As a historian and student of the past, I know better than to try to predict the future. That’s a losing game. But curiosity is natural, and indeed, what we learn about the past can sometimes provide insight into what might be going on in the present. So with that in mind, what can history teach us about the Tea Party movement today? Perhaps quite a bit, actually.
Despite some obvious setbacks (paging Christine O’Donnell), the Tea Party made its presence felt in American politics last Tuesday. But are they really challenging the system and forging a new political path? Or are they merely in the process of being co-opted by the Republicans? Will they last as a political force and successfully push their agenda, or will their issues be eclipsed by new developments and diluted by their more powerful Republican allies?
In order to understand these questions, we need to look at a history of successful third party movements in America, notably the American Party (aka the Know Nothings) of the 1850s, the National Labor Union, and its National Labor Reform Party of the 1860s-70s, and the Peoples Party (aka The Populists) of the 1890s. But before we can do that, we must consider the nature of political parties in the United States.
The U.S. Constitution makes absolutely no mention of political parties. And there’s a 
reasonable explanation for that. When the Constitution was written, they didn’t yet exist in America. And for their part, the founders understood politicians to be independent actors. They idealized politicians as people who would work for the good of their constituencies and the nation’s well being, and do so out of a sense of obligation, selflessness, and even righteousness, which the revolutionary generation often referred to as “republican virtue.” For his part, George Washington detested the idea of political parties, or “factions,” as he referred to them, and he remains to this day our only truly independent and unaffiliated president.
And indeed, during the early days of the American republic there were no political parties as
we understand them today in the United States. They took time to develop. The Republican-Democrats of Thomas Jefferson and the Federalists of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were less parties and more loosely organized factions that often revolved around a pivotal figure. While they did have ideological strains, they lacked the organization, discipline, administrative capacities, and numerous other qualities we associate with modern parties.
Today’s parties and their descendants first began to emerge during the 1820s. The Democrats trace their lineage to a political organization that gathered around Andrew Jackson’s two successful presidential campaigns in 1828 and 1832. One of the key figures in this development was Martin Van Buren. Eventually serving as secretary of state and vice president during Jackson’s two administrations, before succeeding him as president in the election of 1836, Van Buren had earned his stripes in New York state.
Born in Kinderhook, NY, Martin Van Buren was the son of a Dutch tavern keeper and slave owner. As an adult he became an important member of the infamous Albany Regency. The Regency was the leadership group of the first political machine to control New York state politics, holding sway from 1822-38. Instead of starry eyed political ideals, Van Buren and his allies emphasized strict discipline and loyalty. Early masters of exploiting the democratic process, they realized that if their membership voted as a bloc, it would benefit them all in the long run, regardless of specific issues. United they stood. Machine organizers also realized that acts of patronage such as handing out jobs to supporters (the 19th century version of pork), could help secure re-elections.
Eventually gaining the state’s governorship and then a seat in the U.S. Senate, Van Buren moved onto the national stage by supporting Andrew Jackson. In a crowded 1824 field, Old Hickory had lost a close and controversial race; though Jackson had received the largest share of popular votes, none of the four candidates had gained a majority of popular or electoral votes, thereby automatically throwing the election into the House of Representatives. John Quincy Adams eventually emerged as the victor after a series of intense negotiations that Jackson’s supporters referred to as The Corrupt Bargain.
Van Buren had directly opposed Jackson in 1824, running for vice president on the bottom half of William Crawford’s presidential ticket. And afterwards, he’d helped swing New York’s Congressional delegation to Adams, playing a key role in helping him win the White House. However, ever the pragmatic one, Van Buren officially joined up with Jackson in 1827 in advance of the 1828 election. Once on board, he used his experience, skills, and connections to help turn the old Republican-Democratic faction, which had originally sprung up around Jefferson, into the modern Democratic party.
Beyond instilling discipline in followers, Van Buren brought numerous modern campaign techniques to the Jackson team. For example, he had the Jackson election committee divide states into districts, which were then parceled out to local chairs responsible for running the campaign, organizing local volunteers, and getting out the vote on Election Day. Van Buren also massaged the press and helped pioneer political gimmickry. Campaign workers planted hickory trees and handed out hickory sticks in honor of “Old Hickory.”
Van Buren’s tactics were successful and contributed to Jackson’s victories in 1828 and 1832, not to mention his own run for the White House in 1836. However, they weren’t enough to save him when a major economic depression wracked the nation 1837, and his re-election bid of 1840 failed. But the long term impact on political organization was already firmly in place. The Democratic Party he helped found at the national level, and the tactics he employed to do so, were successful enough to inspire imitators.
Shortly after Jackson’s victory, his opponents rallied around John Quincy Adams and Henry 
Clay. In so doing, they organized a second modern party: the Whigs. It was their candidate, William Henry Harrison, who foiled Van Buren’s re-election in 1840. With the rise of the Whigs, a two-party model was now in place. And even though they would eventually implode over sectionalism and slavery during the 1850s, they were quickly replaced. The new Republican Party emerged in 1854 by forming a coalition of former Whigs, the anti-immigration American Party, and Free Soil Party, which opposed slavery on economic, not moral grounds.
With the two-party system entrenched by the mid-19th century, opportunities for new parties to enter the system soon narrowed. Nevertheless, several alternative parties did make their presence felt. In Part II, we’ll examine how the Tea Party might fit that model.