The Second Party System was the political party system operating in the United States from about 1828 to 1860, after the First Party System ended.William G. Shade, "The Second Party System" in Paul Kleppner, et al. Evolution of American Electoral Systems (1983) pp 77–112. The system was characterized by rapidly rising levels of voter interest, beginning in 1824, as demonstrated by Election Day turnouts, rallies, partisan newspapers, and high degrees of personal loyalty to parties.Brown (1999)Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2006)
Two major parties dominated the political landscape: the Democratic Party, led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, assembled by Henry Clay from the National Republicans and from other opponents of Jackson. Minor parties included the Anti-Masonic Party, an important innovator from 1827 to 1834; the abolitionist Liberty Party in 1840; and the anti-slavery expansion Free Soil Party in 1848 and 1852. The Second Party System reflected and shaped the political, social, economic and cultural currents of the Jacksonian Era, until succeeded by the Third Party System.Holt, Political Parties and American Political Development: From the Age of Jackson to the Age of Lincoln (1992)
This party system materialized from two realignments in 1824. The first realignment was of various Democratic-Republican voting blocs realigning into the newly-formed Democratic Party, which acted as a successor to the entire Democratic-Republican Party as the conservative party of the South's more slave sparse areas and the non-Coastal Northern counties. The second realignment in 1824 was of leftover Federalist-aligned voters who formed the Clay and John Quincy Adams factions in the Coastal North, realigning into the National Republican Party in 1828.
This northern base of National Republicans in the Coastal North, alongside the wealthy slave owners of the Southern slave centers and the Anti-Masons in Vermont, Massachusetts, upstate New York and Pennsylvania, realigned into the newly formed Whig Party in 1836. With the fall of the Whig Party in 1856, the remaining Whig coalition (those not affected by the Free Soil movement in New England and the Great Lakes Region) realigned into the Know Nothing ticket that same year then realigned into the Constitutional Union Party in 1856 at the start of the next party system.
Frank Towers specifies an important ideological divide was that "Democrats stood for the 'sovereignty of the people' as expressed in popular demonstrations, constitutional conventions, and majority rule as a general principle of governing, whereas Whigs advocated the rule of law, written and unchanging constitutions, and protections for minority interests against majority tyranny."Frank Towers, "Mobtown's Impact on the Study of Urban Politics in the Early Republic.". Maryland Historical Magazine 107 (Winter 2012) pp: 469-75, p 472, citing Robert E, Shalhope, The Baltimore Bank Riot: Political Upheaval in Antebellum Maryland (2009) p. 147
Patterns Historian Richard P. McCormick is most responsible for defining the term. He stated:McCormick 1966 pp 14–16 It was a distinct party system. It was produced by leaders trying to win the presidency, with contenders building their own national coalitions. Regional effects strongly affected developments, with the Adams forces strongest in New England and the Jacksonians in the Southwest. For the first time, two-party politics were extended to the South and West (which had been one-party regions). In each region, the two parties were about equal — the first and only party system showing such. Because of the regional balance, it was vulnerable to region-specific issues (like slavery). The same two parties appeared in every state, and contested both the electoral vote and state offices. Most critical was the abrupt emergence of a two-party South in 1832–1834 (mostly as a reaction against Van Buren). The Anti-Masonic party flourished in only those states with a weak second party. Methods varied somewhat but everywhere the political convention replaced the caucus. The parties had an interest of their own, in terms of the office-seeking goals of party activists. The System brought forth a new, popular campaign style. Close elections—not charismatic candidates or particular issues—brought out the voters. Party leaders formed the parties to some degree in their own image.
Leaders Among the best-known figures on the Democratic side were: Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, John C. Calhoun, James K. Polk, Lewis Cass, and Stephen Douglas. On the Whig side were John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William H. Seward, and Thurlow Weed. According to historian Robert Remini:Robert Remini, "Van Buren, Martin" in John A. Garraty, ed., Encyclopedia of American Biography (1974) pp 1120-1122. Van Buren's creative contribution to the political development of the nation was enormous, and as such he earned his way to the presidency. After gaining control of New York's Republican Party he organized the Albany Regency to run the state in his absence while he pursued a national career in Washington. The Regency was a governing consul in Albany consisting of a group of politically astute and highly intelligent men. He was one of the first statewide political machines in the country was success resulted from its professional use of patronage, the legislative caucus, and the official party newspaper.....[In Washington] he labored to bring about the reorganization of the Republican Party through an alliance between what he called "the planters of the South and the plain Republicans of the North."... Heretofore parties were regarded as evils to be tolerated; Van Buren argued that the party system was the most sensible and intelligent way the affairs of the nation could be democratically conducted, a viewpoint that eventually won national approval.
Origins
The 1824 presidential election operated without political parties and came down to a four-man race. Each candidate (Henry Clay, William Crawford, Andrew Jackson, and John Quincy Adams), all of whom were nominally Democratic Republicans, had a regional base of support involving factions in the various states. With no electoral college majority, the choice devolved on the United States House of Representatives. Clay was not among the three finalists, but as Speaker of the House he negotiated the settlement. Jackson, despite having won the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, was not elected. John Quincy Adams, son of former President John Adams, was elected, and he immediately chose Clay as Secretary of State.Lynn H. Parsons, The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828 (2009)
Jackson loudly denounced this "corrupt bargain." Campaigning vigorously he launched a crusade against the corruption he saw in Washington. Appealing both to local militia companies (as the most famous of the nation's Indian fighters, and a hero of the War of 1812) and to state political factions, Jackson assembled a coalition, the embryonic Democratic Party, that ousted Adams in 1828. Martin Van Buren, brilliant leader of New York politics, was Jackson's key aide, bringing along the many electoral votes of Virginia and Pennsylvania. His reward was appointment as Secretary of State and later nomination and election to the vice presidency as heir to the Jacksonian tradition. The Adams-Clay wing of the Democratic-Republican Party became known as the National Republicans, although Adams never considered himself a loyal member of the party.
As Norton explains the Jacksonian triumph in 1828: Jacksonians believed the people's will had finally prevailed. Through a lavishly financed coalition of state parties, political leaders, and newspaper editors, a popular movement had elected the president. The Democrats became the nation's first well-organized national party ... and tight party organization became the hallmark of nineteenth-century American politics.Mary Beth Norton et al., A People and a Nation, Volume I: to 1877 (Houghton Mifflin, 2007) p 287
Behind the platforms issued by state and national parties stood a widely shared political outlook that characterized the Democrats: The Democrats represented a wide range of views but shared a fundamental commitment to the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society. They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty. The 1824 "corrupt bargain" had strengthened their suspicion of Washington politics. ... Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich. They sought to restore the independence of the individual--the artisan and the ordinary farmer--by ending federal support of banks and corporations and restricting the use of paper currency, which they distrusted. Their definition of the proper role of government tended to be negative, and Jackson's political power was largely expressed in negative acts. He exercised the veto more than all previous presidents combined. Jackson and his supporters also opposed reform as a movement. Reformers eager to turn their programs into legislation called for a more active government. But Democrats tended to oppose programs like educational reform and the establishment of a public education system. They believed, for instance, that public schools restricted individual liberty by interfering with parental responsibility and undermined freedom of religion by replacing church schools. Nor did Jackson share reformers' humanitarian concerns. He had no sympathy for American Indians, initiating the removal of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.Mary Beth Norton et al., A People and a Nation, Volume I: to 1877 (2007) pp 287-88Robert Allen Rutland, The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton (U. of Missouri Press, 1995) ch 1–4
Historians have examined the emergence of the Second Party System at the local level. For example, Bruce Bendler argues that in New Jersey the same dramatic changes that were reshaping the rest of the country were especially pointed in that state in the 1820s. A new political system emerged by the end of the decade as voters polarized in support or opposition to Jackson. Furthermore, the "Market Revolution" was well underway, as industrialization and upgraded transportation networks made the larger picture more important than the local economy, and entrepreneurs and politicians became leaders in speeding up the changes. For example, William N. Jeffers of Salem County, New Jersey, built his political success on leadership with the Jacksonian forces at the local level, while at the same time building his fortune with a bank charter and building a steam mill.Bruce A. Bendler, "The Steam Mill and Jacksonian Politics: The Career of William N. Jeffers." New Jersey Studies 4.2 (2018): 41-68. online
Jackson: Bank War