Third Party System

The Third Party System is a term generally used by historians and political scientists to cover a period in American political history from about 1854 to the mid 1890s (see Second Party System, Fourth Party System), with major developments revolving around the issues of nationalism, modernization, and race. It was dominated by the new Republican party, which claimed success in saving the Union, abolishing slavery, enfranchising the freedmen, and adopting as well many of the Whiggish modernization programs such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. While most elections from 1874 through 1892 were close, the main opposition party, the Democrats won only the 1856, 1884 and 1892 presidential elections, though from 1874 to 1892 it usually controlled the House of Representatives. The northern and western states were largely Republican, save for closely balanced New York and Indiana. After 1874 the Democrats took control of the "Solid South."

Voter behavior

As with the preceding Second Party System era, the Third was characterized by intense voter interest, routine high turnout, unflinching party loyalty, dependence on nominating conventions, hierarchical party organizations, and the systematic use of government jobs as patronage for party workers. Cities of 50,000 or more developed ward and citywide "bosses," who could depend on the votes of clients, especially recent immigrants. Newspapers continued to be the primary communication system, with the great majority closely linked to one party or the other.

Broad coalitions form each party

Both parties comprised broad-based voting coalitions. Throughout the North, businessmen, shop owners, skilled craftsmen, clerks and professionals favored the Republicans as did more modern, commercially-oriented farmers. In the South, the Republicans won strong support from the Freedmen (newly enfranchised African Americans), but the party was usually controlled by local whites ("scalawags") and opportunistic Yankees ("carpetbaggers.") The race issue pulled the great majority of white southerners into the Democratic party as Redeemers. The Democratic party comprised conservative pro-business Bourbon Democrats, who usually controlled the national convention from 1868 until their great defeat by William Jennings Bryan in 1896. The Democratic coalition comprised traditional Democrats in the North (many of them former Copperheads). They were joined by the Redeemers in the South and by Catholic immigrants, especially Irish American and German Americans. In addition the party attracted unskilled laborers, and hard-scrabble old-stock farmers in remote areas of New England and along the Ohio River valley.

Religion: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats

Religious lines were sharply drawn 1979. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Realignment in 1850s

The collapse of the Whigs after 1852 left political chaos. Various prohibitionist and nativist movements emerged, especially the American party, based originally on the secret Know Nothing lodges. It was a moralistic party that appealed to the middle class fear of corruption, which it identified with Catholics, especially the recent Irish immigrants who seemed to bring crime, corruption, poverty and bossism as soon as they arrived. The Republican Party was more driven, in terms of ideology and talent; it surpassed the hapless American party in 1856. By 1858 the Republicans controlled majorities in every Northern state, and hence controlled the electoral votes for president in 1860.

Ideology

The ideological force driving the new party was modernization, and opposition to the anti-modern threat of slavery. By 1856 the Republicans were crusading for "Free Soil, Free Labor, Fremont and Victory." The main argument was that a "Slave Power" had seized control of the federal government and would try to make slavery legal in the territories, and perhaps even in the northern states. That would give obnoxiously rich slave owners the chance to go anywhere and buy up the best land, thus undercutting the wages of free labor and destroying the foundations of civil society. The Democratic response was to countercrusade in 1856, warning that the election of Republican candidate John C. Frémont would produce civil war. The outstanding leader of the Democrats was Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas - he believed that the democratic process in each state or territory should settle the slavery question. When President James Buchanan tried to rig politics in Kansas Territory to approve slavery, Douglas broke with him, presaging the split that ruined the party in 1860. That year Northern Democrats nominated Douglas as the candidate of democracy, while the southern wing put up John Breckenridge as the upholder of the rights of property and of states rights, which in this context meant slavery. In the South, ex-Whigs organized an ad-hoc "Constitutional Union" party, pledging to keep the nation united on the basis of the Constitution, regardless of democracy, states rights, property or liberty. The Republicans played it safe in 1860, passing over better-known radicals in favor of a moderate border state politician known to be an articulate advocate of liberty. Abraham Lincoln made no speeches, letting the party apparatus march the armies to the polls. Even if all three of Lincoln's opponents had formed a common ticket--quite impossible in view of their ideological differences--his 40 percent of the vote was enough to carry the North and thus win the Electoral College.

Civil War

It was the measure of genius of President Lincoln not only that he won his war but that he did so by drawing upon and synthesizing the strengths of anti-slavery, free soil, democracy, and nationalism. The Confederacy abandoned all party activity, and thereby forfeited the advantages of a nationwide organization committed to support of the administration. In the Union the Republican party unanimously supported the war effort, finding officers, enlisted men, enlistment bonuses, aid to wives and widows, war supplies, bond purchases, and the enthusiasm that was critical to victory. The Democrats at first supported a war for Union, and in 1861 many Democratic politicians became colonels and generals. Announced by Lincoln in September 1862, emancipation was designed primarily to destroy the economic base of the Slave Power. It not only energized the Confederates to fight to the bitter end, it also alienated most northern Democrats. They were reluctant to support a war that used unconstitutional means and seemed to be aimed for the benefit of what they considered a morally inferior race. Despite considerable gains in 1862, the Democrats were unable to stop the war, and in 1864 the Republicans made “Copperhead” treason a successful campaign issue. Increasingly the Union Army became the fighting arm of the Republican party; probably a majority of Democrats who enlisted marched home Republican, including such key leaders as John Logan and Ben Butler.

Postwar

Civil war and Reconstruction issues polarized the parties until the Compromise of 1877 finally ended the political warfare. War issues resonated for a quarter century, as Republicans waved the "bloody shirt" (of dead union soldiers), and Democrats warned against Black supremacy in the South and plutocracy in the North. The modernizing Republicans who had founded the party in 1854 looked askance at the undisguised corruption of Ulysses S. Grant and his war veterans, bolstered by the solid vote of freedmen. The dissenters formed a "Liberal Republican" party in 1872, only to have it smashed by Grant's reelection. By the mid 1870s it was clear that Confederate nationalism was dead; all but the most ardent Republican “Stalwarts” agreed that the southern Republican coalition of African American Freedmen, scalawags and carpetbaggers was helpless and hopeless. In 1874 the Democrats won big majorities in Congress, with economic depression a major issue. People asked how much longer could the Republicans use the Army to impose control in the South.

Rutherford Hayes became President after a highly controversial electoral count, demonstrating that the corruption of Southern politics threatened the legitimacy of the presidency itself. After Hayes removed the last federal troops in 1877, the Republican party in the South sank into oblivion, kept alive only by the crumbs of federal patronage.

Climax and Collapse, 1890-1896

New issues emerged in the late 1880s, as Grover Cleveland made the low tariff "for revenue only" a rallying cry for Democrats in the 1888 election, and the Republican Congress in 1890 legislated high tariffs and high spending. At the state level moralistic pietists pushed hard for prohibition, and in some states for the elimination of foreign-language schools serving German immigrants. The Bennett Law in Wisconsin produced a bruising ethnocultural battle in Wisconsin in 1890, which the Democrats won. The millions of postwar immigrants divided politically along ethnic and religious lines, with enough Germans moving into the Democratic party to give the Democrats a national majority in 1892. Party loyalties were starting to weaken, as evidenced by the movement back and forth of the German vote and the sudden rise of the Populists. Army campaigns of necessity had to be supplemented by “campaigns of education,” which focused more on the swing voters.

Cleveland's second term was ruined by a major depression, the Panic of 1893, which also undercut the appeal of the loosely-organized Populist coalitions in the south and west. A stunning Republican triumph in 1894 nearly wiped out the Democratic party north of the Mason-Dixon line. In 1896 William Jennings Bryan and the radical silverites seized control of the Democratic party, denounced their own president, and called for a return to Jeffersonian agrarianism. Bryan, in his Cross of Gold speech, talked about workers and farmers crucified by big business, evil bankers and the gold standard. With Bryan giving from 5 to 35 speeches a day throughout the Midwest, straw polls showed his crusade forging a lead in the critical Midwest. Then William McKinley and Mark Hanna seized control of the situation; their countercrusade was a campaign of education making lavish use of new advertising techniques. McKinley warned that Bryan’s Bimetallism would wreck the economy and achieve equality by making everyone poor. McKinley promised prosperity through strong economic growth based on sound money and business confidence, and an abundance of high- paying industrial jobs. Farmers would benefit by selling to a rich home market. Every racial, ethnic and religious group would prosper, and the government would never be used by one group to attack another. In particular McKinley reassured the German Americans, alarmed on the one hand by Bryan's inflation and on the other by prohibition. McKinley’s landslide victory combined city and farm, Northeast and Midwest, businessmen and factory workers. He carried nearly every city of 50,000 population, while Bryan swept the rural South and Mountain states. McKinley’s victory, ratified by a landslide reelection in 1900, thus introduced one of the central theme of 20th century American values, pluralism.

Rules changes

The 1896 election changed the rules of the game. By campaigning tirelessly with over 500 speeches in 100 days, Bryan seized control of the headlines. It no longer mattered as much what the editorial page said—most newspapers opposed him—as long as his speeches made the front page. Financing likewise changed radically. Under the Second and Third Party Systems, parties financed their campaigns through patronage; now civil service reform was undercutting that revenue, and entirely new, outside sources of funding became critical. Hanna systematically told nervous businessmen and financiers that he had a business plan to win the election, and then billed them for their share of the cost. Hanna spent $3.5 million in three months for speakers, pamphlets posters and rallies that all warned of doom and anarchy if Bryan should win, and offered prosperity and pluralism under McKinley. Party loyalty itself weakened as voters were switching between parties much more often. It became respectable to declare oneself an “independent.”

Fourth Party System, 1896-1932

The overwhelming Republican victory, repeated in 1900, restored business confidence, inaugurated a long epoch of prosperity, and swept away the issues and personalities of the Third Party System. The period 1896-1932 can be called the “Fourth Party System.” Most voting blocs continued unchanged, but others realigned themselves, giving a strong Republican dominance in the industrial Northeast. Thus the way was clear for the Progressive movement to impose a new way of thinking and a new agenda for politics.

Alarmed at the new rules of the game for campaign funding, the Progressives launched investigations and exposures (by the "muckraker" journalists) into corrupt links between party bosses and business. New laws and constitutional amendments weakened the party bosses by installing primaries and directly electing senators. Theodore Roosevelt shared the growing concern with business influence on government. When William Howard Taft appeared to be too cozy with pro-business conservatives in terms of tariff and conservation issues, Roosevelt broke with his old friend and his old party. After losing the 1912 Republican nomination to Taft, he founded a new "Bull Moose" Progressive party and ran as a third candidate. Although he outpolled Taft (who won only two states) in both the popular vote and the electoral college, the Republican split elected Woodrow Wilson and made pro-business conservatives the dominant force in the GOP.

References

Foner; Eric Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (1995). .
Gienap, William E. The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856. 1987.
Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978).
Jensen, Richard. The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896 (1971)
Josephson, Matthew. The Politicos: 1865-1896 1938.
Keller, Morton. Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America1977.
Kleppner; Paul. The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures (1979)
Morgan, H. Wayne. From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877-1896 (1969)
Potter, David. The Impending Crisis 1848–1861. (1976)
Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Roosevelt-Taft Administration (1920), 8 vol.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ed. History of American Presidential Elections. 4 vols. 1971.
Silbey; Joel. The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (1991).

Navigation

Political history of the United States

Gourt Home::Gourt :: Third Party System