story of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, recreating the legislative maneuvering and the larger-than-life

characters who made its passage possible. From the Kennedy brothers to Lyndon Johnson, from

Martin Luther King Jr. to Hubert Humphrey and Everett Dirksen, Purdum shows how these

all-too-human figures managed, in just over a year, to create a bill that prompted the longest

filibuster in the history of the U.S. Senate yet was ultimately adopted with overwhelming

bipartisan support. He evokes the high purpose and low dealings that marked the creation of this

monumental law, drawing on extensive archival research and dozens of new interviews that

bring to life this signal achievement in American history.

Often hailed as the most important law of the past century, the Civil Rights Act stands as a

lesson for our own troubled times about what is possible when patience, bipartisanship, and

decency rule the day.

Paterson, Thomas G. ​Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan​. Oxford University

Press, 1989. Print.

This provocative volume, written by the distinguished diplomatic historian Thomas G.

Paterson, explores why and how Americans have perceived and exaggerated the Communist

97
threat in the last half century. Basing his spirited analysis on research in private papers,

government archives, oral histories, contemporary writings, and scholarly works, Paterson

explains the origins and evolution of United States global intervention. Deftly exploring the ideas

and programs of Truman, Kennan, Eisenhower, Dulles, Kennedy, Nixon, Kissinger, and Reagan,

as well as the views of dissenters from the prevailing Cold War mentality, Paterson reveals the

tenacity of American thinking about threats from abroad.

Kleindienst, Richard G. ​Effect of a Repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.​ Department of

Justice. 1970. Retrieved Oct 18, 2017.

With the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, many supporters of his campaign promised

that, soon, the involvement of the United States in Vietnam would be over. However, one matter

during Johnson’s presidency which had not been accounted for was the passing of the Gulf of

Tonkin Resolution early into his administration. Johnson had never prepared for the war to last

longer than a year; referring to the region as a ‘pisant country’, and expecting our military to be

finished swiftly. Surely, if we’d won against Nazi Germany in four years, southeast asian rebels

would take no time at all to deal with. To accomplish a swift action, Johnson pushed for the

allowance of wartime powers so that the executive branch would have the immediate ability to

make orders to the military. When Nixon still hadn’t stopped the war 2 years into his

administration, these powers- which had already been deemed unconstitutional by many

opponents- were stripped from him as they were no longer considered necessary or legal.

98
Shambaugh, David. ​Tangled Titans: The United States and China.​ Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers. 2012. Print.

The Cold War brought about the debate of Soviet versus America superiority in the

world; but in that debate, it is often ignored the significance of Sino-American relations. Having

experienced a revolution of its own to oppose the perceived oppressive government of Chiang

Kai-Shek, the People’s Republic of China stood with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

against the threat of capitalism to the free people of the world. China was a heavy opponent in

both the Korean War and- especially- the Vietnam War, lending aid to the communist

revolutionaries and openly opposing American involvement. However, under the Nixon

administration, this changed; and instead, America has since attempted to bolster her relations

with the PRC. In ​Tangled Titans,​ David Shambaugh of George Washington University and an

accomplished Sinologist points out the development of China and the US’ foreign relations and

why it has changed politically from the Cold War to present day.

Woodward, Bob, Bernstein, Carl. ​The Final Days.​ Simon and Schuster. 2005. Print.

Having been exposed during the Watergate Scandal, Richard Nixon’s second term

comprised primarily of court cases and attempts by the President to abandon his past to seek

reconciliation with the press and people. However, inevitably, these events and hearings would

lead to calls for impeachment, Richard Nixon’s resignation, and the follow-up of Gerald Ford’s

term in office. It would result in distrust of the Republican Party for years following, and prompt

Jimmy Carter’s- a Washington outsider- election. Bernstein and Woodward- both the famous

reporters of the Watergate Scandal- portray the taut, post-Watergate White House as Nixon, his

99
family, his staff, and many members of Congress strained desperately to prevent his inevitable

resignation.

Korten, David C.​ ​When Corporations Rule the World.​ Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 2015. Print.

With the Reagan administration, the profitability for those in the business sector began to

boom. Compared to earlier eras, the stock market became a primary indicator of success; and

investing or becoming a broker were popularized. Since then, however, corporations have taken

an ever greater grasp on the American government and mindset than before- going so far as to, as

Korten claims, directly influence political decisions and elections. In ​When Corporations Rule

the World,​ David Korten of Harvard Business College and an advocate against globalism,

outlines the threat that modern corporations hold to political unity. This piece is used to explain

the relation between corporations and the 1980s era of politics and philosophy.

Niskanen, William A. ​Reaganomics: An Insider’s Account of the Policies and the People​.

Oxford University Press. 1988. Print.

With the recession still keeping America in a state of decline, Ronald Reagan was elected

to the Presidency and promised to use his tactics to revitalize the economy. By conservatively

cutting programs- such as SNAP- and by pumping money into corporations, the 1980s have been

considered a greatly prosperous economic decade for the American people and for businessmen.

Because of his supposed staunch conviction to the Republican missions, Reagan was able to pool

together a multitude of factions within the divided Republican party which had remain split since

Goldwater’s nomination in 1964. Winning in 1980, Reagan would go on to win in a historic

100
landslide victory in the Election of 1984 against Walter Mondale. As Niskanen points out in this

book, the policies of Reaganomics were the most revolutionary ideas to be taken out in the

federal government since the New Deal.

Reagan, Ronald. ​The President’s News Conference.​ Online by Gerhard Peters and John T.

Woolley, The American Presidency Project. 1986. Retrieved Oct 18, 2017.

Considered a highly charismatic and influential leader, Ronald Reagan often did press

conferences in an extremely laid back or relaxed manner; although, got out the point clearly and

concisely. Throughout his presidency- being a conservative and Republican- Reagan had adhered

closely to the thoughts of a small federal government. In this press conference, being in the

middle of his second term, Reagan went over the concerns of the failing agricultural sector of the

economy which- in his claims- had been hurt by the federal government’s strong imposition of

embargoes or taxes on grain imports. However, his words reached a broader context when he

stated- “I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English

language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.”

Meacham, Jon. ​Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush.

Random House. 2015. Print.

Following Ronald Reagan’s successful term, George H. W. Bush had much to live up to.

As the vice president, Bush won in a near-landslide in the election against Michael Dukakis in

1988. Unfortunately, by breaking a campaign promise not to increase taxes; responding weakly

to the Tiananmen Massacre; and, holding a recession under his belt, George H. W. Bush failed in

101
comparison to the charismatic Ronald Reagan. His successes in foreign policy were considered

minor after the fall of the Soviet Union. By the 1992 election, the American public was ready to

give another Democratic nominee a shot, and the charismatic Arkansas governor Bill Clinton

was elected in a landslide against George H. W. Bush. In ​Destiny and Power,​ Jon Meacham-

Pulitzer-Prize winning author and former editor of Newsweek- points out the successes and

failures of George H. W. Bush before, during, and after his Presidency.

Bacevich, Andrew J.​ America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.​ Random

House Publishing. 2017. Print.

The Middle East has become a resounding area of geopolitical importance to the United

States since the 1990s. With Saddam Hussein and the failures of the US to curb Islamic

extremism, the importance of any Middle Eastern government, region, or resource has taken a

backseat to none. As Bacevich puts it: “From the end of World War II until 1980, virtually no

American soldiers were killed in action while serving in the Greater Middle East. Since 1990,

virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere else.” In ​America’s War for

the Greater Middle East,​ Andrew Bacevich, an accomplished historian of international relation

studies, diplomatic, and military history, examines why this shift has occurred, and why America

has taken such a perspective on the Middle East since then.

From, Al, Clinton, Bill, McKeon, Alice.​ ​The New Democrats and the Return to Power.​ St.

Martin’s Press. 2013. Print.

102
 Defining the 1990s and the majority of the Clinton administration, Neo-Democrats or the

‘Third Way’ was born. Following the win of the Moral Majority and the loss of focus after

Jimmy Carter’s election and failure, the Democratic Party was in disrepair. Similarly to the

GOP’s condition following the presidential election of 1964, the Democratic Party had failed to

get traction in the last decade. In an effort to appeal to the voting blocs of the time, the

Democratic Leadership Conference (or DLC)- led by Al From- repositioned the Democratic

Party in advocating for the ‘Third Way’: A loose realignment which agreed with economic

centrism and social liberalism. It was this idea of bipartisan cooperation between ideologies that

shaped politics of the area. In this book, Al From- the very founder of the New Democratic

faction of the Democratic Party- recounts his actions to administrate the DLC.

Wilson, Julie.​ Neoliberalism (Key Ideas in Media & Cultural Studies).​ Routledge. 2017. Print.

Conservatives in the 1970s and 80s saw that it had been broken well since before the

1968 election. Because of this, Ronald Reagan pushed for a coalition of conservatives and

republicans to come together during the late 1970s into the 1980 election for his election,

winning by a small margin and succeeding. Democrats, similarly, saw a drudge in party unity

following the loss of Kennedy, as well as LBJ and Carter’s failures. In order to fix this, the idea

of the New Left- commonly referred to as Neoliberalism- was founded. Much like the Moral

Majority of the 1980s on a global scale, the Neoliberal rise too founded itself on a global scale,

from the United States to Britain to Australia. Julie Wilson, an Associate Professor at Allegheny

College, Pennsylvania, goes over the causes and the effects of the sprout of neoliberal ideas and

what it means in the age of neoliberalism and neoconservatism.

103
Smerconish, Michael A. ​Talk: A Novel.​ Cider Mill Press. 2014. Print.

Much like how television’s rise gave birth to new perspectives during the Civil Rights

Movement and- specifically- the Vietnam War, talk radio became a voice of the conservative

movement and Moral Majority during the 1980s and 1990s through users like Newton Gingrich.

It led to the GOP gaining a hefty majority in Congress for the 1994 elections and for the

promulgation of conservative ideologies while a Democrat was in the presidency. Since then,

talk radio has been used by ​both​ major parties to preach their beliefs, with Ben Shapiro for

conservatism and Cenk Uygur for liberalism. In this book by Michael Smerconish- a talk show

radio host, political commentator, and ​New York Times​ best selling author- ​Talk​ seeks to expose

the ‘underlying behavior’ of conservative talk-show radio, and how it has worked to influence

politics in the last 2 decades.

Sorkin, Andrew Ross.​ Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington

Fought to Save the Financial System--and Themselves​. Penguin Books. 2010. Print.

The late 2000s was dominated, domestically, by the global recession- a low point for

America and times which were worse than those seen during the 1970s or even the Great

Depression of the 1930s. Caused by a popped housing bubble and failed credit systems, the 2008

recession and the effects which we still feel today were a matter forced by banks and which were

then solved by the federal government. In this piece by Andrew Sorkin, a columnist and leading

voice against Wall Street bankers and political corruption, the bailouts given by the US federal

government to banks, real estate owners, and even airlines were what he considers to simply be

104
the government giving back to its key members. The novel details the events leading up to the

2008 recession, its immediate effects, and how we still feel it today.

Madigan, Charles M.​ Destiny Calling: How the People Elected Barack Obama.​ Ivan R. Dee

Publishing. 2009. Print.

As the first African-American president elected to office in the history of the United

States, Barack Obama’s election was seen as surprising at least and revolutionary at most.

Opponents and supporters alike were shocked, not for the political matter, but for the cultural

one. It was a hallmark for race relations and racial politics, and signaled, seemingly, that times

were changing; unfortunately, since then, race relations have only gotten worse. Police shootings

are called out more than ever, and Black Lives Matter protests have actively taken to the streets.

Even still, as journalist Charles Madigan of Roosevelt University explains, the election was a

time to be alive, and would shape how politics behaved in the late 2000s into the early 2010s.

Stone, Roger.​ The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a

Revolution.​ Skyhorse Publishing. 2017. Print.

The 2016 Presidential and Congressional elections were both revolutionary in their own

right, and begged the question- in either case for either nominee- of ​‘why?’​. Hillary Clinton of

the Democratic Party and Donald Trump of the GOP are and were seen as disliked by their

cohorts in the political scene; with Trump winning by only a small margin of electoral votes and

even losing the popular vote. In ​The Making of the President,​ Roger Stone- an experienced

politician and talk-show radio host of Stone Cold Truth- argues the reason for Donald Trump’s

105
success in the 2016 election despite his lack of a political or military background, and how his

success will shape the future of American politics.

Gairdner, William D. ​The Great Divide: Why Liberals & Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree​.

Encounter Books. 2015. Print

Divide in America is certainly a constant battle; it’s the whole reason for this essay, of

course. Historically, it is claimed, America was more bipartisan; or, as Gerzon claims, America

was not as divided. Because there was a greater understanding for universal betterment of the

country; because there was a desire to complement the efforts of our past Founding Fathers;

American politics were free of the mudslinging so popular in today’s world. As William

Gairdner- an alumnus of Appleby College with a PhD in history- points out, America’s troubles

have bubbled over in the modern day. This source describes the ​modern​ status of American

divide, opposed to the ​historical​ evolution of it.

GovTrack. ​Historical Statistics About Legislation​. United States Congress. 2016. Web. Retrieved

18 Oct, 2017.

GovTrack is a nonprofit website with information provided directly from the United

States Congress, giving numerical statistics on party parity, legislative opinion, and information

on bills which have successfully passed through either the House or Senate. This piece observes

a comparison between the 93rd to 115th Congress as to the number of bills that have passed

through, percentage of bills that have died on the floor, and which have been approved by the

House, Senate, President, or all three in their lifetimes.

106
Kling, Arnold. ​The Three Languages of Politics: Talking Across the Political Divide​. Cato

Institute. 2013. Print.

Division has also appeared as a result of the existence of parties entirely. According to

Arnold Kling, the argument isn’t so much that historical divide hasn’t appeared; rather, that

parties have encouraged both gradual divide and gradual fixing in times of crisis. Arnold

identifies three ‘players’ of party politics- Progressives, Conservatives, and Libertarians. Instead

of arguing that there has been a gradual increase in party disparity, Kling presents the idea that,

instead, politics are inherently flawed, and that there will always be ​some​ form of political

discourse. An accomplished economist and writer and founder of EconLog, Arnold Kling’s

supported claims present a structure of identifying key figures in why America is as divided as it

is today. This source, unlike most, portrays the argument as not one of effectual change, but as

one of an inherent reason of why politics have been, are, and always will be divided.

Hetherington, Marc J, Rudolph, Thomas J. ​Why Washington Won’t Work: Polarization, Political

Trust, and the Governing Crisis​. University of Chicago Press. 2015. Print.

On the farthest scale, America can be outright claimed to have the highest rate of political

polarization and division in its entire history. More than it simply being a phenomenon, though,

this divide keeps any actual work from being done. In ​Why Washington Won’t Work​, Marc

Hetherington- a professor of political sciences at Vanderbilt University- and Thomas Rudolph-

professor of political science at the University of Illinois- explains the exact causes of political

polarization and the source of the dilemma. Themes including personal relations or gains,

107
lobbyists, and a decline in purported morality and traditionalism all serve as key factors to

Hetherington’s point that we are in the most divided time in American history. This source is,

like Gairdner’s, used as a counterclaim piece of evidence to explain the opposing argument.

108