why no parties in colonial america?

[Paul Finkelman]

There were some factions -- the Morristes in NY for example; but the politics wer "incomplete" in the sense that the people did not in fact have autonomy; royal governors intervened and manipulated politics.  The base for voting was also quite small in many places; Religion, wealth, race all limited voting in many places. If elites run things then the very issues are you are asking about -- self interst -- may be shared by all those in the political process.  Thus parties are not needed but factions emerge on particular issues; much of colonial poitics was about the personal, rather than about issues or ideology.


On Oct 13, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Sean Wilson wrote:

> ... anyone have any thoughts about why political parties would not  
> have naturally developed in colonial America when colonists were  
> voting for their lower house? I'm aware of the sociological and  
> cultural reasons against parties in that time period, but what I am  
> wondering is -- why did that stuff work? I mean, if there were  
> political stakes involved during the era of benign neglect, and if  
> rationality (self interest) is what it is, why wouldn't the colonial  
> political marketplace have organized itself around forces that  
> competed for selfishness?
>
> The only thing I can think of is that American political psychology  
> at that time inherited its party id from England, and that everyone  
> would have been considered Whig. This, along with the stuffy social  
> stratification and the classical education, made any further  
> specification of parties disfavored. And so instead of a party- 
> centric politics, you have only an "issue specific" kind of politics  
> develop. That is, the colonists would frequently petition their  
> lower house for redress of a particular issue. (Or riot if the taxes  
> were too much).
>
>  But I still wonder why in any particular colony there would not  
> have naturally developed men of clientele A versus men of clientele  
> B when trying to get into the lower house. Is it because voting  
> prior to 1776 was not that widespread? I have assumed it was equal  
> to what it was in England after the glorious revolution (roughly 1/4  
> to 1/5th of the adult male population). Surely this would support a  
> party dynamic
>
> Of course, now I wonder: is my premise wrong? Were there loose  
> political societies that performed the party (yin-yang) function?  
> Did fraternities like the Masons perform some of these functions  
> (compared to other groups)?
>
> yours confused and appreciative.
>
> Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
> Assistant Professor
> Wright State University
> New Website: http://seanwilson.org
> SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that  
> are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can  
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.



Paul Finkelman
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
     and Public Policy
Albany Law School
80 New Scotland Avenue
Albany, New York   12208-3494

518-445-3386 
pfink at albanylaw.edu