Talk:Second Party System

Prosify
I recommend prosifying the patterns section. I'll get around to this in the future if I have time ^_^ &mdash; Deckill e r 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is taken directly from a list and should be numbered, not prosified. The latter loses its impact. Rjensen 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff
Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But hos prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.33.169 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Party Systems were introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History 1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511  Fulltext in Project Muse.  Rjensen 19:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dr. Richard Jensen has written several of the relatively small nuimber of papers on this subject. He is correct that it is mentioned in many political science textbooks; so are, other, more common periodizations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * PMAnderson hasn't written any scholarly articles on the Second Party System or anything else, but he combs Wiki to try to challenge or erase fully documented scholarship from political science. Perhaps his goal seems to be to instruct people what's wrong with the scholars and textbooks that do cover the topic. That of course is illegal original research. If he has new ideas Wiki rules day he should publish them in the journals, then cite them. People interested in this topic should read "The Whig Challenge and the Second Party System" in the brand new 2008 edition of the major history textbook Mary Beth Norton et al. A People and a Nation, 8th ed. For political science to cite a standard college textbook: "Scholars generally agree that realignment theory identifies five distinct party systems with the following approximate dates and major parties: 1. 1796-1816, First Party System: Jeffersonian Republicans and Federalists; 2. 1840-1856, Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs; 3. 1860-1896, Third Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 4. 1896-1932, Fourth Party System: Republicans and Democrats; 5. 1932-, Fifth Party System: Democrats and Republicans." Robert C. Benedict, Matthew J. Burbank and Ronald J. Hrebenar, Political Parties, Interest Groups and Political Campaigns. Westview Press. 1999. Page 11."  By contrast Nowhere does PMAdnerson find any scholar who DENIES the existence of the second party system.  Rjensen 14:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I congratulate Rjensen on his red herring. I never said that the five systems did not exist, or were denied; if I thought so, I would be nominating this article for deletion. They are one of many constructs in American political science; but we should recognize, and do not, that they are a construct used by one, minority, school. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sentences need a rewrite to not read like a story book
"The Democrats said that would fatten the rich; the tariff should be low--for "revenue only" (thus not to foster manufacturing). Whigs argued that banks and paper money were needed; no honest man wants them, countered the Democrats. Public works programs to build roads, canals and railroads would give the country the infrastructure it needed for rapid economic development, said the Whigs. We don't want that kind of complex change, said the Democrats. We want more of the same--especially more farms for ordinary folks (and planters) to raise the families in the good old traditional style. More land is needed for that, Democrats said, so they pushed for expansion south and west." It should be written in a formal manner rather than unattributed pseudo-quotes or whatever the heck is going on here. Settler 05:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is a close paraphrase of how people talked. that's called history. Rjensen 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The tone is inconsistent with the rest of the article and other Wikipedia articles. It should be written in a formal, business-like, and bland manner. If you want to write a section that isn't original research into how people talked in this time period, that's fine, so long as it's properly labeled and indicated to the readers. Settler 07:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is also written as Whig party polemic.
 * Jackson considered himself a reformer. More exactly he was committed to the old ideals of Republicanism, and bitterly opposed anything that smacked of special favors for special interests. While Jackson never engaged in a duel as president, he had shot political opponents before and was just as determined to destroy his enemies on the battlefields of politics. The Second Party System came about primarily because of Jackson's determination to destroy the Second Bank of the United States. Headquartered in Philadelphia, with offices in major cities around the country, the federally chartered Bank operated somewhat like a central bank (like the Federal Reserve System a century later). Local bankers and politicians annoyed by the controls exerted by Nicholas Biddle grumbled loudly. Jackson did not like any banks (paper money was anathema to Jackson; he believed only gold and silver ["specie"] should circulate.) After Herculean battles with Henry Clay, the chief protagonist, Jackson finally broke Biddle's bank.
 * Jackson continued to attack the banking system. His Specie Circular of July 1836 rejected paper money issued by banks (it could no longer be used to buy federal land), insisting on gold and silver coins. Most businessmen and bankers (but not all) went over to the Whig party, and the commercial and industrial cities became Whig strongholds. Jackson meanwhile became even more popular with the subsistence farmers and day laborers who distrusted bankers and finance.
 * Jackson systematically used the federal patronage system, what was called the Spoils System. Jackson not only rewarded past supporters; he promised future jobs if local and state politicians joined his team. As Syrett explains: When Jackson became President, he implemented the theory of rotation in office, declaring it "a leading principle in the republican creed."[1] He believed that rotation in office would prevent the development of a corrupt civil service. On the other hand, Jackson's supporters wanted to use the civil service to reward party loyalists to make the party stronger. In practice, this meant replacing civil servants with friends or party loyalists into those offices. The spoils system did not originate with Jackson. It originated under Thomas Jefferson when he removed Federalist office-holders after becoming president.[2] Also, Jackson did not out the entire civil service. At the end of his term, Jackson had only dismissed less than twenty percent of the original civil service.[3] While Jackson did not start the spoils system, he did encourage its growth and it became a central feature of the Second Party System, as well as the Third Party System, until it ended in the 1890s. As one historian explains
 * I do not dispute (most) of the assertions here; but come on now: "Considered himself", "saw it as a duel"? This language is as neutral as a thumb on the scales. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to some of the passages already mentioned above and other phrases (e.g. "the tyranny of King George III", "Herculean battles" and "grumbled loudly"), I believe some of this article needs to be cleaned up. Much of it appears informal, colloquial and un-encyclopedic. Benson85 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * words like "tyranny", "herculean" and "grumbled" are formal English --not "colloquial" --and capture the tone and tenor of the era. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

McCormick
The first sentence of the second paragraph says that McCormick defined the "Party System." There are two McCormicks listed in the bibliography. Which particular McCormick did the defining? And what is his authority? Is he a historian, a political scientist, a FOX news anchor, an athlete, a gandy dancer, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.24.130 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * McCormicks: it's the father Richard P. who is the key historian here. (the son is Richard L.) The father was history professor and dean at Rutgers for decades; the son is now professor and president of Rutgers. Neither has much of a reputation as gandy dancer. Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Masons
Why are the Anti-Masons listed as both a major and a minor party at the very beginning of the article??? Shouldn't they fall under only one or the other??? Calder 16:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calder (talk • contribs)

Contradictions
The section "Patterns" is rather contradictory.

Consider, for example, the 6th bullet (the two parties were about equal in each region) and the 10th bullet (the Anti-Masonic party flourished in the states with a weak second party.) Um, if you have two equal parties, how can you possible have a weak second party? I mean, you can have both parties be weak, but not one or the other.

Can we get some clarification, please?

-- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * the parties were about equal in all REGIONS but not necessarily equal in all STATES Rjensen (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing data
Gianapp is mentioned in the section Democratization and reported in reference n. 24, but this has been done without some fundamental data: who is Gianapp? Which is the document mentioned and reported? Could someone give us more data about that? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedro1972 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)