The Last Successful American Third Party

The Muser ^ | J. C. Adamson

[xzins]

In Brief: The Republican Party began by electing members to Congress; it worked.

The Republican Party didn't begin with Lincoln The last successful third party in American politics elected its first President in 1860. The party of course was the Republicans and the President was Abraham Lincoln. But the Republican Party didn't begin with Lincoln, and it didn't begin in 1860.

Still, the birth of the Republican Party was meteoric by today's standards. They were organized on February 28, 1854, held their first convention on July 6, and elected forty-four Representatives and fifteen Senators in November (19% of the House; 25% of the Senate)*. In the 1854 and '58 elections, with the help of some other parties, they denied majority control of the House to the Democrats. They unsuccessfully ran John Fremont for President in 1856. When they elected Lincoln as President in 1860, they took majority control of the House and the Senate. By the time Lincoln began his first term as President, the party was in place and in power.

There were many factors contributing to the fast rise of the party, most notably division in the Democratic Party and the virtual collapse of the Whig Party over slavery and other issues.

The Message for Our Times: But the critical message for our times is that the party secured political power via congressional and other offices well before it experienced Presidential power. In the House, they denied majority power to the Democrats in the 1854 election, and again in 1858, before taking their own majority in 1860. Those effective House minorities gave them governing power, even though they didn't hold the presidency or a Senate majority.

*In these years, especially in 1854, party definitions and membership were not always clear, and various sources give differing numbers. The official information on the sites of the U.S. House and Senate doesn't recognize the Republican Party in 1854, referring to it, apparently along with some other parties, as "opposition." If you have better, definitive information, and the sources for it, please contact J.C. Adamson

[xzins]

Ping to article.

[xzins]

I would add that there was a hugely divisive moral issue confronting the nation.

That would be similar to LIFE and FAMILY combined in our era.

We will cede Sodom and Gomorrah to our children or we will roll this back.

[Nifster]

And your example should be the road map for those who want a third party

[xzins]

I believe the presidential race gives name recognition, but it is in county commissioner, school board, state house, and other lower level races that a new party will have a chance at growth in our era.

The presidential race should be all about the lower races.

[betty boop]

We will cede Sodom and Gomorrah to our children or we will roll this back.

We don't have time to roll this back before November.

(Such a thing would probably require divine intervention....)

[Idaho_Cowboy]

That would be true if we still had the federalist structure to our government that the founders intended. Everything is so top down: Schools, highway funds, water. Due to the EPA DOT and the other alphabet soup agencies. Unless we get states rights and federalism restored all the real power will be Washington D.C. and not on the local level like it should be.

[Shery]

Good post! I have been saying that we should build a viable 3rd party out of the 2010 elections and work to make it a national party by 2016. It is the best possible time, given the democratic party’s plunge into the Communist manifesto and the republican party’s RINO situation, we could take a number of conservative dems, republicans and independents into t viable conservative party. We ARE the largest block of voters, if we would organize to win.

[xzins]

In any case, you might note that there has been in our history a successful 3rd party effort. No one can say that it has “never” happened.

I could point to others that were decisive if not victorious.

Also note that Fremont, the first repub presidential candidate, split the vote and lost to James Buchanen, a democrat.

Had he not split the vote, who knows. However, had the Republicans not started at some point the new party, there would have been no Lincoln.

[xzins]

I agree with you. Polls consistently say that conservatives (40%) outnumber liberals (25%) and moderates (35%).

With Obama and Romney fighting over libs and mods, that leaves an opening for a unified conservative candidate to take the election by plurality.

[reed13k]

Don’t forget the Progressives won 14 house seats, 1 senate seat, and a governorship in the mid 1910s. Some historians think had the Progressives not split the Rep vote that Wilson would not have won, though many also think he’d have won anyway. So while it can work- it can also allow the other side to win.

That being said I wish the electorate would spend as much time on choosing their government as they did watching football.

[Pelham]

“When they elected Lincoln as President in 1860, they took majority control of the House and the Senate. By the time Lincoln began his first term as President, the party was in place and in power.”

This is a good deal misleading. The 1860 election was a four party race and the GOP won with less than 40% of the vote. That may be the lowest percentage ever.

At the time it was a purely sectional party that received not a single electoral college vote below the Mason Dixon line. Lincoln took 18 states against 15 for the opposition.

Majority control of the Congress was guaranteed because 7 States seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated.

The 1860 election isn’t going to yield much useful information regarding third parties.

[NoLibZone]

It’s our only hope.

Pushing the GOP to the right clearly doesn’t work.

One candidate every 30 years does not make the GOP a conservative party.

[ExCTCitizen]

A third Party will give the AMERICAN ZOMBIE PARTY (aka DEMOCRATS) the power to push through SOCIALIST IDEAS...the AZP WANTS the UN mandate for gun control.

Yes, Romney is not the ideal candidate, but the TEA PARTY needs to get out and DEFEAT RINOS locally!! We need to take back the GOP....or the AZP will win!!

[x]

In any case, you might note that there has been in our history a successful 3rd party effort. No one can say that it has “never” happened.

People still argue about that. Some say that the Whigs broke up and the "Opposition Party" was formed as a second party, not a third.

The "Opposition Party" took control of Congress in 1855, and the Republicans were formed out of that. It wasn't the case that the Republicans were competing with both the Democrats and the Whigs as a third party.

Our system of voting encourages a two party system and it's hard for new parties to break in unless one of the older ones is collapsing, which doesn't happen often because parties are a lot like competing firms that take advantage of every opportunity.

[Dead Corpse]

If Willard is your answer, then Zombies will win.

This isn’t the TEA Parties fault. Look to your buddies in the GOP...

[af_vet_rr]

Pushing the GOP to the right clearly doesn’t work.

One candidate every 30 years does not make the GOP a conservative party.

The GOP does an incredibly good job of relegating Conservatives to the back of the bus. I have a grown child that is in the Marines, old enough to drink, but has never lived under a Conservative President.

Should Romney get the nomination, Romney will work to make sure that liberal Republicans like him retain their hold on the party. When he loses to Obama, and he will - the MSM and his own comments and record in Massachusetts will destroy him, he'll still set us back another 4-8 years since the people he brings with him into the GOP leadership will be just as liberal as he is.

I can easily picture my son being my age and never having a chance to vote in a general election for a conservative Republican. By the time my son is in his 30s, Texas will have shifted left thanks to all of the Democrats pandering to Hispanics, who will be the largest ethnic group, and to all of the liberal Californians, Floridians, and New Englanders moving in. At that point, I'm not sure how the GOP wins a national election.

[DNME]

Agreed that conservatives hold the plurality in America, if not an outright majority. Sad to say but conservatives are lost in the wilderness right now, since Mittens is a damnedly poor excuse for a “conservative” candidate. Still, ABO.

And while it would be a Godsend to form and fire a new third party in time for November (communications today being the stuff of miracles) it probably won’t work. The Ross Perot Factor, splitting the conservative vote and handing another term to Obummer, is just too much to risk.

For this election, we’re stuck with the GOP as the (once and former) party of smaller government, lower taxes and more liberty. They aren’t anymore, thanks to the RINO dominance of the GOP-e, but it’s easier to get into office with a phony GOP badge than with none at all.

I agree that our best hope for the future — assuming America has one — is to install all the staunch conservatives possible into every state and federal office that we possibly can. That way, once the TEA PARTY is officially formed, we’ll have lots of people already in office who will switch party affiliation to join up!

President Mittens can choke on the thought of a Tea Party opponent in 2016. Let him be a caretaker president, with a conservative Congress blocking all his liberal dreams in his single term. So long as we throw Obummer out, at least we can start the healing.

[Nifster]

exactly

[Defiant]

Conservative Republicans already have the power to deny that this article describes as belonging to the original Republicans. They are about 40 or 50 percent of the House Republicans, and growing in number, as old RINOs are kicked out. There are about 10-15 conservative Senators, and growing. If Conservatives would form a caucus that would fight against Boehner and McConnell, and not go their way every time the establishment has a conniption, they could prevent things like budget deals that add trillions to the national debt.

I think we can take over the GOP again, but we may have to go around the party structure to do it. An independent run for President by a conservative who was doing better in the polls than Willard might also help do the trick. If we can't bring the party together under conservative leadership, then the solution is not to keep going along with the Progressives within the party; the solution is to separate.