Political parties in the United States, 1846-1861;

Front matter

B! P

I i!!!liiiai^

II !i;

Preface

This book may be described as a study of the American party system. The references to the party systems in other States are for the purpose of making clear, in the first place, the relation of the political party to despotic governments, and, in the second place, to show that in each State where Democracy is far enough advanced to give rise to political parties the form of organization is determined by its political institutions. The peculiar American system arises from pecuUar American institutions. The old Federal party died because it was un-American in the form of its organization. Under the party names of Whig and Democrat the system reached a high degree of perfection ; but there was a maladjustment between the party machinery and pubhc opinion, the parties went to pieces, and the Civil War was the result. This volume treats especially of the great Whig failure and its consequences. Since the disruption of the Union there have been two rather distinct periods of party history, equally deserving of special study. The first ends with the withdrawal of the troops from the last of the Confederate States in 1877. This is emphatically the abnormal period of our vi PREFACE

party history. Armies were then substituted for party organizations, and a political party supported by an army ceases to be a normal political party. It was during this abnormal period that the spoils system reached perfection, and the control of the party organizations passed into the hands of professional managers, supported by special interests in more or less conscious conspiracy against the people. During the period following the end of "carpet-bag" rule in the South, our party history has been characterized by a series of efforts on the part of the people to regain possession of their parties as organs of public opinion.

There are many passages in this book that are sure to give the impression that I am an advocate of our party system. Nothing is farther from my purpose. Yet I do advocate the use of our parties to secure the ends of good government until some better agency is discovered.

In the preparation of the manuscript I have received many valuable suggestions from Professor Ely, the editor of the Series.

JESSE MACY.

Grinnell, Iowa, September 5, 1900.

Contents

CHAPnut PAGn

I. The Origin and Nature of the Modern

Political Party i

Chapter I The Origin And Nature Of The Modern Political Party

Political parties are found only in democratic countries, or at least in countries where the principles of democracy are so far recognized as to lead to sustained effort to shape the policy of the government according to public opinion. The political party may be described as an organ of public opinion. In a pure despotism or in a government based upon force, political parties do not exist. In Russia there are no party organizations. Russian citizens who would protect themselves from tyranny or who would reform the government may form secret societies, or they may form revolutionary factions. They do not form a party and openly appeal to the opinion of their fellow-citizens for a redress of grievances. In a despotism there may be political factions contending for the chief place in the government. These factions may be of long duration ; they may hold together with much tenacity, and they may exert an immense influence upon the policy of the government ; yet they do not constitute political parties as the term is used in the modern democratic State. The political faction does not become the political party until there is an open, conscious appeal to the body of the citizens as the source of power and influence. When this stage has been reached, the despotic government is at an end, and the State is well advanced toward democracy.

As in the experience of States there have been all stages between despotism and democracy, so there are all gradations between the political faction and the poHtical party. From the days of Magna Carta in England to the era of the Reform Act of 1832, there were at all times political factions contending for power. During all that time there was some sort of appeal to the masses of the people for support ; but at no time was there a continuous, conscious recognition of the people as the ultimate source of power. The appeal was rather to the interest or to the prejudice of a class, or in support of some sort of special privilege, and not to a body politic conscious of supreme power. In this poUtical contention there was much to suggest the political party, much that tended to develop the party ; but the essential characteristic of the modern party was lacking. In the wars of the Red Rose against the White, opposing factions contended for power. If one was more popular than the other, it was not because there was an open, conscious appeal to a clearly defined popular demand. During the Tudor century England became divided between two hostile religious camps. Catholic and Protestant, each contending for the control of the government. While there was here much to suggest the modem party in the continuous appeal to religious opinion or religious prejudice, there was still little suggestion that the people were the source of power.

During the century of the Stuarts the approach toward the ideal of the modern party was much more marked. The recognition of religious opinion was continued and was more intelligent, and a distinct political issue was introduced. The divine right of kings was pitted against the contention that kings were subject to the laws of Parliament. During the heat of strife the distinct idea was introduced that the House of Commons, as representing the nation, was above kings and lords. Yet, notwithstanding all this, the strife of the century has in it much more to remind one of the earlier factious contests than of a modern appeal to the country upon the dissolution of Parliament. Cavaliers and Roundheads fought for power much as did the followers of the Red Rose and the White two hundred years earlier. Only most advanced thinkers seriously thought of leaving the settlement of political disputes to the peaceful count of the citizens of an enfranchised nation ; yet there was political conduct which suggested such a possibility. At least, we get from this period the names of two great political parties which remain to the present day. During the later years of the reign of Charles II. intense excitement prevailed over the prospect of the succession of a Catholic king. The party opposed to the accession of James was anxious to have the king call a Parliament, that action might be taken to forestall that misfortune. So they persuaded the people to overwhelm the king with petitions for the assembling of Parliament. The friends of James likewise sent up petitions expressing disapproval of the conduct of their enemies. One class received the name "petitioners," and the other was called "abhorrers." Later, the petitioners received the name of Whigs, and the abhorrers were called Tories. We thus get the two great party names, and it is an interesting fact that the names came into use in connection with events that strongly resemble an appeal to the country.

It was many years, however, before these names were used to designate political parties in the modem sense. After the Revolution of 1688, Whig rule was almost continuous for seventy years. During all that time there was a disputed succession to the English crown. The Whigs were committed to the support of the house of Hanover, while many of the Tories favored the restoration of the Stuarts. Few citizens had the right to vote, and the great body of the nation were neither Whigs nor Tories. Whigs and Tories were simply hostile factions contending for power. While the monarchs were Whigs, Whigs for the most part held the offices. After the accession of George III., in 1760, the succession was no longer disputed. Now the monarchs were Tories, and for another seventy years there was almost continuous Tory rule. During this long period of a hundred and forty years, England was ruled first by a Whig oligarchy and then by a Tory oligarchy. Majorities were secured rather by bribery and corruption than by persuasion and appeal to public opinion. The organizations bearing the party names were not organs of public opinion. Not until liberal Tories united with liberal Whigs and made a successful appeal to public opinion for the enfranchisement of the nation did political parties in England assume their modem characteristics. The Reform Act of 1832 was really in its characteristics and results the Great Revolution. The so-called Revolution of 1688 was, as Burke maintained, a revolution prevented, or at least it was a revolution arrested. The Act of 1832 was a revolution accomplished. Since this act there is no longer a doubt that political power rests with the people. Only those may govern who are authorized to govern by conscious act of the people.

The revolution of 1832 marks a fundamental change in the so-called political parties. They lose the characteristics of mere political factions contending for power and assume the characteristics of conscious organic agencies of the people for the attainment of good government. Coincident with this occurs a perceptible change in party organization. Liberal Tories become permanently united with Whigs. Conservative Whigs desert their party and go over to the opposition ; while the alternate names, Liberal and Conservative, are introduced. At the same time each party, by whatever name it is designated, comes more and more consciously to rest for support and authority for action upon the opinion of the people. It was the late Lord Randolph Churchill who, I believe, invented the phrase "Tory- Democracy." This phrase expresses and was intended to express the great revolution accomplished in EngUsh politics. The phrase links the name of the old political faction, whose members were willing to die for their faith in the divine right of kings, with the name which expresses the divine right of the people. And in this change the political faction has become the political party.

To say that the political party is an organ of public opinion is to give a very inadequate definition. The press, the pulpit, the platform, are all in their several ways organs of public opinion. Public opinion has organs innumerable. Hence, merely to call the political party such an organ, does not define it. It does, however, assist in distinguishing the political party from the political faction, and when this distinction has been made clear, we have gone a long way toward the true comprehension of the political party. The political faction relies upon force rather than upon public opinion. It is a characteristic of despotic government. The modem party cannot exist in a despotism, because in such a State there can be no field for the free play of public opinion. In so far as the party is developed in a State, the essential principles of despotism have given place to the opposing principles of democracy. The political faction aims at the control of the powers of the State by the use of force : the appeal is to fear rather than to reason and conscience. Just as the modern party cannot exist in a despotism, so the political faction cannot exist in a fully developed and consistent democracy. The faction contradicts the fundamental principle of democracy as the party contradicts the fundamental principle of despotism. There is, however, one thing in common between the faction and the party. Each aims at the control of the supreme power of the State. The faction aims at supreme power from personal motives, and the triumphant faction is, in its very nature, a personal government. The party aims at the control of supreme power through the sacrifice of personal motives for the sake of the common weal. The party represents the entire State ; it denies special privilege ; it aims to do that which is best for all classes. If all in a State were of one opinion as to what was best, there would be neither faction nor party. Parties exist because men differ in opinion as to what policy is for the common good. The existence of a political party implies that there is at least one other body of similar organization, and that each organization is seeking to discover and to carry into effect the policy best adapted to promote the general welfare. On the other hand, it is quite natural that there should be at a given time only one political faction in a State. The faction, seeking power from personal motives, is naturally pitted against the government. The party, on the other hand, seeks power as an organ of public opinion, and its purpose is the control of the agencies of government in the interest of the common weal.

Political parties are peculiarly adapted to the transition stage from despotism to democracy. While the party cannot exist in a despotism, it comes into existence through the political faction, which is a characteristic of despotism. As the faction comes to look more and more to the people for support, it gradually makes itself an agency for the expression of the will of the people and it thus becomes a party. A government in the hands of a political faction holds power often at the risk of the lives and property of the chief ofScers. A government in the hands of a political party holds power at the risk of sacrificing the good opinion of the people. A government in the hands of a party is a perpetual notice to the public that all reasonable demands will be met or the officers will vacate their positions and give place to those who are assumed to be more nearly in harmony with the prevailing opinion in the State.

As compared with government by political faction, government by party accomplishes a great saving of human life and immense economies through accumulated experience and wisdom. The leaders of factions in despotic governments die young; they are often cut off when their experience would be most valuable to the State. Under the political party it is possible for an officer to be many times politically decapitated while still living to a green old age, increasing in wisdom and discretion at every stage. Viewed, then, from the standpoint of that which it displaces, the political party is a great labor-saving as well as life-saving invention.

Many thousand years belong to the history of despotism. That of democracy has only a few decades. The poUtical party may fill an important and a necessary place in the transition from despotism to democracy and may still form no essential part of a fully developed democracy.

The political party must be distinguished also from an organization devoted to the propagation of certain doctrines. Like the political faction, the party aims always at the exercise of governmental power. The Fabian Society of England is not a political party. The Socialists of Germany are organized to control elections and to gain control of the legislature; they, therefore, constitute one of the political parties of Germany. Here, again, it is not easy always to maintain the distinction between the party and an organization devoted to the promotion of political opinions. By imperceptible gradations the one organization may pass into the other. The Hebrew prophets stood, as a class, apart from the government, but they stood prepared to denounce the unlawful acts of kings and priests, and to lay down the law for their guidance.

The prophet, as a prophet, was not a ruler and ne could not become a ruler. The prophet was a man who held himself apart from the responsibilities of government : he was a preacher : it was his business to point out the iniquities of rulers and to warn the people of impending danger. If the prophet should himself become a ruler, then where would be the preacher .-' Yet, on rare occasions, this did actually happen. The prophet found himself so placed as actually to assume the responsibilities of governing. But the prophets, as a class, were political preachers. At all times they exerted an immense influence upon the government, and it was often a controlling influence. Schools of prophets were organized for the purpose of influencing political conduct, yet such an organization was neither a political faction nor was it a political party. It differed from the faction in that the prophets did not aim at the exercise of political power. It resembled the party in that the prophets did constantly appeal to public opinion for the purpose of influencing political conduct. In all progressive States there have been men who corresponded to the Hebrew prophets : men who have kept themselves aloof from the responsibilities of governing, and who have yet pointed out to the people the faults of rulers. In all progressive States it has likewise been the habit of rulers to kill their prophets, and in after years to curry favor with the people by garnishing their tombs.

During the later Hebrew history, there arose

lO classes of citizens distinguished by definite and contradictory teachings. The most noted of these were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. These names represent neither poUtical factions nor political parties. They designate, rather, bodies of men drawn together by common beliefs and opinions, which common beliefs and opinions greatly modified and often controlled their political conduct. The Pharisee was not chiefly concerned with the control of political power ; he was chiefly concerned with the promotion of certain doctrines. The political party aims chiefly at the control of political power, and at the same time it aims to gain and hold power by giving effect to certain doctrines and beliefs. If you combine in one the political faction aiming at the control of political power, and the society aiming at the realization in the State of certain political views as expressing the prevailing wish of the citizens, you will have a political party.

The party should, moreover, be distinguished from a privileged class contending for its own class interests. Both in past history and in present political conduct may be discerned a close relation between the political party and the privileged class seeking its own interest. The political party, however, makes its appeal to the entire body politic while it aims to promote the general welfare. The history of special classes contending for privilege is a part of the history of political faction rather than of that of political parties. This

II struggle of the classes fighting on their own behalf has tended to develop the democratic State; but this has arisen chiefly from the realization of the deadly effects of class contests upon the welfare of all classes. On the other hand, the long training which large bodies of citizens have undergone in standing together for class privilege has been of no small advantage in enabling men to work together effectively for the promotion of the general welfare.

During the Middle Ages the constant strife between clergy and feudal lords, between lords and kings, between landlords and tenants, and between lords and townspeople, all resulted in drilling large bodies of citizens to habits of cooperation for the attainment of political ends, and in this way was of great and far-reaching importance in the preparation of the world for modem democracy. Out of the struggle for class interests arose the guilds of the Middle Ages in towns and rural districts, as well as the many religious societies and other organizations. These all gave men experience in voluntary cooperation for a common end; they were of immense value in political education. A famous contest arose in Italy and Germany which strongly suggests the modem political party. I refer to that between Guelphs and Ghibellines. At times these names undoubtedly represented opposing principles in politics, certain phases in the contest between Church and State. Yet for the most part the conflict was between rival dynasties, or between conflicting classes, or between rival sections of the country. Or the names Guelphs and Ghibellines degenerated into mere factional terms with no meaning at all except as names of opposing bodies of men contending for power.

The political party, therefore, is not a political faction and it is not an organization for the propagation of political doctrines, though it has much in common with both these. Neither is the party to be confused with the class organized for the promotion of class interests. The ideal party aims at the equal advantage of all classes.

The political party, as the term is now used, is an institution of recent development. Party life in America began during the closing years of the eighteenth century. In England what we know as the political party cannot be assigned to an earlier date than that of the Reform Act of 1832. National parties appear in Switzerland with the working of the democratic constitution of 1848. In the other States of western Europe political parties have arisen as the States have one by one modelled their constitutions after that of England.

The form of party organization is in each State determined by local and peculiar conditions. In the States of Europe, apart from England and Switzerland, appears a party system having certain characteristics common to all. It may be described as the group system of party organization. In the legislature no one party ever controls a majority of the votes of various party groups. The Cabinet does not represent a party ; it represents a group of parties which for the time being agree to act in harmony. When the Cabinet is no longer able to obtain its necessary majorities, it resigns office and another is formed capable of combining the party groups in such a way as to secure majorities. There may be a dozen organizations, each with its own party name and each standing for some special political opinion or for some special class interest. The groups, however, tend to divide into two main combinations, so that when the Cabinet resigns, the premiership is likely to go to the leader of the chief party in the group accustomed to vote against the retiring government. The premier who resigns office is likely to appear as the leader of the opposition to the new government.

In the States where these party groups prevail, democracy has attained only a limited recognition. The so-called political party has in these States a strong resemblance to the poHtical class contending for class interests. The majorities are made up by appeals to class interest, by balancing class against class, though there is also a constant reference to the general welfare and at all times a more or less conscious appeal to public opinion. Each member in the representative assembly is chosen by a body of voters composed of various classes in a given district. The best illustrations of the group system of party organization are found in France, Italy, and Germany.

The simplest type of party government has been developed in England. Here the people had the longest continuous training in habits of cooperation to resist the encroachments of opposing political factions, in the practice of standing together in defence of the peculiar privileges of the various classes, in the formation of societies to promote common opinions. After the Norman Conquest two political factions always existed: one in league with foreign powers, in France or at Rome, and the other opposing foreign interference. These factions naturally appealed for support to the various classes. Magna Carta was the result of the triumph of the national over the alien faction. The distinctively factious warfare broke its force in the Wars of the Roses. In the meantime the centuries of training on the part of the various industrial and religious classes in their contests for class privileges had developed among the people an unsuspected quality which was now to count for much.

The feudal system was late in its advent into England, and it never became thoroughly established there as it did in France. There was conscious unceasing resistance to its requirements on the part of every distinct industrial class. Instead, then, of crushing out political freedom by its brutalities, the system in England tended to promote political debate and to develop a consciousness of political power in the various classes. The Great Charter is itself a catalogue of the various grounds of conscious resistance to feudal tyranny. As compared with other European States, England is peculiar in this : the political factions were evenly balanced; no faction, no power, was allowed to become so firmly estabUshed as to maintain a continuous despotism. There were always classes which more or less understandingly held the balance of power.

Societies for the propagation of special views were more advanced in England than on the Continent. The teaching of Wycliff preceded by a hundred and fifty years the teaching of Luther, and during all of this time the teaching of the doctrines of the Reformation was kept alive by secret societies of religious advocates. Thus centuries of training in industrial, political, and religious controversy preceded the division of the ruling classes in England into Whigs and Tories. No sooner did the masses of the people become Protestant, — as they did during the reign of Elizabeth, — than they became divided into warring sects. There was always a High Church party which tended to revert to Rome, and an extreme radical party which tended to exalt the position of the individual believer.

The Whig and Tory parties arose from the fierce controversy between the House of Commons and the Stuart monarchs, yet they did but give new form to ancient factional and class strife. After the Wars of the Roses which closed with the accession of Henry VII., 1485, there were no longer dukes and earls who were strong enough to lead armies against the king. The early Tudor monarchs looked for support to the middle-class folk in the country, called the squirarchy, while they completed the political degradation of the higher nobility and the higher clergy. The old military leaders of faction disappeared, and the squire, the parson, and the wealthier classes in towns and cities came into positions of greater political importance. The power of the early Stuarts was broken by conflict with these middle-class folk, who were represented in the House of Commons. After the Puritan Revolution, during the reigns of the later Stuarts, there was a distinct revival of political leadership in the hands of great lords in opposition to the king. The Earl of Shaftesbury was at the head of these, and he was the iirst great Whig leader. The appearance, then, of the Whig party may be viewed as in a sense a revival of the factious leadership in the hands of great lords which had been destroyed by the Wars of the Roses. The great Whig lords looked for support to the commercial classes in the cities and to the middle classes upon their own estates; while the Tories were supported by the Established Church and the great body of the squirarchy. But all this is a history of faction and class conflicts rather than a history of political parties.

That which has given its distinctive feature to English party organization is the institution known as the English Cabinet. Upon the suggestion of c 17

Sunderland, William III. gave the Whig statesmen the leading places in his ministry, because at the time a majority of the House of Commons were Whigs and it thus became easier to secure the cooperation of that House. Later, when the House became Tory, the ministry was modified to please the Tories. During the reign of Queen Anne the same thing happened. With the advent of the house of Hanover, both Houses of Parliament were Whig. The monarchs were Whigs because many of the Tories favored the restoration of the Stuarts. George I. did not understand the English language, and therefore contracted a habit of absenting himself from the meetings of his chief ministers. The government thus fell into the hands of a Whig oligarchy who in secret meeting apart from the king determined upon the policy of the government, and then through the prime minister secured the cooperation of the king and the two Houses. In this way the powers of government, both executive and legislative, came to be centred in the hands of a secret body of the high executive officers of State. The first two Georges were Whigs by necessity, because there was a continuous threat of Tory revolution in favor of the Stuarts. During this entire time the House of Lords was kept Whig, since the kings had unlimited power to create new peers. The House of Commons was likewise kept continuously Whig, because the Cabinet had unlimited power and means of bribery.

i8

In its origin, then, Cabinet government meant a government of a political faction by the use of corrupt means. The Cabinet is a secret body of the chief officers of State, who mutually agree to stand or fall together in the administration of public affairs. They all belong to the same party or faction, and the government of the Cabinet is therefore a party government, or a government of a faction. George III. was a Tory, and he wished to destroy the Cabinet system of government. He was, however, unable to do this, though he was able through his control of the means of corruption to keep in power a Tory Cabinet during the greater part of his reign. As few persons had a right to vote, it was comparatively easy to make the House of Commons either Whig or Tory by means of office or money.

We thus see that the English Cabinet was formed by a Whig faction contending for the continued possession of power. The Cabinet was continued by a Tory faction likewise contending for the possession of power. During this entire period of a hundred and forty years, majorities were secured in the two Houses by means of bribery and by various forms of corrupt practice. The Whig faction restrained and controlled the monarch by the secret organization called the Cabinet. The organization of the faction and the organization of the government were one and the same thing. Cabinet government was a government by a compact, organized faction. Under the last two Georges the Whig machine passed into the hands of a Tory faction. It no longer restrained the monarch ; on the contrary it vastly increased his power. The monarch at the head of a Tory faction could control the majorities in the two Houses by corrupt means and thus make himself absolute. It was the realization of this fact that induced liberal Tories to unite with liberal Whigs in a movement to create a large incorruptible voting constituency. By this act the old Whig and Tory factions became the Liberal and Conservative parties.