Ebb Tide of Republican Nationalism

Although a thorough examination of the election of 1824 and the events leading up to it are beyond the necessarily limited scope of this project, several issues that bear directly on the decline of Republican nationalism and the break up of the Jeffersonian party will be briefly examined. After a review of the political course of nationalism to 1824, I will briefly discuss two issues that contributed to the decline of nationalism: the impact of Calhoun's changing ideology and the implications of the rise of Martin Van Buren and his new party system.

The political course of nationalism to 1824

Although from 1821-1824 Calhoun was able to preserve army appropriations at the level they had been reduced to in 1821 after heavy attacks on his program, his grand nationalist design was finished. "The ideal of making the War Department not only an agency of national power," Merrill Peterson writes, "but also an agency of national progress and enlightenment -a center of energy radiating across the continent- was defeated." Peterson also suggests that ambition for the presidency may have begun to eclipse the "administrative nationalism" he had sought to implement. Moreover, Peterson argues that his grandiose plans for the War Department disrupted the Republican party rather than helped it.⁴⁸

Clay's absence from Washington

Another factor in the ebb of nationalism in the years before 1824 was that one of its ardent champions, Clay, was absent from Washington.⁴⁹ Clay had determined in 1820 that he must retire (temporarily) from politics in order to repair his personal financial situation. From the close of the 16th Congress in March 1821 he was therefore not in a position to fight for the nationalist ideology in Congress. His own presidential ambitions in 1824 would also complicate the situation. Indeed, the rivalry of Adams, Calhoun, and Clay in the extended presidential campaign that was essentially conducted during Monroe's entire second term was another factor in the decline of nationalism in the early 1820s, as each began to question the others' character and motives.

The radicals absorb the Old Republicans

The period 1822-1824 also witnessed the continued integration of the Old Republicans, the Crawfordites, and the Radicals. The Radicals gradually absorbed the Old Republican membership. Many Old Republicans accepted integration, because they believed Crawford was willing to defend their cherished principles: "All Radicals were not Old Republicans, though nearly all the Old Republicans eventually settled on Crawford as the candidate most likely to carry on the 'principles of '98' and thus became Radicals."⁵⁰ This emerging political block provided the main opposition to the waning nationalism. For the campaign of 1824, this faction would be joined by Northern liberals led by New York Senator Martin Van Buren, who for his consummate political skills was known as the "Little Magician".

Van Buren's new style of party organization

Martin Van Buren's new style of party organization had significant implications for basing politics on an ideology of nationalism. Van Buren and the leaders of New York's Republican liberals, or "Bucktails," ran their party with what one historian has described as "a new level of political organization, skill, and professional elan." They preferred their leaders to be "careful technicians of party consensus and loyal servants of party interests..." Breaking party ranks was intolerable. ⁵¹ From Jefferson's opposition to the Federalists in 1798-1799 to 1820, ideology had been the most important factor in party politics. With Van Buren's new organization, party itself became more important than support of an ideology. "The Little Magician," notes historian Merrill Peterson, "contrived to make party itself the dominant interest."⁵²

Calhoun s changing ideology

In addition to the challenge of this new type of party, there are indications that Calhoun's nationalism may have begun to waver before 1824. Gerald Capers has argued that Calhoun did not recede from his nationalism while in Monroe's cabinet, but Merrill Peterson points out that in 1823 and 1824 Calhoun seemed to be of two minds about his nationalism. Most often he continued to champion nationalism, but at times when accused of extreme nationalism he denied it, claimed that he opposed protectionism and other nationalist policies and claimed he supported states' rights doctrines.⁵³ All these factors contributed to the continued decline of nationalism in the years after 1821.

---