The American Two Party System

Authors Avatar
Since the establishment of the American government, partisanship, with few exceptions has been the rule. On a few rare occasions, the American government congealed into a single party system, yet every time, the nation would return to its two party status. Why did this occur despite the warnings of many of the greatest men of the time? Why is it that what has consistently been portrayed as a unified front, is now divided into a multiple part system? The two party system, has often been a hindrance to American progression, but it has also been one of the greatest tools of the American government to prevent the formation of an American monarchy.

The idea of a two party system is elementary. However, the process of its evolution was much more difficult. The bi-party system created a new set of checks and balances - or as Richard Hofstadter referred to it, "a harmonious system of mutual frustration"- which prevented a concentration of power in one group, additionally, it shifted the power from the elite to the commoner (Hofstadter 9).

Despite the desire to keep the fledgling nation of America united in purpose as much as possible, it was only natural that the politicians of late 1700s early 1800s would divide into separate groups. It is rare to be able to find a room of one hundred or more people who will agree unconditionally with one another, especially in matters of state. It seems only natural that these people would divide into numerous groups comprised of people with whom they most agree, in order to strengthen their own causes.

With the crafting of the new American Constitution at Philadelphia in May of 1787 ("The Road to the Convention") came the first introduction of long lasting political parties. Delegates at the convention squared off into two groups; the Federalists, favoring a strong central government, and the anti-Federalists, advocating that the states retain their sovereignty as essentially free nations. The anti-Federalists particularly feared that the states would again come under the yoke of a tyrannical ruling group or monarchal figure as was the case in the colonial period (Newman 99). The two parties battled over the ratification of the new Constitution. The Federalists wanted a centralized government whereas, the anti-Federalists were opposed to it. As the battle over the Constitution waged on, the Federalists and anti-Federalists began the new process of state to state campaigning for a cause. The Federalist victory, in essence, came when the state of New York voted for the new government as a result of the persuasive Federalist Papers. This series of essays was written in 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay ("Federalist, The"). The Papers expressed, repeatedly, the ideas of the Federalists in such passages as follows:
Join now!


A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection ("The Federalist No. 9");

or in the passage borrowed from the works of Montesquieu:

"It is very probable that mankind would have been obliged at length to live constantly under the government of a SINGLE PERSON, had they not contrived a kind of constitution that has all the internal advantages of a republican, together with the external force of a monarchical government. I mean a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC.

This form of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay