Two Party System In U.S.Essay Preview: Two Party System In U.S.Report this essayThe reemergence of the two party system in America during the early to mid-1800s was due greatly to the battles for states rights and the economic issues of the time. These two topics were closely associated with each other and they helped contributed to the political struggle between the Democrats and the Whigs. The political divisions had occurred one part due to Jacksons veto of the re-chartering of the Bank of the United States, the Tariff of Abominations, and the disastrous effects the Panic of 1837 had on the economy. Jacksons veto of the Maysville Road Bill and South Carolinas nullification of the Tariff of Abominations had an enormous effect on the separations of political support as they pertained to states rights. These factors all contributed to the prolonged existence of the two-party system in America.
HISTORY
Before our modern history was complete, the two most important changes to the two-party system were the introduction into the United States of the Constitution, enacted in the late 1760s under King Jokowi and ratified in 1805 by President John P. Calhoun. The original proposal, adopted as soon as the Senate was formed to implement the Act of February 5, 1789 , was enacted into law. It would provide for a two-party system of government. The basic provisions of a two party system are contained in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America to the United States, where it is stated:
“The powers of the President to make laws for the said purposes, and of the powers and respectively of Congress to make law, shall be the supreme and absolute power of the United States.”
This basic provision is now contained in the 1789 Constitution of the United States. The two-party system was used for most of the Revolutionary period. In the Civil War, the U.S. Congress had to agree to repeal several of the 1809 Articles of Confederation that provided for the two-party system. Congress also passed the 1810 Federalist No. 41 (Cot. 1559)–[1] which explicitly barred Congress from removing federal officers from their posts and making them state servants. Although the U.S. Congress enacted a three-decade rework of the existing constitution in 1850, it did not have enough time to revisit the issue on the basis that Article V had not yet been ratified by then. After ratification of the National Election Act in 1819, and the ratification of the 1820 Federalist No. 16 (Cot. 1822)–a constitutional amendment–the National Government Congress of 1820 would have had to revise the existing Constitution to include new protections for state and local laws. This revision would have had to be completed quickly and successfully, but the time had come to begin the process of reevaluating the existing Constitution. By this time, the Constitution’s repeal clause was in place. Under the changes proposed by the House of Representatives in 1819 and by the House of Representatives in 1822, each state that did not have a State Sovereignty Act (Article V) of 1819 enacted by 1822 would immediately have to pay the salaries and expenses of its police as well as federal officers. A state with no Constitution could not pay such salaries and expenses. Congress could not make any laws directly restricting the rights or privileges of state officials. Thus ratification of the 1820 Federalist No. 28 (Cot. 1822), for example, was delayed by a few days, but not ratified by 1820 by a state legislature. There were, of course, exceptions. This statute only expired under a three-decade period. A separate bill, proposed by Congress in 1821, was subsequently put before the Senate in June of that year by the President. To avoid a state having to pay such salary and expenses for its police officers and federal officers under the new Federalist No. 28, federal funds were not required or required to be appropriated with respect to a state. Despite these and others, Article V was ratified–though not ratified in the United States itself prior to the ratification of Article V by the State governments with the help of another constitutional amendment. The United States Congress then set out to ratify an ordinance, which would have allowed for the state to have a right to regulate the power of local governments
The economic issues the nation faced during the time period played a vital role in separating political opinion throughout the nation. When Congress passed the protective Tariff of 1828, or Tariff of Abominations, the division between the northern manufacturers and southern planters became more evident. The southerners were greatly angered with what they perceived as an unreasonable tax, and so they, angered by the Democrats, began to show their support of the National Republicans and later Whigs. The political war over the Bank of the United Stats also divided the strong political opinions even further. When Jackson vetoed the “anti western” bill to re-charter the Bank of the United States, it effectively set the western frontiersmen against the eastern businessmen, because westerners were in debt to many of the eastern creditors. The absence of the federal bank took a great deal of power away from the federal government, and thus separated the fervent centralists against the ardent states rightists. The panic that occurred in 1834 also had an unexpected effect on the separation between the rising political parties. To end the panic, the Whigs suggested the expansion of federal credit and higher tariffs, but President Van Buren enacted the Independent Treasury System. Many harsh criticisms were formed about his plan and as a result, the conflict between the Whigs and Democrats stiffened and increased the dissection between the two. These economic changes helped to create political divisions, which ultimately led to a distinct two party system.
Many politicians also made attempts to either increase states rights or to increase those of the federal