Suchergebnisse

There has been a general unwillingness in the profession to grapple seriously with the arguments of Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution. This is unfortunate, for Sellers's book demands close scrutiny because it raises important questions about the significance of the Jacksonian era, the relationship between public policy and democracy, and the fundamental purpose of history. In their helpful comments, Herbert Hovenkamp and Iver Bernstein challenge directly very few of my criticisms of the book. Silence may or may not be acquiescence, but I see no purpose in repeating my arguments. Since after several weeks of trying Sellers abandoned his attempt to write a response, readers can read his book, my critique, and Hovenkamp's and Bernstein's comments and make up their own minds.

In the mid-1960s, Charles G. Sellers, Jr., was perhaps the most widely respected historian of the Jacksonian era. The author of several seminal articles on the period, he was in the midst of writing a multivolume biography of James K. Polk, two volumes of which had already appeared. Sellers's knowledge of the intricacies of Jacksonian politics, his comprehension of the importance of state politics, and his understanding of the relationship between society and politics were unrivaled. The second volume of his study of Polk received the Bancroft Prize, and Jacksonian scholars eagerly awaited the appearance of the promised third volume, covering the most crucial years of Polk's presidency.

THE 1852 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LOOMS LARGE IN THE STANDARD EXPLANATION OF THE COLLAPSE OF THE WHIG PARTY. THE PARTY'S DISASTROUS PERFORMANCE THAT YEAR IS FAMILIAR. RESORTING TO THE EXPEDIENT OF NOMINATING YET ANOTHER MILITARY HERO FOR PRESIDENT IN WINFIELD SCOTT, THE WHIGS SUFFERED A CRUSHING DEFEAT, CARRYING ONLY FOUR STATES. IN ANALYZING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ELECTION, HISTORIANS TRADITIONALLY EMPHASIZE THE GROWING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN WHIGS OVER THE SLAVERY ISSUE. THEY ARGUE THAT DIVISIONS OVER THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 CRIPPLED THE PARTY'S LEADERSHIP AND SEVERELY ERODED ITS POPULAR BASE OF SUPPORT. LACKING ANY NATIONAL COHESION AND WITHOUT ANY REALISTIC PROSPECT OF EVER AGAIN ELECTING A PRESIDENT, THE WHIG ORGANIZATION QUICKLY COLLAPSED FOLLOWING ITS 1852 ROUT. THE FORCES OF SECTIONALISM, IN OTHER WORDS, WROTE NOT ONLY SCOTT'S POLITICAL EPITAPH, BUT THAT OF THE WHIG PARTY AS WELL. 1