The political development of the public presidency: Presidents and parties in the nineteenth centur

The dissertation examines the relationship between the public and the president in the nineteenth century. This relationship is generally thought to be a minimal one, with nineteenth century presidents obeying the founders' proscriptions against popular leadership. However, there is an alternative way to conceptualize the "public presidency" in the nineteenth century that has been unduly neglected. Most notably, presidents' relationships with the party organizations in the "party period" of the nineteenth century constitute an important type of public presidency. Parties in the nineteenth century were the most important vehicles for reaching and organizing the public and, ideally, transmitting its will into policy.;Drawing on nineteenth century presidential campaign biographies, I demonstrate the significant impact that parties had on the presidential electoral milieu in the party period. Presidential candidates expressed fidelity to their parties and pledged to uphold their principles once validated by the people via the ballot box. Through an analysis of nineteenth century inaugural addresses, I argue that party period presidents saw the office of the presidency as bound to the public will through the vehicle of party. Finally, in five case studies of party period administrations, I show the importance of party considerations to the actions of these presidents and that they acted, more or less, consistently with their party platforms once in office.;I conclude with a discussion of the broader implications of the findings. First, approaching the nineteenth century presidency with an appropriate understanding of the party system therein, suggests a revision of the standard understanding of the "public presidency." The study, further, recommends that we see presidential development as more complex than a movement from a pre-modern to a modern presidency. In fact, it appears that presidential history should be divided into at least three major, overlapping periods: constitutional, party, and modern (plebiscitary). Finally, this research contributes to normative debates about the proper nature and character of the presidential office in a democratic political system. The party period's conception of popular presidential leadership can serve as an alternative to not only the constitutional conception but also the modern, plebiscitary conception.