Did the Civil War mark the birth a new party system?

[TB]

Did the Civil War mark the birth a new party system? What were the political outcome of the war? Who were the Republicans and what did they want? Did the Democrats really fit the South or was it the South that made the Democratic party fit their interests?

[A18]

What do you mean, a "new party system?"

The Republicans remained centralizing mercantilists. The Democrats remained Jeffersonian federalists.

[TB]

What do you mean, a "new party system?"

The Republicans remained centralizing mercantilists. The Democrats remained Jeffersonian federalists.

Some historians have suggested that the civil war was partly because of the breakdown of the Jacksonian democratic party.

[Beet]

What do you mean, a "new party system?"

The Republicans remained centralizing mercantilists. The Democrats remained Jeffersonian federalists.

Some historians have suggested that the civil war was partly because of the breakdown of the Jacksonian democratic party.

Yes, the Whigs were not a regionally based party like the later Republicans; their doctrine of government works, aggressive foreign policy, and promotion of economic growth was competitive in both regions of the country.

[A18]

I thought we were talking about party ideology. The Whigs and Republicans were similar in that regard.

[Beet]

I thought we were talking about party ideology. The Whigs and Republicans were similar in that regard.

Well the question was asking about whether there was a new party system brought about by the Civil War, which might be taken to include sectional bases.

[A18]

Well, in that sense, yes.

It's not surprise that the South started voting overwhelmingly Democratic. What is interesting is that the North and West stopped being competitive.

[jokerman]

Not really.  Republicans still held many Whig ideals, and economically were still the party of the upper-class.  Maybe a bit more regionally centered than the Whigs, but after civil rights issues died down they were essentially the same.  The elimination of slavery was the main issue dividing the two; creating the Republicans and eliminating the Whigs, but once that became obsolete the Republicans just took the place of the Whigs.

[Beet]

Not really.  Republicans still held many Whig ideals, and economically were still the party of the upper-class.  Maybe a bit more regionally centered than the Whigs, but after civil rights issues died down they were essentially the same.  The elimination of slavery was the main issue dividing the two; creating the Republicans and eliminating the Whigs, but once that became obsolete the Republicans just took the place of the Whigs.

The Republicans' extreme sectionalism compared to the Whigs is significant. Sectionalism was the hallmark of the new party system, so if you feel it wasn't important then perhaps there wasn't a significant change, but most people would probably say it was very important.

[A18]

How is anyone supposed to tell how the upper-class voted in the 1840s?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How is anyone supposed to tell how the upper-class voted in the 1840s?

Looking at electoral returns in areas with a lot of rich people?

[A18]

No, that doesn't really tell you a whole lot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, that doesn't really tell you a whole lot.

Why not? That sort of thing is the usual measure of voting blocks anyway.
O/c it depends how local the data is; if it's just for the whole state (for example) it wouldn't be much use. If you can get county results that's not such a problem. Although not if the group you're looking for is extremely small in numbers.
Info on local politics is also very useful.

[A18]

I doubt there were many counties that were overwhelmingly wealthy. Perhaps precinct results would be better. But even then, are rich people in given areas representative of rich people as a whole?