In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

COMMUNICATION To the Editor of Civil War History. The recent article by Robert E. Shalhope, "Jacksonian Politics in Missouri: A Comment on the McCormick Thesis," Civil War History, XV (Sept., 1969), would seem to call for some rejoinder on my part. I shall be both brief and restrained. I take it that Mr. Shalhope's main contention is that doctrinal issues were central to party formation in Missouri. "Further," he states, "very early in Missouri politics presidential and state elections, even in off-years, were debated on identical issues involving the same ideologies . Since Jacksonianism had the same meaning and content at both the national and the state level, one can, therefore, discern its significance and meaning in Missouri." (p. 213) It was my contention in the Second American Party System that clear party alignments were relatively late in forming in Missouri and that down to around 1836 state elections were indistinctly related to presidential elections. Mr. Shalhope agrees with me that the presidential contest "provided the impetus for party formation," but he perceives a clarity of doctrinal alignments that eluded me. For a starter, Mr. Shalhope makes much of the role of ideology in the 1824 presidential election, telling us that the principles that would shape the Missouri Democracy in the future could be observed in "embryonic form" in 1824. "The cause of Jackson, already viewed synonymously with that of republicanism, was thus placed on the side of popular government and the rising power of the people." (p. 214) Unfortunately , he tells us nothing about the rhetoric employed by the partisans of Clay, nor does he let us know that Clay received almost twice as many popular votes as Jackson. Are we to assume that the Missouri electorate was expressing its hostility to republicanism and popular government in 1824? But let us explore further the matter of the clarity and relevance of doctrinal issues in Missouri politics. Mr. Shalhope has obviously investigated this matter more fully than I could, and we may give some credence to his findings. He tells us that in 1828 the Missouri Jacksonians were "a wide and diverse group" (p. 218); that in 1831 "The fact that Jacksonianism had not yet been clearly defined at the national level greatly hindered the state Democracy's efforts to unify behind a Jacksonjan." (p. 219) He quotes Benton's lament about continued success of the Opposition unless the Democracy would "drop men and take principles for [its] guide." (pp. 219-20). He acknowledges that "the very supremacy of the Democracy impeded the delineation of Jack92 sonianism in terms of policy positions that would allow the party to state clearly who was and who was not a Jacksonian." (p. 220) As late as 1834, he finds Governor Daniel Dunklin complaining: "Benton is the only man in the State in which the party has great confidence; and as for principles, we are at sea. . . ." (p. 222). In view of all the evidence marshalled by Mr. Shalhope, I find it difficult to accept his evaluation of the central role of doctrinal issues in Missouri politics. Needless to say, his case is not strengthened by the fact that on so many occasions, as he correctly notes, non-Jacksonians like Edward Bates, Alexander Buckner, William H. Ashley, and John Bull could be elected to high offices. Mr. Shalhope perceives that the election of 1836 "assumes tremendous importance to the McCormick thesis." (p. 223) According to that thesis, which can not be elaborated here, the substitution of Van Buren, a northerner, for Jackson as the Democratic presidential candidate , occasioned a sharp rise in Opposition or Whig strength in the states of the Old South and, to a lesser degree, in the newer states of the West. Consequently, Van Buren should have received a smaller proportion of the popular vote in Missouri in 1836 than Jackson had garnered in 1828 and 1832. If Van Buren received a larger percentage, this might be construed as a sign that doctrine, rather than the regional identification of the candidate, played a dominant role. According to Mr. Shalhope, "Van Buren gained 76 per cent of the popular vote, more than Jackson had ever been able to attain." (p. 223...

pdf

Share