Scan barcode
lukescalone's review against another edition
5.0
This is a really thoughtful piece--Holt thinks very clearly about the dynamics of the Second Party System and how its collapse led to the Civil War. Holt disagrees strongly with earlier historians, who argue that the impossibility of debate over sectional questions led to the collapse of the Second Party System. In their view, the Whigs and Democrats only fought over issues that weren't of any consequence, and that didn't raise questions about society in the opposing "section" (Northern or Southern). In this view, Whigs and Democrats were able to pass legislation on economic issues, but were unable to move forward on topics like slavery. This inability to advance caused the whole system to come crumbling down.
"Not so fast," says Holt. In his view, the Second Party System did not collapse from too much conflict, but because of too much consensus. Conflict kept the Whigs and Democrats moving forward, much like Batman and the Joker. One couldn't do without the other. They succeeded because they were able to approach numerous different issues in numerous different places. Additionally, because of the nature of federalism and the fact that the parties were factionally neutral, the parties could act differently in distinct places. For instance, Whigs in Georgia may support the expansion of slavery, while those in New York may oppose it. A New Yorker thinking about voting for the Whigs due to their advocacy of slavery in the South might argue, "Well, I probably won't vote for you due to your policy towards abolition." The candidate in question could then appease the potential voter by arguing that he did vote for further powers for the federal government. The conversation in Georgia would be flipped, but the very nature of the Second Party System allowed this to take place. Moreover, the two parties--being sectionally neutral--were able to garner support when they were the minority party by villainizing the other party. As a result, the pendulum would swing and American politics maintained an equal balance of power.
That is, of course, until the Compromise of 1850. Until 1850, slavery was an intractable issue that there was little consensus on. With the Compromise of 1850, both the Whigs and Democrats proclaimed that the question of slavery was over, resolved, never to be touched again. This claim inflamed Northerners, who left the Whigs and Democrats by the ton. This didn't particularly please Southerners either, as there were still unresolved questions. Nevertheless, the Democrats were able to keep some semblance of party discipline in the South, while the Whig Party collapsed in its entirety. A cacophony of anti-Democratic parties emerged in the North. At first, it looked like the Know-Nothings would come out on top--they continued to vilify the Democrats for their support of Catholics and immigrants. However, the Know Nothings also reached an impasse over slavery and collapsed. Ultimately, the Republicans came out on top with, squeaky-clean abolitionist credentials.
The question, then, is why didn't the Democrats disintegrate alongside the Whigs? Commentators at the time expected that both parties would wholly collapse, but this doesn't appear to be what happened. From one angle, the Democrats were able to continue in power because they were vilified by the Know-Nothings and the Republicans. Those opposed to Know-Nothings and Republicans found a natural home there. However, Holt argues that the Democrats did collapse ideologically. The Democrats continued as a coherent party, but they transformed from being sectionally neutral to a Southern party dedicated to the expansion of slavery. While wings of the Democrats wanted this before, the acceptance of slavery throughout the entire party was a wholly new phenomenon.
We all know the rest of the story--Republicans fiercely opposed the expansion of slavery into the Western territories and they were willing to roll-back the Compromise of 1850 and work with Kansans to prevent the expansion of slavery there in 1854. Lincoln was elected in 1860, and seven states in the Deep South seceded before he was even inaugurated. Within weeks of shots being fired, four additional states had seceded as well.
This is really good stuff, super illuminating and is still heavily read by graduate students preparing for comprehensive exams in American history. In many ways, it acts as a starting point for today's scholarship on the later years of the sectional crisis. Highest recommendation.
"Not so fast," says Holt. In his view, the Second Party System did not collapse from too much conflict, but because of too much consensus. Conflict kept the Whigs and Democrats moving forward, much like Batman and the Joker. One couldn't do without the other. They succeeded because they were able to approach numerous different issues in numerous different places. Additionally, because of the nature of federalism and the fact that the parties were factionally neutral, the parties could act differently in distinct places. For instance, Whigs in Georgia may support the expansion of slavery, while those in New York may oppose it. A New Yorker thinking about voting for the Whigs due to their advocacy of slavery in the South might argue, "Well, I probably won't vote for you due to your policy towards abolition." The candidate in question could then appease the potential voter by arguing that he did vote for further powers for the federal government. The conversation in Georgia would be flipped, but the very nature of the Second Party System allowed this to take place. Moreover, the two parties--being sectionally neutral--were able to garner support when they were the minority party by villainizing the other party. As a result, the pendulum would swing and American politics maintained an equal balance of power.
That is, of course, until the Compromise of 1850. Until 1850, slavery was an intractable issue that there was little consensus on. With the Compromise of 1850, both the Whigs and Democrats proclaimed that the question of slavery was over, resolved, never to be touched again. This claim inflamed Northerners, who left the Whigs and Democrats by the ton. This didn't particularly please Southerners either, as there were still unresolved questions. Nevertheless, the Democrats were able to keep some semblance of party discipline in the South, while the Whig Party collapsed in its entirety. A cacophony of anti-Democratic parties emerged in the North. At first, it looked like the Know-Nothings would come out on top--they continued to vilify the Democrats for their support of Catholics and immigrants. However, the Know Nothings also reached an impasse over slavery and collapsed. Ultimately, the Republicans came out on top with, squeaky-clean abolitionist credentials.
The question, then, is why didn't the Democrats disintegrate alongside the Whigs? Commentators at the time expected that both parties would wholly collapse, but this doesn't appear to be what happened. From one angle, the Democrats were able to continue in power because they were vilified by the Know-Nothings and the Republicans. Those opposed to Know-Nothings and Republicans found a natural home there. However, Holt argues that the Democrats did collapse ideologically. The Democrats continued as a coherent party, but they transformed from being sectionally neutral to a Southern party dedicated to the expansion of slavery. While wings of the Democrats wanted this before, the acceptance of slavery throughout the entire party was a wholly new phenomenon.
We all know the rest of the story--Republicans fiercely opposed the expansion of slavery into the Western territories and they were willing to roll-back the Compromise of 1850 and work with Kansans to prevent the expansion of slavery there in 1854. Lincoln was elected in 1860, and seven states in the Deep South seceded before he was even inaugurated. Within weeks of shots being fired, four additional states had seceded as well.
This is really good stuff, super illuminating and is still heavily read by graduate students preparing for comprehensive exams in American history. In many ways, it acts as a starting point for today's scholarship on the later years of the sectional crisis. Highest recommendation.
More...