Embedded Files
For most of history, the world’s population had been ruled by various monarchs who went by such titles as king, emperor, czar, etc. Political authority, or sovereignty, rested in the hands of royal families that passed their wealth, status, and power on to their offspring. While wars might occasionally dethrone a family, royal dynasties once established could look forward to generations of ruling over their subjects. Intermarriage between royal families produced a system of strong alliances whose members supported and protected one another. Reinforcing royal power even further was the belief that monarchical societies were natural, and divine. Moreover, monarchs routinely held the title of protector of the state’s religion, making their positions seem preordained and backed by God. In this scenario, opposition to the monarch was not only a civil offense but a religious one as well.
The core issue of what became a struggle between the political concepts known as centralism and federalism centered on the issue of where authority (sovereignty) should rest. In a centralized system such as a monarchy, a small circle of elites made laws, enforced laws, and judged lawbreakers. The majority of the population ( subjects) in a centralized system lack the ability to challenge the system since it is so powerful. However, under federalism the power rests with the individual citizens who entrust a small number of their peers as representatives who, through elections, they endow with the power to govern for them. From an organizational standpoint, authority flows from the citizen to the state in which he resides and then on to the national government. The basic concept is that this authority, although it may temporarily rest elsewhere, ultimately belongs to the citizens and not the officials they elect. This simple fact is the basis of self-government as we understand it.
In U.S. history, federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution as is (that is, without a Bill of Rights) to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution.
These people lived largely in urban areas.
Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, John Jay, John Adams.
Dominated by big business interests, wanted government to help regulate the economy.
Felt that many individual and different fiscal and monetary policies led to economic struggles and national weakness. Favored central banking and central financial policies.
In U.S. history, anti-federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong federal government and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, preferring instead for power to remain in the hands of state and local governments.
Opposed until inclusion of the Bill of Rights.
Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams.
Dominated by farmers and smaller rural communities. Local power
Felt that states were free (federalism) agents that should manage their own revenue and spend their money as they saw fit.
In U.S. history, anti-federalists were those who opposed the development of a strong federal government at the Constitutional Convention, preferring instead for power to remain in the hands of state and local governments. Federalists wanted a stronger national government and the ratification of the Constitution to help properly manage the debt and tensions following the American Revolution. Formed by Alexander Hamilton the Federalist Party, was the culmination of government centralization and the first political party in the United States. Thomas Jefferson led the opposition, who called themselves antifederalists at the Constitutional Convention and immediately after. However, to better represent their values the antifederalists changed their name, calling themselves Republicans. To make things ultra-confusing, historians sometimes call the early Republicans by a different name: Democratic-Republicans. This confusing name comes from the fact that the Democratic-Republicans would eventually split into two different parties: the Democrats and the Republicans that we have today.
The struggle between centralism and federalism is one of the most important conflicts in Mexican history. In 1824 Mexico’s adoption of a federal system represented a break from centuries of centralist rule under a succession of Spanish monarchs. The break fundamentally threatened to overturn Mexican society by eliminating the power of the elites. Clergymen, army officers, and landowners pushed back against Mexico’s newly enfranchised masses that demanded a greater say in their own lives. This ideological struggle between Mexicans produced what some historians refer to as Mexico’s Federalist Wars which spanned a period of nearly fifty years.
The Federalist System of Mexico as outlined by the Spanish Constitution of 1812 and the Mexican Constitution of 1824.
That takes us to the twin Mexican state of Coahuila and Texas, which existed from 1824 until 1835. The two former Spanish provinces were combined into a single unit because neither by itself had the number of inhabitants required for statehood. Although joined together, important differences in the character of the two populations existed even though the people living in each region were Mexican nationals. Proximity to Louisiana gave Tejanos access to foreign ideas, goods, and customs that Mexicans living further south lacked. Texas was also the site of numerous filibustering expeditions and a major rebellion against the Spanish crown during the decade of 1810 to 1820. Many of the leading Tejano families participated in these events as supporters of both independence and the establishment of republican government. Both Tejanos and Texians from the United States applauded Mexico’s adoption of the Federal Constitution of 1824.
The issue of centralism vs federalism erupted in Coahuila and Texas just as it did on the broader national scene. Located closer geographically to the center of Mexico, politicians from the state’s capital of Saltillo tended to reflect the centralist opinion popular in Mexico City. Beginning in the late 1820s, a coalition between politicians from Monclova in northern Coahuila and San Antonio de Béxar in Texas worked to wrest control of the state from the centralist faction. Ultimately, with the support of Texas colonists, the federalist faction succeeded in relocating the capital north to the federalist stronghold of Monclova. Nationally, though, centralism was on the rise.
The real importance of Santa Anna’s revocation of the Constitution of 1824 was that it striped states of the power guaranteed to them under the federal system and shifted it to the centralist national government in Mexico City. Already at odds with one another over this and other issues, Coahuila and Texas took sides: Coahuila embraced Santa Anna and the supporters of centralism, while Texas pronounced support for federalism so that they could circumvent Mexico's prohibition of slavery. The federalists, in favor of independence as early as the Fredonian Rebellion called themselves the War Party, as they were prepared to go to war with Mexico to achieve proper representation. The Peace Party, as they called themselves, were centralists who wanted to remain part of the Mexican Empire. This struggle over the future of Mexico lay at the core of what became known as the Texas Revolution.
Internal politics of the Republic centered on two factions. Mirabeau B. Lamar led the nationalist faction, which advocated for the continued independence of Texas, the expulsion of the Native Americans (Indians), and the expansion of Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Their opponents, led by Sam Houston, advocated the annexation of Texas to the United States and peaceful coexistence with the Indians, when possible. The Texas Congress even passed a resolution over Houston's veto claiming California for Texas. The 1844 presidential election split the electorate dramatically, with the newer western regions of the Republic preferring the nationalist candidate Edward Burleson, while the cotton country, particularly east of the Trinity River, went for Anson Jones.
The need to win popular support in a republic led to the American invention of voter-based political parties in the 1790s. Americans were especially innovative in devising new campaign techniques that linked public opinion with public policy through the party.
Political scientists and historians have divided the development of America's two-party system into five eras.The first two-party system consisted of the Federalist Party, who supported the ratification of the Constitution, and the Democratic-Republican Party or the Anti-Administration party (Anti-Federalists), who opposed the powerful central government, among others, that the Constitution established when it took effect in 1789.
The modern two-party system consists of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Several third parties also operate in the U.S., and from time to time elect someone to local office. The largest third party since the 1980s has been the Libertarian Party.
The First Party System of the United States featured the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (also called "Jeffersonian Republican"). The Federalist Party grew from the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong united central government, close ties to Britain, a centralized banking system, and close links between the government and men of wealth. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who strongly opposed Hamilton's agenda and favored a more decentralized form of federalism with state governments possessing the most power. An often overlooked Democratic-Republican was Elbridge Gerry, who invented the great American past-time of what became known as "gerrymandering."
Following the splintering of the Democratic-Republican Party. Two major parties dominated the political landscape: the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay, that grew from the National Republican Party; and the Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson. The Democrats supported the primacy of the Presidency over the other branches of government, and opposed both the Bank of the United States as well as modernizing programs that they felt would build up industry at the expense of the taxpayer.
The Third Party System was characterized by the emergence of the anti-slavery Republican Party, which adopted many of the economic policies of the Whigs, such as national banks, railroads, high tariffs, homesteads and aid to land grant colleges. The Democratic Party was in large part the opposition party during this period, although it often controlled the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both.
Fourth Party System: 1896-1932
Fourth Party System: 1896-1932
The Fourth Party system began after the Republicans blamed the Democrats for the Panic of 1893. This period was known as the Progressive Era. The central domestic issues changed to government regulation of railroads and large corporations ("trusts"), the protective tariff, the role of labor unions, child labor, the need for a new banking system, corruption in party politics, primary elections, direct election of senators, racial segregation, efficiency in government, women's suffrage, and control of immigration.
Fifth Party System: 1933-2016
Fifth Party System: 1933-2016
The Fifth Party System emerged with the New Deal coalition beginning in 1933. The Republicans began losing support after the Great Depression, giving rise to Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the activist New Deal. Political loyalties shifted and Democrats promoted American liberalism, anchored in a coalition of specific liberal groups, especially ethno-religious constituencies (Catholics, Jews, African Americans), white Southerners, well-organized labor unions, urban machines, progressive intellectuals, and populist farm groups.
Page updated
Report abuse