Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Ante-bellum southern history has undergone extensive revision in recent decades. Now that the hoary myths of Cavalier aristocracies, monolithic sectionalism, and Confederate chauvinism have receded, historians are better able to evaluate the ante-bellum political history of the South. Only recently, however, have scholars begun to examine the question of party formation in the Jacksonian South, a development of the 1830s, without the conceptual blinders of economic or sectional determinism. In this essay on party formation and development in Jacksonian America, the political structure in four Southern states will be emphasized. I shall present both an institutional view, which stresses party structure, organization and leadership, and a behavioural view, which emphasizes the politics of masses of voters and the interaction of social groups.
1 Owsley, Frank L., Plain Folk of the Old South (Baton Rouge, 1949)Google Scholar; Davis, Allison, Gardner, Burleigh B. and Gardner, Mary R., Deep South: A Social Anthropological Study of Caste and Class (abr. ed.; Chicago, 1965)Google Scholar; Silbey, Joel H., ‘ The Civil War Synthesis in American Political History ’, Civil War History, 10 (06 1964), 130–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alexander, Thomas B., ‘ Persistent Whiggery in the Confederate South, 1860–1877 ’, Journal of Southern History, 27 (08 1961), 305–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 For example, see Eldersveld, Samuel J., Political Parties: A Behavioral Analysis (Chicago, 1964)Google Scholar; Sorauf, Frank J., Party Politics in America (Boston, 1968)Google Scholar; and Leiserson, Avery, Parties and Politics: An Institutional and Behavioral Approach (New York, 1958)Google Scholar.
3 For the sectional interpretation of Southern political history, see Phillips, U. B., ‘ The Southern Whigs, 1834–1854 ’, in Ford, Guy S., ed., Essays in American History Dedicated to Frederick Jackson Turner (New York, 1910), pp. 203–29Google Scholar; Cole, Arthur C., The Whig Party in the South (Washington, 1913)Google Scholar; Sydnor, Charles S., The Development of Southern Sectionalism, 1819–1848 (Baton Rouge, 1948)Google Scholar. Three influential studies which employ an economic interpretation of political development are Abernethy, Thomas P., From Frontier to Plantation in Tennessee : A Study in Frontier Democracy (Chapel Hill, 1932)Google Scholar; Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr, The Age of Jackson (Boston, 1945)Google Scholar; and Sellers, Charles G. Jr, ‘ Who Were the Southern Whigs? ’ American Historical Review (01 1954), 335–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 The classic study of Southern politics, especially for the first half of the twentieth century, is Key, V. O. Jr, Southern Politics in State and Nation (New York, 1949)Google Scholar.
5 McCormick, Richard P., The Second American Party System : Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (Chapel Hill, 1966)Google Scholar. See also McCormick, 's ‘ New Perspectives on Jacksonian Politics ’, American Historical Review, 65 (01 1960), 288–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘ Suffrage, Classes and Party Alignments: A Study in Voter Behavior ’, Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 46 (12 1959), 397–410Google Scholar; and ‘ Political Development and the Second Party System ’, in Chambers, William Nisbet and Burnham, Walter Dean, eds., The American Party Systems : Stages of Political Development (New York, 1967), pp. 90–116Google Scholar.
6 This general view of party formation is also argued by Ostrogorski, M., Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties : The United States, vol. 2, (New York, 1922)Google Scholar; Michels, Robert, Political Parties : A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (London, 1915)Google Scholar; and Duverger, Maurice, Political Parties : Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, whom McCormick cites. See also Chambers, William Nisbet, ‘ Party Development and Party Action : The American Origins ’. History and Theory, 3 (11 1963), 91–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 McCormick, , Second American Party System, pp. 3–4, 329, 14, 15Google Scholar.
8 McCormick, ‘ New Perspectives ’, loc. cit., pp. 292, 300.
9 McCormick's theses have been criticized by Formisano, Ronald P., ‘ A Case Study of Party Formation : Michigan, 1835 ’, Mid-America, 50 (04 1968), 83–107Google Scholar; Ershkowitz, Herbert and Shade, William G., ‘ Consensus or Conflict? Political Behavior in the State Legislatures during the Jacksonian Era ’, Journal of American History, 58 (12 1971), 591–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Shalhope, Robert E., ‘ Jacksonian Politics in Missouri : A Comment on the McCormick Thesis ’, Civil War History, 15 (09 1969), 210–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Sellers, Charles Jr, ‘ The Equilibrium Cycle in Two Party Politics ’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Spring 1965), 16–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Unlike McCormick, I am not including Kentucky in the Old South. Partially because of favourite son Henry Clay, Kentucky had a functioning two-party system by the late 1820s, a condition distinguishing it from the other Old Southern states. South Carolina also must be omitted because its state legislature selected presidential electors throughout the middle period.
11 McCormick, ‘ New Perspectives ’, loc. cit., p. 300.
12 McCormick, , Second American Party System, p. 207Google Scholar, quoted from De Roulhac Hamilton, J. G., Party Politics in North Carolina, 1835–1860 (Chapel Hill, 1916), p. 36Google Scholar.
13 McCormick occasionally qualifies this assertion. At one point, he concludes that ‘ it is … difficult to decide the extent to which anti-Van Burenism was motivated by political opportunism and to what extent it reflected either sheer southernism or genuine concern about governmental politics ’. McCormick, , Second American Party System, p. 250Google Scholar. Despite these modifications, McCormick always traces the roots of party division directly to the Van Buren presidential candidacy.
14 Considerable evidence indicates that Van Buren was relatively popular with southern leaders in the years before his presidential candidacy. See Remini, Robert V., ‘ Martin Van Buren and the Tariff of Abominations ’, American Historical Review, 63 (07 1958), 916CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Remini, , Martin Van Buren and the Making of the Democratic Party (New York, 1959), pp. 28–9, 132–3, 142–4, 160–85;Google Scholar and Harrison, Joseph H. Jr, ‘ Martin Van Buren and His Southern Supporters ’, Journal of Southern History, 22 (11 1956), 438–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 For example, Hugh Lawson White, John Bell and Willie P. Mangum all voted against the bank recharter in 1832. They favoured internal improvements at state but not federal expense — a position similar to that of the Democrats. That Whig politicians in the South became more nationalistic by the 1840s may be a tribute to Henry Clay. See Knoxville, Register, 30 04 1834Google Scholar; Parks, Joseph H., John Bell of Tennessee (Baton Rouge, 1950), p. 102Google Scholar, and passim; Hoffman, William S., ‘ Willie P. Mangum and the Doctrine of Instruction ’, Journal of Southern History, 22 (08 1956), 338–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ershkowitz and Shade, ‘ Consensus or Conflict? ’ loc. cit., pp. 594, 600, 605.
16 For these Whig accusations in the four Old Southern states, see Memphis, Enquirer, 27 04 1836 and 5 04 1836Google Scholar, Raleigh, Register, 20 09 1836Google Scholar, Richmond, Whig, 12 08 1836, 14 07 1836Google Scholar; Hoffman, William S., ‘ John Branch and the Origins of the Whig Party in North Carolina ’, North Carolina Historical Review, 35 (07 1958), 306Google Scholar; Murray, Paul, The Whig Party in Georgia, 1825–1853 (Chapel Hill, 1948), pp. 65–6Google Scholar; Ambler, Charles H., Thomas Ritchie : A Study in Virginia Politics (Richmond, 1913), p. 179Google Scholar.
17 Andrew Jackson to Alfred Balch, 16 02 1835, in Bassett, John Spencer, ed., The Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (7 vols., Washington, 1931), vol. 5, pp. 327–9Google Scholar; Andrew Jackson to Andrew J. Hutchings, 31 October 1835, ibid., pp. 373–4; Phelan, James, History of Tennessee (Boston, 1888), p. 368Google Scholar; Hoffman, William S., ‘ The Election of 1836 in North Carolina ’, North Carolina Historical Review, 32 (01 1955), 48–50Google Scholar; Macon, Telegraph, 17, 24 and 31 03 1836, 7 and 28 04 1836Google Scholar; Murray, , Whig Party in Georgia, p. 65Google Scholar; Ambler, , Thomas Ritchie, p. 180Google Scholar.
18 Hamilton, , Party Politics in North Carolina, p. 38Google Scholar.
19 During Adams's administration Branch and Berrien worked with Van Buren in the Senate to secure Jackson's candidacy and election in 1828. Also, Branch's daughter married a Donelson and he named a son after Andrew Jackson. Furthermore Branch initially ‘ flattered John Henry Eaton as if he were a close friend ’. Nevertheless, the repercussions of cabinet reorganization necessitated a new political course for Branch and Berrien — one that involved an elaborate smear campaign against their former political ally and Jackson's more vulnerable heir, Martin Van Buren. Hoffman, , Andrew Jackson and North Carolina Politics, pp. 38, 66, 118Google Scholar; Govan, Thomas P., ‘ John M. Berrien and the Administration of Andrew Jackson ’, Journal of Southern History, 5 (11 1939), 447–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wiltse, Charles M., John Calhoun : Nullifier, 1829–1839 (New York, 1949), pp. 21–3, 104–5Google Scholar.
20 Andrew Jackson to John Coffee, 13 05 1831, in Bassett, , ed., Correspondence, pp. 4, 281–2Google Scholar.
21 John H. Eaton to Hugh Lawson White, 23 February 1829 and Andrew Jackson to White, 12 10 1829 in Scott, Nancy, ed., A Memoir of Hugh Lawson White (Philadelphia, 1856)Google Scholar; Parks, , John Bell, p. 44Google Scholar. According to Jackson, ‘ Mr. Bell was working for a place in the cabinet; … if I had given him the place of Secretary of War when recommended by Judge White he would never have sold himself to the blue light Federalists of the East. This was the cause of his apostasy …’ Andrew Jackson to James K. Polk, 20 03 1841, in Bassett, , ed., Correspondence, pp. 6, 95–6Google Scholar.
22 Register of Debates, Twenty-third Congress, first session, X, pt. 1, p. 1187; Willie P. Mangum to David L. Swain, 22 December 1833, in Shanks, Henry Thomas, ed., The Papers of Willie Person Mangum (5 vols., Raleigh, 1950–1956), vol. 2, pp. 51–6Google Scholar; John Branch to Willie P. Mangum, 16 March 1834, ibid., p. 124.
23 Abernethy, Thomas P., ‘ Alexander Hugh Holmes Stuart ’, Dictionary of American Biography (20 vols., New York, 1928–1937), vol. 18, pp. 160–1Google Scholar; James Eliot Walmsley, ‘ John Minor Botts ’, ibid., vol. 2, pp. 472–3; Robert B. Tunstall, ‘ Littleton Walker Tazewell ’, ibid., vol. 18, p. 356.
24 This interpretation of Georgia politics is supported by Sellers, ‘ Who Were the Southern Whigs? ’ loc. cit., p. 345. Also useful are Phillips, ‘ The Southern Whigs ’, pp. 212, 216, 221; and Murray, , Whig Party in Georgia, pp. 100–11Google Scholar.
25 The Tennessee general assembly first endorsed White for president in 1835 and the state constitutional convention and the state congressional delegations did the same in 1834. Phelan, , History of Tennessee, p. 366Google Scholar; Memphis, Enquirer, 21 03 1836Google Scholar; Moore, Powell, ‘ The Revolt Against Jackson in Tennessee, 1835–1836 ’, Journal of Southern History, 2 (08 1936), 335–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Murphy, James Edward, ‘ Jackson and the Tennessee Opposition ’, Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 30 (Spring 1971), 50–69Google Scholar.
26 Scott, , ed., Hugh Lawson White, pp. 254 and ch. 14Google Scholar; Phelan, , History of Tennessee, pp. 264–6Google Scholar; Hamer, Philip M., Tennessee, A History (4 vols., New York, 1933), vol. 1, p. 288Google Scholar; Caldwell, Joshua W., Sketches of the Bench and Bar of Tennessee (Knoxville, 1898), p. 124Google Scholar; Parks, , John Bell, pp. 100–2, 124–6Google Scholar; Clayton, W. Woodson, ed., History of Davidson County, Tennessee with Illustrations and Biographical Sketches of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers (Philadelphia, 1880), p. 74Google Scholar. Since White, Bell, Polk and Grundy opposed nullification, internal improvement at federal expense and the bank recharter, therefore little ideological difference seemed to exist initially between the leaders of the two parties in Tennessee.
27 For the data on turnout, see McCormick, , Second American Party System, pp. 11, 230, 231, 243–4Google Scholar; McCormick, ‘ New Perspectives ’, pp. 301, 292; Pole, J. R., ‘ Election Statistics in North Carolina to 1861 ’, Journal of Southern History, 24 (05 1958), 227Google Scholar; Tribune Almanac and Political Register, 1838–1868; Burnham, W. Dean, Presidential Ballots, 1836–1892 (Baltimore, 1955)Google Scholar; Washington, National Intelligentser, 2, 4 and 6 05 1840Google Scholar, Richmond, Enquirer, 14 06 1839 and 5 05 1840Google Scholar.
28 McCormick included much of this data but arrived at different conclusions. Since he failed to include in his book the rates of voter participation for numerous state elections, I used his technique of computing white adult males from federal decennial censuses, and then interpolated for particular elections. McCormick, , Second American Party System, p. 379Google Scholar. This technique is criticized by Burnham, Walter Dean, ‘ The Changing Shape of the American Political Universe ’, American Political Science Review, 59 (03 1965), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lebowitz, Michael A., ‘ The Jacksonians : Paradox Lost? ’ in Berstein, Barton J., Towards a New Past : Dissenting Essays in American History (New York, 1967), pp. 84–5Google Scholar. Voting frauds also distort turnout percentages. See Stanwood, Edward, A History of Presidential Elections (New York, 1884 and 1888), pp. 159–60Google Scholar.
29 For evidence that many antebellum voters divided along ethnic and religious lines in places throughout the North, see Benson, Lee, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy : New York as a Test Case (Princeton, 1961)Google Scholar; Holt, Michael F., Forging a Majority : The Formation of the Republican Party in Pittsburgh, 1848–1860 (New Haven, 1969)Google Scholar; Shade, William G., ‘ Pennsylvania Politics in the Jacksonian Period : A Case Study, Northampton County, 1824–1844 ’, Pennsylvania History, 39 (07 1972), 313–33Google Scholar; Cole, Donald B., ‘ The Presidential Election of 1832 in New Hampshire ’, Historical New Hampshire, 21 (Winter 1966), 32–50Google Scholar; Daniels, George H., ‘ The Immigrant Vote in the 1860 Election : The Case of Iowa ’, Mid-America, 44 (07 1962), 146–62Google Scholar; Peterson, Roger D., ‘ The Reaction to a Heterogeneous Society : A Behavioral and Quantitative Analysis of Northern Voting Behavior, 1845–1870, Pennsylvania a Test Case ’ (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh, 1970)Google Scholar.
30 Formisano, Ronald P., The Birth of Mass Political Parties : Michigan, 1827–1861 (Princeton, 1971)Google Scholar; Gatell, Frank Otto, ‘ Money and Party in Jacksonian America : A Quantitative Look at New York's Men of Quality ’, Political Science Quarterly, 82 (06 1967), 235–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rich, Robert, ‘ “ A Wilderness of Whigs ” : The Wealthy Men of Boston ’, Journal of Social History, 4 (Spring 1971), 263–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robert W. Doherty, New England Society 1800–1860 : A Comparative Study of Five Massachusetts Towns (forthcoming).
31 Formisano, ‘ A Case Study of Party Formation ’, loc. cit., pp. 85–88; Cherrington, Ernest H., The Evolution of Prohibition in the United States of America (Westerville, Ohio, 1920), pp. 115–62Google Scholar; Krout, John A., The Origins of Prohibition (New York, 1925), pp. 262–304Google Scholar; Tribune Almanac.
32 For descriptions of prohibition legislation in the antebellum South, see Pearson, C. C. and Hendricks, J. Edwin, Liquor and Anti-Liquor in Virginia, 1619–1919 (Durham, 1967), pp. 11–51Google Scholar; Cherrington, , The Evolution of Prohibition, pp. 115–62Google Scholar; and Krout, , The Origins of Prohibition, pp. 262–304Google Scholar. For a social analysis of Southern politics, see Folsom, Burton W. II, ‘ The Politics of Elites : Prominence and Party in Davidson County, Tennessee, 1835–1861 ’, Journal of Southern History, 39 (08 1973)Google Scholar; Smith, W. Wayne, ‘ Jacksonian Democracy on the Chesapeake : Class, Kinship, and Politics ’, Maryland Historical Magazine, 43 (03 1968), 55–67Google Scholar; Alexander, Thomas B., Wilmore, Peggy Duckworth, Lowry, Frank M., Skinner, Mary Jane Pickens, ‘ The Basis of Alabama's Two-Party System ’, Alabama Review, 19 (10 1966), 243–76Google Scholar.
33 For a discussion of the financial and political upheaval wrought by the Panic in the Old South, see Sharp, James Roger, The Jacksonians Versus the Banks : Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (New York and London, 1971), pp. 275–80, 199–200, 322–6Google Scholar; McGrane, Reginald Charles, The Panic of 1837 (Chicago, 1924), pp. 112–23, 162–3, 171Google Scholar. See also the address of Tennessee Governor Jones, James C. in the Tennessee Senate Journal, 1841, 116–25Google Scholar; Richmond, Whig, 20 08 1839Google Scholar; Macon, (Georgia) Telegraph, 1 08 1837 and 18 06 1838Google Scholar; Richmond, Enquirer, 11 10 1839Google Scholar.
34 McSeveney, Samuel T., The Politics of Depression : Political Behavior in the Northeast, 1893–1896 (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., ‘ New Possibilities for American Political History : The Social Analysis of Political Life ’, in Lipset, Seymour M. and Hofstadter, Richard, Sociology and History : Methods (New York, 1968), pp. 185, 216–7Google Scholar; Luebke, Frederick C., Immigrants and Politics : The Germans of Nebraska, 1880–1900 (Lincoln, 1969)Google Scholar; and Kleppner, Paul, The Cross of Culture : A Social Analysis of Midwestern Voting, 1850–1900 (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.
35 For reading this essay and making valuable criticisms I would like to thank Karen R. La France, Lisle A. Rose, Frederick C. Luebke, Edward J. Davies II, Ronald P. Formisano and Paul Kleppner.
