American History

1. A Rationale for the Two-Party System

There was a time when bipartisan politics did not exist in the American government. Strange as it may seem to us, the Founding Fathers originally did not envisage the existence of political parties although they worked out intricate details of the future democracy that America would be. The colonials as a whole preferred not to have a British type of political system with mutually hating parties. The fact that differences could arise among themselves too in the natural course of things was not foreseen by the pioneering leaders of the nation, and when these differences began to rear their ugly head it did cause some consternation among them. The emergence of political parties in a democracy, however, is a very natural phenomenon, and considering the size and disparity of the American electorate the emergence of political parties was inevitable. The Founding Fathers perhaps navely assumed that the right candidate could run for the presidency or for the positions of a senator or a governor all by himself. This would have been impossible though, even in the relatively simpler conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. A candidate could reach the voting population only by being a part of a large political party and standing on its support. Only political parties can manage canvassing on any scale bigger than the local level of a small town.

Democratic governments can have two or more parties. In many countries of the world democratic governments exists with more than two prominent political parties contesting for power. However, there is a general tendency for democracies to revolve around two major parties, even though other political parties many exist on the side. In America particularly the tradition of two-party system has become firmly entrenched. Although there have been and there are many parties in parties in America besides the big two  consider the relatively unknown and small-sized Modern Whig Party, for example   third party candidates are not generally taken seriously during national elections. Even in the 21st century, with the extensive spread and reach of electronic media and communication it would be difficult to conceive the emergence of influential independent candidates or viable alternatives to the traditional two parties.

2. Federalists vs. Anti-federalists

In the beginning, the thirteen states of America joined forces to fight the British imperialism. Americans at that time, however, did not have much experience in politics or in the military. The single political body called Continental Congress which was formed to consolidate the union of colonies and wage the Revolutionary War was considerably inefficient in its organization, just in the way Washingtons ragtag army was untrained. The Continental Congress appointed Washington as the commander in chief and commissioned the war, but it did not coordinate the war efforts in a satisfactory manner. In fact, thousands of deaths in the Continental Army during the late 1770s, at the height of the War of Independence, were blamed on the mismanagement of the Congress and this engendered substantial disgruntlement among some of the leaders. Washingtons requests for supplies were sometimes ignored by the Congress, and this would have created some resentment in the future President. Although differences and causes for complaint occurred during the time of the war within the one existing political body, people could not afford to make an issue out of them, and they were overlooked at that stage. However, after the victory against the British in 1783, the situation was changing rapidly.

A fundamental need for establishing a new government for a newly independent state was a strong constitution. The United States already had a tentative form of constitution by then, made up of the Articles of Confederation drafted in 1777. However, the scope of these Articles was perceived to be inadequate, and there was a need for a more robust constitution. The Articles were drafted by people who did not as yet have a vision of a unified nation. At the beginning of the war, people generally thought of America as 13 separate colonies instead of as a single state. When a preliminary form of federal government came into existence prior to the American War of Independence, it granted substantial powers and functions to the states. When the American Founding Fathers and other political leaders gathered at Philadelphia in 1787, then the political capital of the emerging nation, they decided to abrogate the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Virginia Plan of James Madison, which was expanded to become the Constitution of the United States. The new Constitution made way for a strong government at the center and considerably diminished the role of the states. By doing so it caused concern and anger among many politicians who were distrustful of a strong central government that could dominate the states. Those who were in favor of the new constitution had to do much canvassing to overcome the widespread opposition to it and get it ratified. By this time there were already two groups in place, the Federalists who supported the constitution and a strong central government and Anti-Federalists who were opposing them. James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and John Jay were the most prominent of the Federalists. Hamilton, Madison and Jay composed a voluminous work called The Federalist Papers in support of the new constitution. This work was influential in gaining many adherents for the new constitution and a new government was soon formed based on it, with Washington at its head.

The Federalists were in power now and Washington did not want any schisms to develop in his government. However these did occur, despite Washingtons sincere efforts to bridge the differences in opinions in his administration. The chief opposition in Washingtons government was between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

To secure a strong foundation for the burgeoning national economy was one of the top priorities of the new government. Hamilton was Washingtons Secretary of Treasury. During the war years, Hamilton had been one of Washingtons chief lieutenants. Hamilton instituted a series of economic reforms which were backed by Washington. Hamilton had a new vision for Americas economy, he was all for its modernization. Hamiltons brainchild, the Bank of the United States came into existence in 1791. This bank would act as the locus of the economy. It would mint coin and paper money, collect taxes and tariffs, set new regulations and policies, grant loans and so on. Hamiltons economic programs favored a strong federal government, thriving industry, commerce and international trade. Incidentally, many of the Federalists belonged to Northeastern States of America where commercial enterprise flourished, and they typically promoted policies such as the Protective Tariff which protected the interests of the merchant class. And although the Federalists stance was founded on the U.S. Constitution, they being the chief proponents of it, they often tended to make a loose interpretation of its statements in the interests of modernization.

As could have been expected, many politicians from the South coalesced into the main opposition of the governments policies because there existed an agrarian economy in these states as opposed to the nascent industrial economy in the North. Their strongest voice was Thomas Jefferson. From the beginning Jefferson believed the power of the center had to be limited and that the United States should only be a coalition of autonomous states. Under Jefferson, the Anti-federalists joined together to form a new political party called the Democratic-Republican party, which is todays Democratic Party and the oldest existing political body in the United States.

The chief contention between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was mainly on how strong the federal government should be. However, matters related to economy were also just as important. Jefferson bitterly opposed Hamilton and his economic reforms. Jefferson was against modernization, he was for agriculture and the continuance of the traditional form of economy. The leaders of the Republican Party, among whom were James Madison, Aaron Burr, George Clinton and others, were resentful of what they saw as Federalists excessive promotion of the wealthy merchant class at the detriment of the nations farmers. While the Federalists were for a modern, democratic and egalitarian society, the Republicans (that is to say, Democrats) favored preserving class and sectional differences, and wanted to keep the system of slavery intact. Republicans also wanted the Constitution to be interpreted in a strict manner, so that the federal governments power did not exceed the range that was allowed for by the Constitution.

Washingtons two-term tenure came to an end in 1797, and he died soon thereafter. The absence of Washington was a major setback for the Federalists. John Adams, who was the Vice President under Washington was elected as the new President. Thomas Jefferson was his runner up. At that the time, the law was that the runner up should become the Vice President, and so Jefferson became one despite being in the opposite camp.  Of course there was not going to be much cooperation between the President and the Vice-President in this arrangement. It was a system doomed to failure, a democratic experiment gone sour. In addition, Hamilton was the real authority in the Federalist party and he too did not enjoy high levels of cooperation with the new President.

Washington and Adams were the only Federalists who would become the Presidents of the nation. Adams could not win the second term during the elections of 1800 because whatever chances he had for winning were effectively sabotaged by Hamilton. Consequently, Jefferson did not have to overcome much resistance to reach to the highest office of the country. Burr was his Vice-President. The Republicans were in the ascendancy now. The rise of the Republicans (i.e., Democrats) would go unimpeded for the next two decades, by which time the Federalists would cease to exist as a party. Meanwhile Hamilton was killed by Burr in a duel in 1804, which made the Federalists lose the only strong leader they had. From here on, the Federalists were fighting a losing battle with no strong leadership to tide them over the difficult times. By 1820, the Republican President James Monroe had simply no one in the opposition when he was contesting for the second term. The Federalist Party was gone by now.

3. Whigs and Democrats
3.1. The Benefits of the Two-Party System

Although Washington and the Founding Fathers thought of political dichotomy and dissent as avoidable evils, the multi-party system is an essential feature of democracy. The two-party system that emerged in the aftermath of Washingtons presidency in America could be seen as being highly beneficial for the newly independent nation. While the strife, hatred, and smear campaigns are unfortunate fallouts of the two-party system, it has many positive things too to its credit. The dual party system  the ruling party and its opposition  is very essential to maintain a balance in the administration. If there was only one party, as it was usually the case in major Communist countries in the 20th century, it could behave like a monopoly. As is common knowledge, power tends to corrupt and therefore the opposition plays a crucial role keeping a check on the ruling party in a democracy. The existence of two parties also gives rise to a healthy system of competition. In order to continue in power the ruling party is constantly goaded to give its best performance, and should it fail at this task it would be most likely taken over by the opposition party in the next election. The benefits of a two-party system far outweigh its disadvantages.

In America around the turn of the nineteenth century, at the outset of the industrial revolution, while the Federalists were trying to strengthen industry and commerce, the opposition was doing its best to preserve the central role of agriculture in the economy. This made way for some kind of balance. Similarly, the Federalists were trying to create a strong and dominant center, while the Republicans saw to it that the autonomy of the states was not entirely swept away. This again kept the balance, which was especially needed when a new country just emerging from the clutches of imperialism was trying to find its identity and head in the right direction toward future. Therefore the decline and fall of the Federalists was not a good prospect for the country. Something had to fill in the vacuum. This was where the Whigs came in.

3.2. The Beginning of the Jacksonian Era

After the death of Hamilton, the Federalist party was a rudderless ship which would be soon lost in the mists. Thomas Jefferson made full use of a weak opposition, he was in power for two terms and saw to it that James Madison succeeded him and continued the Republican Partys grip on power. The so-called Virginia dynasty was established. After Madison, another Republican, James Monroe, was the President for another eight years. Between them these three Republican Presidents were in power for 24 years, from1801 through 1825. During the first quarter of the nineteenth century, many changes were happening in America.  The United States was emerging as a strong nation. The countrys population was rising as well as the recognition it had on the world stage. The pride of the country was generally swelling.

The presidential election of 1824 was different from the presidential elections that went before it.  There was only one party, but five candidates. John Quincy Adams, though being a Republican, was the son of the last Federalist President and represented commercial interests of the Northeast. Henry Clay and Adams had many common views but also personal differences, and both of them were contesting. Andrew Jackson had become a military hero during the war of 1812. He had a lot of personal charisma though his political views were not well-known. Two other candidates, Crawford and Calhoun are less relevant for our context. None of the candidates secured the necessary majority of votes, but Adams and Jackson were in the leading positions. At this point, Clay decided to put beside his personal differences with Adams and supported him in the House of Representatives. Clays speeches swayed the Houses votes to Adams. Such things are common in the politics of any democratic government of today. However, at that time it was considered a wicked move. Jackson was very hopeful of securing presidency because of the great popularity he enjoyed, but power was taken away from right under his nose. Clay made this move because his rivalry with Jackson was stronger than his rivalry with Adams, the former was ideological and the latter was personal. John Quincy Adams became the President, and Clay was appointed as the Secretary of State. Jackson and his camp sniffed foul play in this appointment and the 1824 election subsequently came to be known as a corrupt bargain. Jackson and his supporters vowed vengeance, and became fiercely determine to win the next election, which they won in 1828.

Although Adams and Clay were Republicans, they had many typically Federalist points in their agenda. Therefore up until the end of Adams tenure, people did not strongly miss the touch of the Federalists. The Republicans themselves provided the balance in some ways. However, Jackson had absolutely no sympathies with the Federalists. He was a popular and charismatic President, and is today regarded as the first truly Democratic president of America. Jackson was bent upon destroying the Second Bank of the United States, which was a symbol of corruption and evil to him. Jackson had many old-fashioned values and did not believe in such basic things of a capitalist society as paper money and financial speculation. He was opposed to the Protective Tariff. In many ways, he was more Jeffersonian than Jefferson. Jackson eventually succeeded in undermining the existence of Bank of America. His extremism was perceived as outrageous by merchant sections of the American population, whose well-being was greatly affected by Jeffersons antagonistic stance to commerce.

During the Presidential campaign of 1828, Jacksons Democratic-Republican party itself was divided into two. One of these, the National Republican party would be later absorbed into the Whig Party, and the other would continue as simply the Democratic Party. Jackson and his supporters could organize their party on a vastly larger scale than it was any time earlier. The Democratic Party that developed under Andrew Jackson would retain its characteristics till the end of the 19th century. In fact the whole period between Jacksons election in 1828 up until 1854 is sometimes known as the Jacksonian era. It was the new age of the common man.

3.3. The Birth of the Whig Party

The Whig Party was born in 1834 so as to put up a spirited opposition to Jacksons policies. It goes without saying that it has many common elements with the former Federalist Party. The party had to form because the many opponents of Jackson did not stand much of a chance if they fought between themselves and therefore had to unite under a common banner. Although the coalition of Jacksons opponents was organized during the 1832 Presidential election itself, the party was still not cohesive enough to establish its own identity. Strong differences among the various members of the party would in fact continue even after 1834. The Whig Party was made into a force to reckon with mainly through the efforts of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, who are considered to be two of the most brilliant statesmen of their time. However, the only two elected Whig Presidents were William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, both of whom would die during incumbency. Webster would serve only as the Secretary of State, and Clay would lose a Presidential contest closely. The active years of the Whig Party were between 1834 and 1854. Upon dissolution, the Party would merge into the Free Soil Party, the Know-Nothing Party and the modern Republican Party.

At the forefront of the Whig party were many people from the richer sections of the American population that were mainly concentrated in the Northeast. Whig candidates contested the elections of 1936, though they had slim chances of winning. Andrew Jackson was strongly backing his Vice President Van Buren for presidency. Besides, the Whig Party was hardly two years old and still could not rally around a single leader. The Whigs had to field multiple candidates in the election. They did this out of necessity but also as a possible strategy, hoping to take the election results to the House of Representatives like it happened in 1824. Though this tactic failed to secure them the Presidency, they could muster a decent 40 of the vote in all. During the next four years, the rivalry between Whig and the Democrats would intensify. A Whig candidate would for the first time win the Presidential election during the 1840 campaign.

3.4. The Influence of the Whigs and the Democrats on the Society

Between 1836 and 1840, the whole of America was being divided along party lines. This was the first time that the American public was introduced to party politics, as there was no clear second party prior to this time, and America took to politics in a big way.

By the end of 1830s, party affiliation was no more just a political phenomenon, but was also a social one. A persons party was in some important ways an indicator of his personal history and cultural orientation. The politicians who led the Whig and the Democratic parties saw to it that their parties had the maximum influence on the public. They tried to present a clear agenda for their respective parties hoping to secure greater public affiliation. Lets now take a closer look at the stances of the Whig and the Democratic parties.

The Democrats continued to defend the philosophy of a limited government. They also championed liberty and equality as these words became very popular by that time, while also, ironically, backing the most cruel exploitation system of slavery. The Whigs on the other hand, borrowing their philosophy largely from the Federalists, were all for modernization and centralization. They championed progress, which was becoming the watchword of the 19th century. They had a vision of an affluent and cosmopolitan America. The Congress and the government would play greater roles in organizing the society on modern lines, overseeing the different facets of it such as transportation, education and currency. On the issue of executive vs. legislative power, the Democrats wanted a stronger president, and Whigs wanted a stronger Congress. While these were the basic paradigmatic differences between the Whigs and the Democrats, they were also divided on many other issues while they happened to share some common goals too. The two parties would discuss and debate at the state level, while they argued and fought at the national level.

The influence of these two parties on the society was so much that they ceased to be just political parties and emerged into huge national coalitions with various groups, institutions and individuals joining one or the other side. We can even see them as some kind of mass movement, mobilizing opinion and action at the national level. Up to this point, political parties had mostly been for the fat cats who actually made the decisions now they were increasingly attractive to the masses.
America had been a very diverse society earlier. But because of the rise of nationalism and the influence these two parties had on the public, American diversity was significantly curtailed to one or the other of the two prevailing socio-political choices. It was becoming an eitheror society. Though American diversity still thrived because of the influx of the immigrants, religious issues and so on, there was now a marked two-sidedness to the American national character. Support for the Democratic or the Whig party became a personal issue for a majority of Americans. Politics has entered into many aspects of the social life. Therefore the history of the Whigs and Democrats could be better understood if seen from a broader social perspective than from merely a political perspective.

The Whig Party stronghold was in the Northeast, but it was also supported by many towns and cities of the entire North. The Whigs favored a market economy, a stance which attracted both factory owners and workers. The Whigs were rooting for a new dynamism in the society, and hence they promised opportunities for the ambitious entrepreneurs and workers of the increasingly industrialized American economy. In contrast, the Democrats were working to preserve the status quo, they assured more stability and integrity in the society during times that were inherently turbulent because of the clash of the old and new in the context of the emergent industrial revolution. The Democrats appealed to many people from the upper and middle classes in the South, those people who could be broadly categorized as cultural traditionalists. These people had not much to gain from the expansion of the national markets, and in fact the upper classes among them were fearful that the growing tidal wave of change could deprive them of their power and position in the society.

The Whig Party also inherited many characteristics from the Puritans of the North. These were the people that originally landed in America and they had strict religious observances and high moral principles. As a result, the Whigs strove for a moral resurgence of America. This was an inherent contradiction in their party, although leaders of the party may not have seen it that way at the time. They wanted science and progress, but at the same time they were promoting schools and educational institutions that were Bible-based. Whigs set an agenda of religiousmoral as well as industrialeconomic progress in the society, led by an activist government.

A significant portion of the Democrats were Irish Catholics. Therefore, the Whig and Democratic parties were also divided on CatholicProtestant lines. The Democrats however did not insist on religion, they said they were against theocracy and for a secular government. Therefore, ironically, though they were in many ways against progress, they could attract many free thinkers and atheists. The Fundamentalist strain of the Whig party scared off many progressive minded people who could have otherwise joined it. Perhaps if not for this fatal drawback, the party could have survived the schisms that would later develop in it and could have continued to exist. At that time, however, the Whigs did not care and instead labeled the Democrats as people given to atheism and immorality. A great number of Protestants too joined the Democratic Party because they did not believe in mixing of religion and politics. The rising religious fervor among the Whig members was an unfortunate development both for the party and the country.

After its demise, the Whig Party would be subjected to much criticism. Of all the parties that have existed in the United States, the famous Whig party was the most feeble in ideas, wrote the US historian and journalist Henry Adams in 1879. This is very harsh criticism, considering that the Whig Party had many lofty ideals and was originally driven by progressive notions, and that there have been far worse parties. But the Whigs simply should not have mixed religion and politics, but they did it and mixed up the whole thing. Whigs are generally remembered today as morally uptight New Englanders.

The South is generally thought to have belonged to the Democrats. It must be noted that though many of the Southern localities were staunchly Democratic, there were strong and extensive Whig pockets in the South too. In general, the Southern communities which had a rather cosmopolitan outlook supported the Whigs. As contrasted to the North, the political division in the South was not very much dependent on religious factors. Many Southerners were attracted to the Democratic Party because of Jacksons influence and his denunciation of greed that was taking over the country.

The Whig and Democratic parties were supposed to have divided the country on coherent political, social, cultural and economic bases however, when we look at the party philosophies, we can only detect coherence to some extent, beyond which there is much confusion and contradiction. The Whigs wanted a theocratic Christian Republic, while at the same time they wanted the country to be one of the most industrialized and progressive nations of the world  this apparently makes little sense. The Democrats, for their part, championed the individual and equal rights, while at the same time promoting status quo, class differences and slavery  if this is not ridiculous, then it is dangerously hypocritical. As if this was not enough, the Democrats too wanted a market economy, they certainly did not want to be left behind the times however, they wanted economic progress without the involvement of a government and even a national bank. They did not want to encourage paper currency, greed, ambition, speculation, and yet they wanted to see a flourishing capitalist economy. These were simply absurd demands.

We may assume that the country was being socially and politically divided into two because while there was a growing social and political awareness, people did not have a single party which could offer them a meaningful framework of thought and action. People did not always choose their party affiliation based on self-serving reasons, and besides not all people had something to gain or lose if one of the two parties came into power. In such circumstances, it would seem like people affiliated themselves to a party which they saw as less confusing of the two and had a greater balance of positive characteristics according to them. For example, there was much incongruence in people who considered themselves to be free thinkers to be affiliating themselves to a party that was supporting slavery, but this happened because these people must have thought that slavery was a much better option than the rise of a Bible-banging theocracy which could take the civilization back to Dark Ages. One could imagine a Protestant Church in America corresponding to the Catholic Church of medieval times in Europe, controlling every aspect of the society, if the Whigs kept their original promise.

As for the Democrats, in retrospect we can clearly discern the very height of absurdity in the Democrats continually stressing the supremacy of the individual, clamoring for civil and legal equality  in fact all of their major policies were supposedly subservient to the promotion of the rights and welfare of the individual  while at the same time supporting slavery, in fact actually ignoring the issue as if it was not even an issue. Democrats were not yet overtly supporting slavery by this time, but their silence itself was a great testimony that they had no intention to see slavery abolished. In their massive historical study of the United States, Norton et al. write
Yet when it came to slavery, the national parties often remained silent to keep sectional conflict submerged. Democrats and Whigs held distinct positions on most other issues.

Whigs divided stance on the issue of slavery would of course famously lead to dissolution of the party in the not too distant future, but at that time they too downplayed the issue as much as possible. It may also be noted that the Democrats favored rapid Westward expansion of American territory, but wouldnt this have infringed on the basic rights of many Indian tribes Long back in Ancient Greece, when Aristotle proudly asserted that humans possessed a rational soul, he actually only meant male upper-class Athenians, because according to him women, slaves, and Greeks traditional rivals did not even possess a soul. The Democrats championing of the rights of individuals and essential freedom of human beings too was riddled with double standards.

Andrew Jackson rose to presidency without having any clear political views, and the whole of Jacksonian era was characterized by lack of clarity and logical coherence in political and social outlook, despite the raging debates that used to happen all the time. Unfortunately, this was the first time that the political fever took over the country, and its legacy is far-reaching. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were correct in not foreseeing the need for a party system because in principle it is not difficult to see the differences between the right things and the wrong things, the logical things and the illogical things, and these leaders must have figured that the government would be always united in its stand in promoting the right things, after reaching to a conclusion through a democratic debate. The Founding Fathers seem to have had hardly any notion of the enormous confusion and hypocrisy that the human mind is prone to.

3.5. Van Buren, Harrison and the Elections of 1840

Though Van Buren could be elected sitting on the shoulders of Jackson, he had a hard time standing on his own as a President. In terms of personality and leadership qualities, Van Buren was the antithesis of Jackson. He completely lacked the charisma which his predecessors had in abundance. People were largely disappointed with the lackluster manner in which he was handling the affairs. In addition, 1837 saw a period of economic setback. It was called the Panic of 1837. Not only Van Burens administration was not able to avert it, they did very little to alleviate it. The Great Depression was alleviated through a massive interference of government. (Incidentally, Roosevelt was a Democrat). Even in the current economic depression, the (Democratic) government has been playing a key role in getting the economy back on track, so much so that in the recent times people had many occasions to wonder whether the American economy could be still called a capitalist economy or did it turn into a socialist one. Economic downturns demand a greater role from the government. However, Van Burens government was tenaciously clinging to the Democratic ideology of minimal government interference and did not have the practical sense to do whatever was needed to uplift the plight of the common man. Van Buren had earlier contributed much to the rise of the Democratic Party. He had been an able political organizer for Andrew Jackson, but the people started feeling that he was completely mismatched to the Presidential position. Whigs made the best use of the situation and began to direct attacks on him in every way that was possible. Perhaps this was the first time that mudslinging was carried out in a systematic and determined manner in American politics.

While Van Buren was diminishing in size, the Whigs top candidate William Henry Harrison was gradually assuming an imposing stature. Harrison was in fact a popular war hero, just as Jackson was. The 1840 elections were the first time in the U.S. history when massive and effective election campaigns were carried out. They were remarkably modern, based on the power of propaganda. The campaign of 1840 was heavy on image-making, less so on substancea harbinger of things to come. However, the Whigs had more things going right for them this time, including widespread frustration and suffering among the common people which is a sure sign that the incumbent government would be brought down. The Whigs also innovated more modern techniques of campaigning. As a result, Harrison was expected to sweep the polls and he did just that.

But unfortunately the Whigs suffered a massive blow when Harrison died within a month after his inauguration. The Vice President Tyler became the President. But he was at odds with Webster and Clay, and thus the big chance the Whig Party had secured through Harrisons victory was sabotaged by fate.

3.6. The Whigs Losing Ground

In the 1844 campaign, Clay stood for Presidency, but lost to James Polk. One of the main issues was the territorial expansion of America. While the Democratic Party was for America grabbing any piece of land it could, the Whigs saw this tendency as being unscrupulous and unprincipled. It was a closely contested election though. Had the Whigs won it, American history could have been different. Clay did not contest in the elections of 1848, this time he was replaced by Zachary Taylor, a veteran of the Mexican-American War. The Whigs wanted to convey a message to the voting populace that they were not against war and territorial expansion, though they still did not take a definite stance.

Taylor was elected  the last Presidential victory for the Whigs  but as fate would have it, this Whig President too died  just after an year of his tenure. Millard Fillmore, the Vice President and a veteran Whig member took his place. By this time tensions between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South reached a high pitch. The Compromise of 1850 dealing with issues of slavery and territorial expansion was proposed by Clay and Fillmore supported it. The passing of this bill was expected to defuse the tensions between the North and the South, but it was a complicated set of propositions and did not work effectively. The Compromise also created a powerful split within the Whig party on the issue of slavery, from which the Whig party could never recover. In the 1852 elections, the Whigs candidate Winfield Scott was thoroughly defeated by his Democratic opponent Franklin Pierce.

The Whig Party lost the Southern vote not only because of its perceived anti-slavery stance, but because of its fundamental belief in stronger government. The Southerners thought that a government strong enough to build roads is a government strong enough to free your slaves.

People both inside and outside the Whig Party were increasingly disillusioned by the growing disorganization and multiplicity of opinions within the party. For example, Abraham Lincoln, who was a leading Whig member in the Illinois State, decided to quit politics for some time and devote his time to the practice of law. As we could note in the nomination of Zachary Taylor instead of Henry Clay, in their desperation the Whig Party was growing more opportunistic. In order to emulate the success of the Democratic Party,  Whigs were gradually abandoning their original stand and were markedly conforming with Democrats, undermining the very rationale of the two-party system The 1852 election essentially finished the Whigs, who had become little more than me-too Democrats on the central issues of the day. While some Whigs were increasingly aligning themselves to the Democrats, others disgusted at this trend were turning their back to the party.

The Whig Party began as a conglomeration of many voices and opinions Clay and Webster could held the party together for some time, trying their best to forge a consensus. But their deaths in the year 1852 were again a blow dealt by fate to the Whig Party. From now on, the Whig Party was rather like the Federalist Party after the death of Hamilton, but it died a quicker death.
Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held conviction for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery. (Cengage Learning)

The phrase going by the way of Whigs in American political parlance has the meaning of a political party going to dogs.

4. The Rise of the Republican Party

In the decade before the Civil War, the country was divided into the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. The Democratic Party was predominantly South, though it had considerable support in the Northern States too, and vice versa for the Whig Party. The Democratic Party could survive the changing times by growing stronger in South, but the Whig party could not make a similar shift, instead it got itself divided. The Democratic Party would become seriously fragmented too, though a little later than the Whig Party the Democrats would however be able to reconsolidate themselves and emerge into power once again decades later, the Whig party simply ceased to exist. The anti-slavery leaders of both the Whig Party and the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party which was created in 1854. The Republican Party was the first party in the history of the United States to take a definite anti-slavery stance, though it did not promise abolition before the Civil War. The Republican Party supported many of the original ideals and tenets of the Whig Party. From the Federalists to the Whigs and the Republicans, there is a clearly discernible continuity. With the emergence of the Republican Party, however, the modern two-party system in America was firmly in place with the Republicans on the one side and the Democrats on the other.