Second Party System - Patterns

Patterns

Historian Richard P. McCormick is most responsible for defining the term. He concluded:

• It was a distinct party system.
• It formed over a 15-year period that varied by state.
• It was produced by leaders trying to win the presidency, with contenders building their own national coalitions.
• Regional effects strongly affected developments, with the Adams forces strongest in New England, for example, and the Jacksonians in the Southwest.
• For the first time two-party politics was extended to the South and West (which had been one-party regions).
• In each region the two parties were about equal—the first and only party system showing this.
• Because of the regional balance it was vulnerable to region-specific issues (like slavery).
• The same two parties appeared in every state, and contested both the electoral vote and state offices.
• Most critical was the abrupt emergence of a two-party South in 1832-34 (mostly as a reaction against Van Buren).
• The Anti-Masonic party flourished in only those states with a weak second party.
• Methods varied somewhat but everywhere the political convention replaced the caucus.
• The parties had an interest of their own, in terms of the office-seeking goals of party activists.
• The System brought forth a new, popular campaign style.
• Close elections—not charismatic candidates or particular issues—brought out the voters.
• Party leaders formed the parties to some degree in their own image.