The only sure way to retain a one party system, is to oppress or outlaw any opposition. Because of the First Amendment, the government of the United States has no right to discourage criticism or opinions differing from its own. The First Amendment made the existence of the two-party system possible and allowed it to thrive. The entire nation will never agree completely on any issue, and thus different parties are natural. Violence and punishment for opposing opinions are what normally keep alternate parties from forming, but the right to free speech makes this impossible in the United States. The closest the two-party system came to collapsing was with the Sedition Act. This Federalist bill was almost tyrannical in nature, and the conviction of 10 men, who were mostly Republican newspaper editors, could have brought an end to the free speech of the Republican party. The bill itself was entirely unconstitutional. However, the new government created by the constitution was an effective one, and it did it's job. Although there was a Federalist majority in Congress, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson managed to offer resistance to the new bills with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The resolutions had the ability to tear the Union apart, but at the same time they were the epitome of "checks and balances".
The power changed from the hands of the Federalists to the Republicans in the election of 1800. Although structure of checks and balances seems not to have worked during the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, changing the concentration of power served to ameliorate the turmoil. Because the government switches back and forth between parties, it is a further defense against the development of tyranny. However, it can also be argued that having a two-party system causes nothing to get done. In the case of the early Republicans and Federalists, this is exactly what happened. The two parties were so concerned with proving each other wrong, that the fighting ceased to be for the good of the nation and was simply a matter of self-interest. The Alien and Sedition acts were interpreted by the Republicans as an attack against them. They came about because there were two parties, but were also destroyed by the same fact. If the United States had a one party system, would the bills still have been repealed? Would they have come about in the first place?
I don't think that America made the right decision in declaring neutrality between Britain and France. France had helped the colonies become America, so America should have helped France, and since they didn't, they should have expected France to be angry. Also regarding the Alien and Sedition acts, I believe that the bills would have never been created in the first place had their been just one party. The Federalists and the Republicans are portrayed as pretty much hating each other and not really trying to create a better government and better laws, but rather, as Emma said, trying to prove each other wrong and trying to have power in the government. I do not think that America could ever have a one party system because people disagree with each other too much, so even if there was just one party, there would be so many different arguments that it would eventually be split into different parties.
ReplyDeleteJason I disagree with you. I think America made the right choice declaring neutrality between Britain and France. America still had a large war debt that it was trying to pay off and assisting France would just add to that. Also Britain had many imports to America and a large amount of revenue was gained from those imports and helping France might have sparked a full on war with Britain which is something America did not want at the time. It might not have been right what America did to France but it was the right choice.
ReplyDeleteAmerica did have a large war debt and did avoid being pulled into another war, however America still had conflicts with both France and Britain as seen in the XYZ affair, the Quasi-War, and when Britain seized American ships. Also, even though America had many imports from Britain, I don't think they should be solely dependent on these imports, because like during that time, if there were to be international problems, it would greatly hurt the economy.
ReplyDeleteI think America's choice of being neutral was a wise one. Although they did betray France's alliance, fully deserving the "quasi war," the conflict did not severely damage the economy. It could even be seen as strengthening the nation, forcing to them create their own navy and test their new power against a world power. America had already improved its relations with Britain and Spain as a result of Jay's Treaty, and Pinckney's Treaty, respectively, and their "quasi war" with France ended relatively peacefully. Although they broke the alliance (1778)- it was already broken and only needed to be done officially. They even ended up establishing new commercial arrangements with France.
ReplyDeleteLike Jason, I believe that America should have supported France during the war between Britain and France. Although America did have many close trading ties with Britain, it was far too dependent on its revenue with Great Britain, and it therefore needed to trade with more/other nations. Instead of relying on Great Britain, Americans could have increased trade with France. Moreover, France and America had an alliance, and France had previously supported America. Now in France's time of need, America basically deserted France, breaking the entire purpose of an allegiance. What the Americans did to France was unjust and selfish.
ReplyDeleteI think that during the war America made the right decision to remain neutral. America was a new nation and could not handle being apart of another war. Also in reference to the two party system I think that a multiple party system is necessary for a strong democratic system. Although the two party system caused conflict it was necessary. If there was only one party all the laws that that party wanted passed would be passed and none would be repealed. These laws would be passed with no say from anyone else. Is this not tyranny? It is unfair for only one party to have say in the government and eventually the conflict that came from the two parties was worked out. It was and still is necessary for people of different beliefs to have a say in government and a one party system would not allow anyone to do that.
ReplyDeleteLet me jump in with a question on the question of neutrality: in deciding these foreign policy issues, should the US government consider "ethical" issues (for example, keeping promises, being loyal), or should it just look at "national interest"? I think different people are coming up with different responses to the question of neutrality because they answer that question differently.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dr. Korfhage's question posted above, I think that a balance must be met in deciding whether to side with national interest or ethical issues. Obviously, solely basing one's decisions on the ethical considerations of such decisions is impractical; the nation, in that case, will never look out for its own interests, and will thus not fare as well as it could. However, contrary to this, too much insular focus on self-interest creates much selfishness that can manifest itself poorly in international politics. A nation as a whole must consider the ramifications of its decisions based upon its own interest; however, the ethical considerations are also important, considering that other countries may esteem ethical behavior and chastise immoral behavior. Generally speaking though, in my opinion, a nation should first look to its self-interests, but quite importantly, then look to the ethics of its actions in order to maximize the country's benefit in the global and national spheres of economy and politics.
ReplyDeleteAlso answering Dr Korfhage's question, I think that a nation should make decisions more as a result of "national interest", because ultimately, it is the success of the nation that is important. If a nation had an ethical promise to ally itself with another country, and this nation ultimately suffered as a result, then the ends do not justify the means. In other words, I think that the fundamental importance to a nation is to be successful, and survive. If moral and ethical activity does not lead to progress, then the nation should try an alternative (that perhaps, might be unethical).
ReplyDeleteHowever Nick, doesn't a government that solely focuses on its own benefit have poor relations with other governments? And if other countries do not want to associate themselves with you, wont it affect the ability to progress? So, shouldn't government at least consider the moral reasons in the making of a decision, especially an international one? Government should also attempt to bargain, so both sides are content, preventing any future disconnect. Progress cannot rely only on National interest, it must also acknowledge ethics.
ReplyDelete