The Shrine of Party: Congressional Voting Behavior, 1841-1852 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS The Shrine of Party: Congressional Voting Behavior, 1841-1852. By Joel H. Silbey. (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967. Pp. x, 292. $6.00.) American historians, the author of this book complains, have too freely and uncritically emphasized the "overwhelming importance of sectionalism in the pre-Civil War era," the result of the work of Frederick Jackson Turner and his followers as well as of the "overconcentration on the careers of prominent statesmen" and an "overdependence on certain types of evidence." This influence has been particularly strong in the interpretation of the political struggles of the antebellum years; because of it, there is much about these struggles that still remains "confused and unclear." How important, for example, were sectional allegiances in determining the direction of pre-Civil War politics? Did sectionalism effectively replace the more traditional party loyalties in political expression and if so, to what extent? Which—section or party—more accurately "reflected the predominant political forces of the day"? Professor Silbey has essayed the task of measuring the relative importance of sectional allegiances and party loyalties to political behavior by investigating one manifestation of political expression during a limited period of time. He hopes to make "a fresh start" toward the comprehension of pre-Civü War politics "by carefully measuring how much either section or party considerations affected a prime reflector of public opinion—congressional roll-call voting." He has selected the period 1841-1852, from the Twenty-seventh Congress through the first session of the Thirty-second Congress, for his investigation. In carrying out his investigation, Silbey discards a reliance on what he calk impressionistic evidence (or "documentary determinism," a borrowed phrase) in favor of quantitative analysis, or the application of "social science techniques." To be sure, he continues to employ "impressionistic" evidence and uses it heavily, on a highly selective basis, to provide the framework for his analysis but the thrust of his work is in his attempt to measure quantitatively the response of members of Congress between 1841 and 1852 to the political issues which came before them, He has subjected almost two thousand congressional roll-calls to statistical analysis; "section" and "party" become polarized concepts and each congressman's behavior is set against these standards. The work is impressive in its detail; the energy and careful thought which the author has devoted to his task is both prodigious and highly commendable. At the same time, he is cautious not to claim too much for his methodology and he carefully spells out the 265 266CIVIL WAR HISTORY limitations of his technique. His study is "only a first venture into the application of social science techniques" to pre-Civil War politics, producing "only possible guidelines for understanding other periods and other levels of American politics." The "narrowness of political contests and the ecological makeup of districts could be involved," "irrational and emotional factors may influence behavior," and the question of "why a particular pattern occurred " cannot be answered. Basic to his study are several assumptions: that "irrational and local factors were probably part of the larger influences that made up the sectional and party variables"; "that the individual congressman is usually quite consistent in his voting behavior"; that "factionalism might not be as important as the bonds party members had in common" and that if forces of sectionalism disrupted the two major parties "the roll-call voting should reveal it." What are the author's conclusions? Between 1841 and 1845, on such questions as finance, land, tariff and expansion, congressional voting was characterized by "strong party loyalty" and a "high degree of party discipline ." On the other hand, "sectional and local considerations" were important to the voting on questions involving internal improvements and Negro slavery. As President Tyler's administration came to an end, "there was little sign in Congress of an impending period in which sectional considerations would strongly affect voting behavior." In 1846, sectionalism played a greater role but "there was as vet no general, overall sectional pattern in Congress." Between 1846 and 1849, "partisanship and sectionalism existed side by side and affected congressmen." There continued to be a high correlation between national party ties and voting behavior on questions related to...