POLITICAL THEORY AND PARTY
ORGANIZATION IN THE

UNITED STATES

CHAPTER I

ORIGIN OF POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES

Essentials of party organization. Party organization in the government of a country depends upon the freedom of thought and action among the people of that country. Where this freedom is denied, political activity has nothing upon which to > rest. The uninterrupted communication of ideas, so essential to the formation of effective political machinery in the hands of the people, presupposes this freedom. No student of political science should be surprised at the absence of party organization, as the American understands it, in countries like Russia or Turkey. In fact its growth in modern Europe is a thing of quite recent times. Formerly the governments were so jealous of their prerogatives that any number of persons, assembled to consider the operations of their rulers, fell under the ban of conspirators, and were exceedingly fortunate if they escaped punishment. Holland and England are exceptions to this order. Party organization predicates participation in government by the people. Otherwise it would be no more nor less than cliques.

Its conception rests upon difference of opinion freely expressed. No matter how great this difference, it is of no importance without freedom of expression. Only where emancipation of opinion is enjoyed, do parties flourish. The sifting of Europe to secure the planting of America came about through the struggle for this emancipation. It resulted in the selection of a rare people for the beginning of a great civiliza

tion. The restrictions by governmental decrees of the freedom of the intellect, the clipping of the wings of the mind by a shortsighted policy, based upon the theory that the most direct route to greatness was by the suppression of political and religious heresy, were the chief occasions for the alarming exodus of some of the best brain and heart of the old world to the virgin soil of the new. It must be admitted that some of these sufferers in time forgot the lessons of the past and in a measure employed the methods of their ancient enemies to suppress the rights, the free exercise of which was the motive for their invasion of the wilderness of America. Barring these cases, the most distinctive ingredient in this civilization from the beginning of the constitutional period is the guarantee of freedom of thought and action.

To guard against any spasm of oppression the people secured for all time this recognition by inserting in the organic instrument of law the very first of the amendments to the Federal Constitution, which declares that Congress shall have no power to make any law abridging the freedom of the press or of speech, or respecting the establishment of any religion, or preventing the people peacefully to assemble to petition the government for the redress of grievances. In this sense the American political party is unique. This constitutional protection furnished the most fertile soil for party growth. In this soil at one time or another almost every theory that has occupied the mind of a citizen has been planted, and has sprouted, some to grow and others to wither away. Such multiplicity of suggestion, creating at times such agitation as to be a source of great alarm to European countries, has been received in this country as a matter of course, and frequently passes with but an occasional mention, due to the confidence of the average citizen that the fire of free discussion will invariably burn out the dross and preserve the gold. This people has unbounded confidence that no real good thing can permanently suffer in open debate. In this forum the points

of difference form the nucleus for party organization. Around them and over them the party lines are drawn.

Rational basis of party difference. On political matters the normal line of demarcation is that which separates the radical from the conservative mind. At times it assumes the contention between the positive and the negative mind. The dispute is waged by one party affirming and the other merely denying, and vice versa. Radicalism is an attribute of youth; conservatism, of old age. As in the life of an individual so it is in the life of a nation; aggression precedes the spirit of deliberation. In every political division and in every municipality, the inauguration of civic and municipal improvements most frequently originates with the younger element of the community, due to the aggression so natural to youth. Radicalism is an essential ingredient of party organization. Its existence necessitates the opposition of the conservative, hence the constant presence of the two.

This difference revealed in the Articles of Confederation. Just preceding and during the American Revolution the colonists were divided as to the proper measures to be employed by them to induce the mother country to discontinue her policy of arbitrary government. From the very beginning there were those like Otis, Henry, and Dr. Warren, who urged radical measures. Opposed to such measures were such leaders as Washington, Hamilton and Jay, who favored conservative means. In the course of events the logic of the situation favored the radicals, and by the time the war was imminent conservatism was eliminated and most of the population was alive with the spirit of independence. Before this acute stage was reached the radical wing took the name of Whig, and nicknamed the conservative, Tory. In such atmosphere as a war for independence, no conservative could flourish; hence with the coming of the war the conservative was left with the alternative of changing his politics or his place of residence. He readily chose the former, and soon the Whigs comprehended

nearly all the population of the colonies, and for the time being there was no semblance of party difference. The heat of the war had welded the opinions into one belief.

During this period an attempt was made to form an organic law for the government of the colonies as one nation. It resulted in the famous Articles of Confederation, written by John Dickinson, and, by 1781, ratified by all the thirteen States, when it became the charter of government. Owing to the imperative need of some form of government at this time to preserve the fruits of the war, and to the inevitable weakness which must follow a period of useless debate over political theories, the instrument was adopted with many gaping defects. To satisfy the parties who feared the destruction of the autonomy of the individual States, the fatal policy of State Sovereignty was declared and agreed upon. From the same motives the vote on all measures was to be taken by the States, each State to have but one vote. To render this policy yet more fatal to efficient administration, it was declared that each State should support its own delegates to Congress with power to withdraw them at will. From the same motives all taxation was placed in the power of the States. There was no provision for either an executive or a judiciary, consequently there was no coercive power. These glaring defects were due in part to lack of experience in Federal government, in part to the inability to do better than to compromise, and in part to the anxiety to afford some governmental protection against the threatened anarchy following the close of the war. The defects of the plan were soon apparent and the agitation for their reformation was begun.

Reasons for revising the system. The indescribable confusion arising out of the paper-money craze that swept over the colonies, the petty jealousies emanating from the lack of uniform regulation and interstate commerce, the embarrassment of the nation before the world, arising out of the inability to compel the States to observe the treaty stipulations, the