There has almost always been two major parties. The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (anti-federalist), then the Democrats (from Jackson) and the Whigs, then the Democrats and the Republicans.
When Abraham Lincoln was elected, there was a four way tie (essentially) btwn Democrats and three other parties.
It seems to me that I looked into that a few years ago, and it seemed that two major parties was pretty natural, and became the situation pretty quickly.
The Whigs were pre civil war America, the party only lasted 22 years itself (1833 to 1856). The Republicans held their first convention on July 6, 1854 and four months later held 19% of the Congress and 25% of the Senate, six years later they held the majority in the Congress, the majority in the Senate, and they had the Presidency. The Republicans were never really a third party at all.
Before that, from the founding on, here is an article, covering the earliest years, “Two Parties Emerge”.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/19c.asp
And only land owners could vote.
No free sh*t army to pander to...
Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.
Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.
There has pretty much always bean a two-party system, just not always the same two parties - however, when a new one came about, one from before was pretty much completely gone or collapsing and no longer had any dominance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlHICfl_6s
as a practical matter, there have always been two parties. at the founding, the two central philosophical pillars were whether we organize more favorably toward britain or france. then it was central banking. then it was agrarian vs. industrial. now it’s statism vs. individual liberty.
but there have always been political poles. we just didn’t call them parties until (probably) the election of 1800 or 1804.
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
— George Washington, Farewell Address
Everybody voted for George Washington.
Since Jefferson and Adams and Madison all belonged to political parties I consider your source material dubious.
There is plenty out there on early elections and parties. Do some reading
Bear in mind that in the original Constitution, Article II, § 1, Clause 3, the candidate with the greatest # of electoral votes became president, 2nd place became VP, w/o regard to party..
The 12th Amendment changed that in 1803, largely because of the growth of political parties.
I have always thought that political parties in our system of government was a bad idea. Parties work in parliamentary forms of government, as in England. They have no place in our system.
There is no way that those who want to kill babies, abolish the borders, kill white people, kill Christians, abolish the last traces of the Constitution, and surrender to Sharia Law will not coalesce into one party.
Then, what are the rest of the people supposed to do? Try to fight them with ten other parties?
Therefore: I predict that the two-party system will endure until we get serious and deport all Muslims, illegal aliens, baby-murderers, and Commies.
It was a long and stormy night............
where were we?....
“IT” was over when States lost their sovereignty after the Civil War..
you know..... the war of Northern Aggression..
Once upon a time.. States controlled the federal givernment.. THEN; the federal givernment controlled the States.. i.e. civil war..
After that happened.. the States became VASSALS to the federal givernment.. instead of the other way around..
States Rights became a cliche’..
As it still is.. AND the Constitution became toilet paper..
AM I going to fast for you?..
In the early years of the Republic, tensions rapidly developed between the Federalists, representing banks and their wealthy owners and allied commercial interests concentrated in the cities, and the Jeffersonians, referring mostly to farmers, tradesmen, and small town businessmen who needed access to credit or wanted debt relief but found those denied them, the terms hard to accept, or money so scarce as to make credit or debt relief impossible.
This division became the so-called "first party system" from 1792 and 1824. Just as they do today, the Federalists and Jeffersonian parties of that era conducted campaigns, propagandized, influenced public policy, and sought patronage and favors for their supporters.
The two party system is an illusion.
When power was divided between the states and the government they created the deleterious tendency of party loyalty was minimized. We'll never know for sure, but I cannot envision today's horrid situation, in which party members typically serve as obedient foot soldiers to party leaders would exist had it not been for the 17th Amendment. Interests across our wide continent were too varied for state senators to become captive to nationwide party fund raising.
Our government has become something similar to that which we revolted against in 1775. The British constitution was whatever parliament determined it to be. By the mid-18th century, British government had been reduced to combat between Whigs and Tories for power and wealth. The written US constitution has likewise been replaced with legislative, executive, and judicial precedent; it means whatever the DC denizens wish it to mean. The Hanoverian Kings found they had to buy and bribe members of parliament to get legislation passed. Sound familiar?
So the US system has been reduced to a system similar to the British. Yes, the states and three Washington DC institutions exist and meet to conduct business, but it is all overlaid and controlled by lawless political parties whose interests are ambition and avarice, power and wealth . . . not constitutional government, nor the general welfare, nor individual rights.
Much has been written at FR about the Uniparty, the co-joining of interests. It is happening. The two parties are becoming one, cemented together with identical interests, the aforementioned ambition and avarice. When that union is concluded, when America becomes a true one party state, the grand experiment in republican freedom will be over, for the mask will slip, and reveal that the entire apparatus of a once free people has been corrupted into a self-serving instrument of plunder.
Article V before we can't.