Talk:Third Party System

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

US Grant corruption

The comment about the open corruption of US Grant and his associates is ahistorical. Grant was not corrupt, much less openly corrupt.

Party systems

The article fails to make a good distinction between the third and fourth party systems. Is this split even recognized by most historians? The 3PS was distinguished by the Republicans emerging to fill the role of opposition to the Democrats after the Whigs collapsed. The Republicans were highly successful after 1856. But then the article states there was a realignment in the 1890s, with the Republicans becoming dominant until 1932. Summary...3PS, Republicans vs Democrats, with Republicans usually winning. 4PS.. Republicans vs Democrats, with Republicans usually winning. It sounds like they are the same thing. New party systems are heralded by big changes, like the Constitution of 1787, the collapse of the Federalists and the collapse of the Whigs. The Germans switching sides is a detail, not the herald of a fourth party system. We have been in 3PS, Republicans vs Democrats, since the late 1850s, with numerous groups (Germans, Sourherners, racial minorities) switching sides during the 160 year evolution of 3PS.

What the political scientists call the "Fourth party System" is what historians call the "Progressive Era" and they typically say it was quite different than before. Elections were very closely balanced 1856-92 (The GOP polled over 50% only when the South was not voting, 1864-68, and 1872). That changed in 1896-28 with the Dems usually stuck in the 40-45% range (except in 1916 when it was 50-50). see Walter Dean Burnham, Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics (1970) a book that has been cited in over 1200 scholarly books and articles. Saladin (2010) noted the theory's dominance among scholars: "Realignment theory has long offered the primary framework for understanding American political history, particularly as it relates to the party system. The 'System of 1896' is central to the theory and holds that William McKinley’s victory in that year ushered in a Republican-dominated era lasting until Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s election in 1932." Rjensen (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalawags and Carpetbaggers?!

The portrayal of southern republicans as carpetbaggers and scalawags is a serious NPOV problem this reflects a really outdated historiographical bias linked to condemnation of reconstruction era reforms and which tends to laud the actions of groups like the KKK in reaction to these reforms. The use of weasal words like opportunistic is really dangerous here and this article requires some close attention from someone well versed in current historiography on this subject to carefully rebuild this section with an NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.68.189 (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this reference to scalawags and carpetbaggers shows the bias of the writer. The writer chose to include a lot of information about religion without context, and leave out important parts about the lead up to the civil war that demonstrated strong disagreement on the issue of slavery - like the Compromise and the "war" in the territories. CatherineD1960 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not true that terms Scalawag and carpetbagger reflect POV. the terms are in common use by scholars today. For example, the leading historian of Reconstruction today, Eric Foner , wrote, Southern Republicanism needed white support. They founded among "carpetbaggers" from the North and "scalawag" native white Southerners. A short history of Reconstruction (1990) page 129. The article states "In the South, the Republicans won strong support from the Freedmen (newly enfranchised African Americans), but the party was usually controlled by local whites ("scalawags") and opportunistic Yankees ("carpetbaggers.") Like Foner, it puts "scalawags" and "carpetbaggers" in quotes to indicate these were the terms used at the time. See for example, Baggett, The Scalawags: Southern Dissenters in the Civil War and Reconstruction Louisiana State University Press, 2003; and Hyman. South Carolina Scalawags (University of South Carolina Press, 2006). Rjensen (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the civil war

"not only energized the Confederates to fight to the bitter end," I don't know if this phrase should really be in here, as what evidence is there that before emancipation, they were willing to compromise at all? Any sign of giving up? They already thought the north was thoroughly abolitionist. Furthermore, I think it could be safely said that the initial reaction to emancipation in the north was not the same as the later reaction. Certainly the fact that it effectively turned a southern strength into one of its greatest weaknesses was appreciated won over a great many people. Novium 09:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How prevalent is this 'party system' stuff?

Someone has splattered this "party system" method of understanding American political party development all over American history articles in wiki. But how prevalent is this system stuff. Who is McCormick, the guy who invented it? Is this system in common use in scholarship, or is it just the academic bailiwick of some little scholar in Pennsylvania, for example? Wise people want to know. I think this article needs to give some background on the "party system" method of understanding American history, who developed it, and what it's all about

The idea of Party Systems was introduced by Charles Merriam in 1920s and updated by Chambers and Burnham about 1965. The model appears in most political science textbooks and many history textbooks, and is included in the AP tests in history and government that 300,000 high school students take every year. For an introduction See Lex Renda, "Richard P. Mccormick and the Second American Party System. " Reviews in American History 1995 23(2): 378-389. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext in Project Muse. Why anyone would want to remove it is baffling

It's used in the textbooks: for example: American Politics, Second Edition William Lasser, Clemson University http://www.college.hmco.com/polisci/lasser/am_pol/2e/students/ch_out09.html Chapter Nine: Political Parties Basic Concepts The Framers and Political Parties The Idea of a Party System/ The American Party System Parties in the American Political System/ /Parties and the Party Systems in American History/The Idea of Realignment /The First Party System /The Second Party System The Third and Fourth Party Systems /The Fifth (or New Deal) Party System/The Modern American Party System/Democrats and Republicans Today

It's also used in the major journals in both history and political science:

PS: Political Science and Politics > Vol. 35, No. 2 (Jun., 2002), pp. 293-308+310-326+328-338+341-347+351-461+465-468
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 92, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 391-399
Social Science History > Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1998), pp. 83-116
Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 104, No. 2 (Summer, 1989), pp. 360-361
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 82, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), p. 639
The American Historical Review > Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 1008-1009
Journal of Interdisciplinary History > Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer, 1985), pp. 43-67
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 79, No. 2 (Jun., 1985), pp. 415-435
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 78, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 77-91
The History Teacher > Vol. 17, No. 1 (Nov., 1983), pp. 9-31
Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 8, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 65-78
The Journal of Southern History > Vol. 48, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 607-608
Legislative Studies Quarterly > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Nov., 1982), pp. 515-532
Reviews in American History > Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 547-552
Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 94, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), pp. 649-667
PS > Vol. 12, No. 3 (Summer, 1979), pp. 326-328
Social Science History > Vol. 2, No. 2 (Winter, 1978), pp. 144-171
The Journal of Politics > Vol. 38, No. 3, 200 Years of the Republic in Retrospect: A Special Bicentennial Issue (Aug., 1976), pp. 239-257
Political Science Quarterly > Vol. 90, No. 3 (Autumn, 1975), pp. 411-435
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1975), pp. 795-811
The American Political Science Review > Vol. 68, No. 3 (Sep., 1974), pp. 1002-1023
The Western Political Quarterly > Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), pp. 385-413 Rjensen 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been "party systems" but attitudes never changed, hence nothing changed. They are merely coalitions. The idea is basically Whig history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War section

"It was the measure of genius of President Lincoln not only that he won his war but that he did so by drawing upon and synthesizing the strengths of anti-slavery, free soil, democracy, and nationalism." This statement is clearly a pov statement, whether you may agree with it or not. It implies that President Lincoln was a genius, which is a statement that could be disputed. This statement later on accuses the Copperhead faction of treason, even though none of them were ever convicted of treason. I believe most of the bias comes from the writing of the section being of poor quality. It could probably use a rewrite. Life, Liberty, Property 18:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy enough to address the treason issue. The actual situation is that the Republicans accused their opponents of treason and the charge resonated with many voters and divided the Democratic Party. I would guess that most people would be able to pick up on the intent as it is written (I did), but it certainly can be changed with a few tweaks.

On the genius issue, the paragraph is footnoted so the clear implication is that the characterization came from one (or both)of the two sources -- although the lack of page references throughout the footnotes is strange. Do you know differently? Furthermore, characterizing Lincoln as possessing some level of genius, especially in the political arena which is the context of this article, is certainly the dominant view of most historians writing of the era and of Lincoln. The title of Goodwin's best seller is "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln" -- is there some academic backlash that I have missed that dismisses the association of "political genius" and "Abraham Lincoln". It is only a POV statement if reliable sources do not support it or if similarly reliable sources offer a conflicting view and this view is not included. What exactly is the other side of the issue missing from this paragraph, and what historians or biographers of Lincoln espouse this conflicting view? Tom (North Shoreman) 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified sentence regarding treason and added footnote and quote from reliable source regarding Lincoln's political skills. Removed POV tag pending response to my earlier request for documentation of alternative POV omitted from article. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jefferson wasnt republican why it saids that in a photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.199.102.47 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Rjensen already explained: yes Jefferson was very proud of being republican & emphasized republican simplicity (the modern GOP took their name from him in 1854 Ratemonth (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the measure of genius of President Lincoln not only that he won his war but that he did so by drawing upon and synthesizing the strengths of anti-slavery, free soil, democracy, and nationalism." This is not written in neutral language, and needs reviewing in both tone and historical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.247.145 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see the discussion above from years ago. The goal is to follow the reliable sources, which this passage does. Rjensen (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Third Party System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pietists?

I've never known a Pietist to be Unitarian. Whigs and Republicans who opposed Catholics basically displayed the same elements of the fascism found in their temperance and other uplift crusades, not because they were good Protestants, but because they had long since abandoned Protestantism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image caption

Because my edit summary borked: The infobox image describes tendencies from summed data, as noted on file page. "Results" was ambiguous: presumably it refers to electoral college results, but could be interpreted to mean states had different presidents which is obviously not the case. Techhead7890 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]