The caucus nominating system, or King Caucus, was beginning to show cracks, demonstrated by the election of 1824 and disagreements about its constitutionality. It would be replaced by the mass party system crafted by Martin Van Buren. The mass party system was upheld as supporting local, constitutional government, replacing a system that favored the wealthy and centralized powers. Van Buren argued that the mass party system would remove sectional conflict and replace it with loyalty to party, until division over slavery returned party alignment on sectional grounds.
The Federalist party was dead by the 1820’s. Everyone referred to themselves as Republicans, even if in name only. With no unifying foe, Republicans had little to rally around. The caucus nominating system was showing flaws. In the election of 1824, four Republican candidates ran for the presidency. Jackson won the plurality of the electoral, but no one won the majority. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives where John Quincy Adams was appointed President. The year before the debacle for the White House, the state of Tennessee drafted a protest against the Caucus System. They argued that the caucus system no longer served the interest of the people. It violated the spirit of the Constitution in that the framers rejected the plan to have the president selected by congressional election. Congress had a big influence on who was nominated. They feared that the Presidency was being determined by the Legislative branch. The Constitution provided for separation of the powers, if one of the powers were directly responsible for selecting the other it would violate that safeguard (CP 70). Tennessee alluded further to the earlier distrust and anxiety felt in the 1790’s that led to the organization of parties (CP 72). Martin Van Buren, then leader of the Republican caucus, discussed the need to prevent the 1824 fiasco from happening again with political writer Thomas Ritchie Washington by creating a strong mass party system. In his letter to Washington, Van Buren deliberated upon the national caucus, wishing to replace it with a national convention (CP 139). National conventions would be more democratic and decentralized. Instead of congressional leaders making the nominations, local party leaders would choose their delegates who would then nominate the candidates for the presidency at the national convention. He also surmised that with the creation of strong political parties, people would place their loyalty in the party, and the nation would no longer have sectional and regional conflicts, especially over slavery. He stated that “[p]arty attachment in former times furnished a complete antidote for sectional prejudices by …show more content…
After Jackson’s loss in the House of Representatives for the Presidency, Van Buren desired to use Jackson’s personal popularity to attract supporters to the new Democratic party, then through the party conduct campaigns and policy fights. The Democrats began to “defend parties as indispensable allies of local democracy,” (Milkin pg. 25). The party system began to be defended as constitutional doctrine since it could create attachment between the people and the government. Parties would also educate the locals about the issues, give the parties the opportunity to discuss and debate the issues where voters could hear both sides. Parties would prepare people to understand and accept political topics and issues, they would also inform and organize voters and serve as a medium between the public and government (Milkis pg. 25, …show more content…
Even before the United States formally annexed western territories, the debate began whether slavery would be allowed to spread. Divisions within the parties over slavery caused division within the Democratic party, the destruction of the relatively new Whig party, and the creation of the Republican Party created in 1854 from Whig remnants and fragments of the Democratic party. Anti slavery parties began to form and win state elections as early as 1840 serving as spoilers for both Democrats and Whigs. The Whig party (created in 1830) lost members in the south because of anti slavery leaders, but they also lost support from their base because they didn’t take a hard stand against the spread of slavery. Democrats lost members with their support of popular sovereignty and their views of conciliation to slaveholders. Many northern Democrats wanted the party to fight against the extension of slavery (Reichley pg.
The Federalist party was dead by the 1820’s. Everyone referred to themselves as Republicans, even if in name only. With no unifying foe, Republicans had little to rally around. The caucus nominating system was showing flaws. In the election of 1824, four Republican candidates ran for the presidency. Jackson won the plurality of the electoral, but no one won the majority. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives where John Quincy Adams was appointed President. The year before the debacle for the White House, the state of Tennessee drafted a protest against the Caucus System. They argued that the caucus system no longer served the interest of the people. It violated the spirit of the Constitution in that the framers rejected the plan to have the president selected by congressional election. Congress had a big influence on who was nominated. They feared that the Presidency was being determined by the Legislative branch. The Constitution provided for separation of the powers, if one of the powers were directly responsible for selecting the other it would violate that safeguard (CP 70). Tennessee alluded further to the earlier distrust and anxiety felt in the 1790’s that led to the organization of parties (CP 72). Martin Van Buren, then leader of the Republican caucus, discussed the need to prevent the 1824 fiasco from happening again with political writer Thomas Ritchie Washington by creating a strong mass party system. In his letter to Washington, Van Buren deliberated upon the national caucus, wishing to replace it with a national convention (CP 139). National conventions would be more democratic and decentralized. Instead of congressional leaders making the nominations, local party leaders would choose their delegates who would then nominate the candidates for the presidency at the national convention. He also surmised that with the creation of strong political parties, people would place their loyalty in the party, and the nation would no longer have sectional and regional conflicts, especially over slavery. He stated that “[p]arty attachment in former times furnished a complete antidote for sectional prejudices by …show more content…
After Jackson’s loss in the House of Representatives for the Presidency, Van Buren desired to use Jackson’s personal popularity to attract supporters to the new Democratic party, then through the party conduct campaigns and policy fights. The Democrats began to “defend parties as indispensable allies of local democracy,” (Milkin pg. 25). The party system began to be defended as constitutional doctrine since it could create attachment between the people and the government. Parties would also educate the locals about the issues, give the parties the opportunity to discuss and debate the issues where voters could hear both sides. Parties would prepare people to understand and accept political topics and issues, they would also inform and organize voters and serve as a medium between the public and government (Milkis pg. 25, …show more content…
Even before the United States formally annexed western territories, the debate began whether slavery would be allowed to spread. Divisions within the parties over slavery caused division within the Democratic party, the destruction of the relatively new Whig party, and the creation of the Republican Party created in 1854 from Whig remnants and fragments of the Democratic party. Anti slavery parties began to form and win state elections as early as 1840 serving as spoilers for both Democrats and Whigs. The Whig party (created in 1830) lost members in the south because of anti slavery leaders, but they also lost support from their base because they didn’t take a hard stand against the spread of slavery. Democrats lost members with their support of popular sovereignty and their views of conciliation to slaveholders. Many northern Democrats wanted the party to fight against the extension of slavery (Reichley pg.