The Seat of Popular Leadership: Parties, Elections, and the Nineteenth‐Century Presidency

Abstract

In this article, I examine relationship between and president in nineteenth century. While relationship is generally thought to be a rather minimal one, I will suggest that there is an alternative way to conceptualize and theorize public in nineteenth century one that has been unduly neglected.(1) Indeed, nineteenth-century president was constrained in being a leader by a strong constitutional ethos, and, to be sure, he rarely made direct, appeals. Yet, I will argue that there are instantiations of a presidency between extremes of no relationship with and a direct, relationship with people. Most notably, presidents' relationships with party organizations in nineteenth century gave rise to a type of presidential leadership. Parties in nineteenth century were most important vehicles for reaching and organizing and, ideally, transmitting its will into policy. We tend now to speak of opinion as an entity constituted most prominently by opinion polls; however, in nineteenth-century, party and opinion were inextricably bound, nearly inseparable.(2) Governmental leaders, presidents included, in their ties to parties, then, were in a very important way establishing links with and opinion. One can think of a presidency being created by party in nineteenth century, a relationship far more popular in its basis than one created by Constitution. To move toward establishing this argument, this article will proceed along two fronts. First, I will take a brief theoretical look at what development of parties in United States, in 1830s and 1840s, meant for political system and, particularly, relationship between people and presidency. To sharply cast this perspective, I will set it against views of founders on party, public, and presidency. Second, I will begin to put some flesh on these theoretical arguments through a presentation of empirical findings on nineteenth-century presidential elections. Marshaling evidence primarily from nineteenth-century campaign biographies, I will demonstrate that, at least in rhetoric of campaigns and elections, presidency was seen as a seat of leadership. After laying out these arguments, I will suggest how this party model of presidential leadership might fit into our contemporary debates about presidential leadership. I There is no controversy in saying that founders were not democrats, that their faith in people was limited. When analyzing Constitution and The Federalist, it is clear that for Madison and founders, participation of people in government was far from an innocuous affair.(3) Popular governments, like all governments, were prone to certain problems and downfalls. The downfall of governments was almost always faction. The idea that a faction (or what is same thing in idiom of founders, party(4)) or a contest between factions could possibly work toward good was really not conceivable to Madison or founders: the good is disregarded in conflicts of rival parties.(5) The presidency was to play an important role in mitigation of faction in political system. The system for electing president, electoral college, was obviously aimed at ensuring that passions would not infiltrate government through election of a leader espousing divisive issues. For founders, a presidential candidate was not expected to campaign openly and vigorously for office on basis of political issues or appeals; rather, he would allow his character, experience, and reputation speak for him.(6) The people would have a say not in how government was run but in who was running it. Yet, if candidates contravened these desideratum, electoral college would likely work to prevent their election. …