Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 11, Issue 5, pp 265–278 | Cite as

The new political history: Progress and prospects

  • Philip R. Vandermeer


Computational Linguistic Political History 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See, for example, Harry S. Stout, “Culture, Structure, and the ‘New’ History: A Critique and an Agenda,”Computers and the Humanities, 9 (July 1975), 213–30; Robert P. Swierenga, “Computers and American History: The Impact of the ‘New’ Generation,”Journal of American History, 60 (March 1974), 1045–70; Swierenga, “Computers and Comparative History,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 5 (Autumn 1974), 267–88; Richard Jensen, “Quantitative American Studies: The State of the Art,”American Quarterly, 26 (August 1974), 225–40; Joel H. Silbey, “Clio and Computers: Moving Into Phase II, 1970–1972,”Computers and the Humanities, 7 (November 1972), 67–79; and Allan G. Bogue, “United States: The ‘New’ Political History,”Journal of Contemporary History, 3 (January 1968), 5–27.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    To cite only two of the responses, see Herbert G. Gutman,Slavery and the Numbers Game: A Critique of “Time on the Cross” (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1975); and Paul David et al.,Reckoning with Slavery: A Critical Study in the Quantitative History of American Negro Slavery (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richard Jensen ably summarizes the development of election analysis from the nineteenth century to the 1940s in “American Election Analysis: A Case History of Methodological Innovation and Diffusion,” in Seymour Martin Lipset, ed.,Politics and the Social Sciences (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 226–43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    See, for example, J. Morgan Kousser, “Post-Reconstruction Suffrage Restriction in Tennessee: A New Look at the V. O. Key Thesis,”Political Science Quarterly, 88 (December 1973), 655–83; Margaret Thompson Echols and Austin Ranney, “The Impact of Interparty Competition Reconsidered: The Case of Florida,”Journal of Politics, 38 (February 1976), 142–52; and Raymond Tatalovich, “‘Friends and Neighbors’ Voting: Mississippi,”Journal of Politics, 37 (August 1975), 807–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    “A Theory of Critical Elections,”Journal of Politics, 17 (February 1955), 3–18; “Secular Realignment and the Party System,” ibid., 21 (May 1959), 198–210; and Key and Frank Munger, “Social Determinism and Electoral Decision: The Case of Indiana,” in Eugene Burdick and Arthur J. Brodbeck, eds.,American Voting Behavior (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959), 281–99.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    William L. Shade proposes three general types and a total of seven subtypes inSocial Change and the Electoral Process, University of Florida Social Science Monograph No. 49 (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1973). Essays outlining other typologies are reprinted in Jerome M. Clubb and Howard W. Allen, eds.,Electoral Change and Stability in American Political History (New York: Free Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Some analyses have simply ignored the conflict, sometimes substituting the word “crucial.” See, for example,Crucial American Elections, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 99 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    This point was made initially in a 1960 article by Duncan MacRae, Jr., and James A. Meldrum on “Critical Elections in Illinois, 1888–1958,” which, along with other related works, is in Clubb and Allen, eds.,Electoral Change. For a fuller view see Walter Dean Burnham,Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York: W. W. Norton, 1970) and James L. Sundquist,Dynamics of the Party System (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    For the latter period consult Bernard Sternsher's fine summary of recent literature: “The Emergence of the New Deal Party System: A Problem in Historical Analysis of Voter Behavior,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 6 (Summer 1975), 127–49. Also see Allan J. Lichtman, “Critical Election Theory and the Reality of American Presidential Politics, 1916–1940,”American Historical Review, 81 (April 1975), 79–117. On the earlier period see Burnham,Critical Elections, 14–17, 36–38; Sundquist,Party System, 63–91; David E. Meerse, “The Northern Democratic Party and the Congressional Elections of 1858,”Civil War History, 19 (June 1973), 119–27; and Gerald M. Pomper,Elections in America: Control and Influence in Democratic Politics (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1968), 113–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Critical Elections, 24. Sternsher discusses the studies which suggest different timing for the 1928–1936 period in “New Deal Party System.” Ray M. Shortridge shows two different state patterns in “The Voter Realignment in the Midwest in the 1850s,”American Politics Quarterly, 4 (April 1976), 193–222.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katherine Brown, a lone dissenter, summarizes in terms of her dissent the consensus on the seventeenth century in “The Controversy over the Franchise in Puritan Massachusetts, 1954 to 1974,”William and Mary Quarterly, 33 (April 1976), 212–41. For later periods see Chilton Williamson,American Suffrage from Property to Democracy, 1760–1860 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960); Richard P. McCormick,The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966); and Burnham,Critical Elections.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ray Myles Shortridge, “An Assessment of the Frontier's Influence on Voter Turnout,”Agricultural History, 50 (July 1976), 445–59 concludes that turnout was not higher on the frontier between 1840 and 1870. Warren E. Stickle argues that in the 1960s turnout was higher among Indiana ruralites than among urban dwellers: “Ruralite and Farmer in Indiana: Independent, Sporadic Voter and Country Bumpkin?”Agricultural History, 48 (October 1974), 543–70. C. Richard Hofstetter argues the positive effect of competition on turnout in “Inter-Party Competition and Electoral Turnout: The Case of Indiana,”American Journal of Political Science, 17 (May 1973), 351–66, while Virginia Gray disagrees with that theory in “A Note on Competition and Turnout in the American States,”Journal of Politics, 38 (February 1976), 153–58.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restrictions and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880–1910 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    The most recent statements are Burnham, “Theory and Voting Research: Some Reflections on Converse's ‘Change in the American Electorate’,”American Political Science Review, 68 (September 1974), 1002–23, plus the comments by Rusk and Philip Converse, 1024–49, and Burnham's “Rejoinder,” 1050–57. Also consult William H. Flanigan,Political Behavior of the American Electorate (2nd ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972); Walter DeVries and V. Lance Tarrance,The Ticket-Splitter: A New Force in American Politics (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1972); Paul R. Abramson, “Generational Change and the Decline of Party Identification in America: 1952–1974,”American Political Science Review, 70 (June 1976), 469–78; and Milton C. Cummings,Congressmen and the Electorate: Elections for the U.S. House and the President, 1920–1964 (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    In Indiana, for example, literacy and poll tax laws were considered several times, and a poll tax was passed in 1911, only to be voided by the state Supreme Court. Charles Kettleborough,Constitution Making In Indiana, vol. 2:1851–1916 (Indianapolis: Indiana Historical Commission, 1916), 365–370, 387–397.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pleas for greater sophistication have come from Walter Dean Burnham, “Quantitative History: Beyond the Correlation Coefficient: A Review Essay,”Historical Methods Newsletter, 4 (March 1971), 62–66; and J. Morgan Kousser, “The ‘New Political History’: A Methodological Critique,”Reviews in American History, 4 (March 1976), 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See, for example, Roger L. Hart,Redeemers, Bourbons & Populists: Tennessee, 1870–1896 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1975) and William G. Shade,Banks and No Banks: The Money Issue in Western Politics, 1832–1865 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972). Two studies which calculate turnout are Kousser,Shaping of Southern Politics and Kevin Sweeney, “Rum, Romanism, Representation, and Reform: Coalition Politics in Massachusetts, 1847–1853,”Civil War History, 22 (June 1976), 116–37. Also consult the series of articles on the uses of regression analysis appearing inJournal of Interdisciplinary History, 4 (1973–1974).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    For an excellent essay on developing a voting behavior model see J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “Problems in the Study of Popular Voting Behavior,” in Lee Benson et al.,American Political Behavior: Essays and Readings (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 1–24.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee Benson,The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961); Samuel P. Hays, “The Social Analysis of American Political History, 1880–1920,”Political Science Quarterly, 80 (September 1965), 373–94: Paul Kleppner,The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850–1900 (New York: Free Press, 1970); Richard J. Jensen,The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888–96 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971); Ronald P. Formisano,The Birth of Mass Political Parties: Michigan, 1827–1861 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971). Two essays which survey the growth and findings of ethnocultural histories are Robert P. Swierenga, “Ethnocultural Political Analysis: A New Approach to American Ethnic Studies,”Journal of American Studies, 5 (April 1971), 59–79; and Samuel T. McSeveney, “Ethnic Groups, Ethnic Conflicts, and Recent Quantitative Research in American Political History,”International Migration Review, 7 (Spring 1973), 14–33.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    One study showing special sensitivity to religion is Frederick C. Luebke,Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974). Other works include John L. Shover, “Ethnicity and Religion in Philadelphia Politics, 1924–1940,”American Quarterly, 25 (December 1973), 499–515; Roger E. Wyman, “Middle-Class Voters and Progressive Reform: The Conflict of Class and Culture,”American Political Science Review, 68 (June 1974), 488–504; D. L. A. Hackett, “Slavery, Ethnicity, and Sugar: An Analysis of Voting Behavior in Louisiana, 1828–1844,”Louisiana Studies, 13 (Summer 1974), 73–118; and Michael Holt,Forging a Majority: The Formation of the Republican Party in Pittsburgh, 1848–1860 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hart,Redeemers; Kousser,Shaping of Southern Politics; Peter H. Argersinger,Populism and Politics: William Alfred Peffer and the People's Party (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1974); James Edward Wright,The Politics of Populism: Dissent in Colorado (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); and Stanley B. Parsons,The Populist Context: Rural Versus Urban Power on a Great Plains Frontier (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richard L. McCormick, “Ethno-Cultural Interpretations of Nineteenth-Century American Voting Behavior,”Political Science Quarterly, 89 (June 1974), 351–78; James E. Wright, “The Ethnocultural Model of Voting,” in Allan G. Bogue, ed.,Emerging Theoretical Models in Social and Political History (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973), 35–56; and Kousser, “New Political History.” Also see Eric Foner's indignant criticism in “The Causes of the Civil War: Recent Interpretations and New Directions,”Civil War History, 20 (September 1974), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    See, for example, Richard Jensen, “Aggregate Versus Survey Data: The Psephologist's Puzzle,” paper presented to the Social Science History Association, Philadelphia, October 30, 1976. Paul Kleppner, in “Beyond the ‘New Political History’: A Review Essay,”Historical Methods Newsletter, 6 (December 1972), 17–26, defends the use of homogeneous units and correlation coefficients, but also presents his own methodological criticisms.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The defensive nature of liturgicals is shown for Missouri Synod Lutherans by Heinrich H. Maurer, “Studies in the Sociology of Religion. V. The Fellowship Law of a Fundamentalist Group. The Missouri Synod,”American Journal of Sociology, 31 (July 1925), 39–57. For the Church of Christ see David Edwin Harrell, Jr.,A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, vol. 2:The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865–1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, 1973), especially p. 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    For a summary, consult the discussion of and data from the Census ofReligious Bodies: 1906 contained in H. K. Carroll,The Religious Forces of the United States, rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912), lvi-lix.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    One such effort, which also supports the primary importance of religion and ethnicity, is Kevin Clancy and Lee Benson, “America the Fragmented: An Exploration of the Effects of Class, Ethnicity and Religion on Political and Social Attitudes and Behavior,” paper presented to the Social Science History Association, Philadelphia, October 30, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    My own attempt to deal with some of these problems is “A Social Analysis of Indiana Politics and Politicians, 1896–1920” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1976).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Actually, the broader term for this category is “collegial bodies,” which also includes roll-call voting in conventions and courts. Since the number of such studies is relatively small, however, this discussion will not deal specifically with them. For examples, see John D. Sprague,Voting Patterns of the United States Supreme Court: Cases in Federalism, 1889–1959 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968); and Frank Munger and James Blackhurst, “Factionalism in the National Conventions, 1940–1964: An Analysis of Ideological Consistency in State Delegation Voting,”Journal of Politics, 27 (May 1965), 375–94.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    This included Joel H. Silbey,The Shrine of Party: Congressional Voting Behavior, 1840–1852 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967); David Donald,The Politics of Reconstruction, 1863–1867 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1965); Allan G. Bogue, “Bloc and Party in the United States Senate: 1861–1863,”Civil War History, 13 (September 1967), 221–41; and Thomas B. Alexander,Sectional Stress and Party Strength: A Study of Roll-Call Voting Returns in the United States House of Representatives, 1836–1860 (Nashville: University of Tennessee Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Such studies are: Michael Les Benedict,A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863–1869 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1974); Gerald William Wolff, “A Scalogram Analysis of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 and Related Roll Calls,”Computers and the Humanities, 8 (March 1974), 71–83; Rudolph M. Bell,Party and Faction in American Politics: The House of Representatives, 1789–1801 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973); Ronald J. Hatzenbuehler, “Party Unity and the Decision for War in the House of Representatives, 1812,”William and Mary Quarterly, 29 (July 1972), 367–90; Allan G. Bogue and Mark Paul Marlaire, “Of Mess and Men: The Boarding House and Congressional Voting, 1821–1842,”American Journal of Political Science, 19 (May 1975), 207–30; William G. Shade et al., “Partisanship in the United States Senate: 1869–1901,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 4 (Autumn 1973), 185–206; David W. Brady,Congressional Voting in a Partisan Era: A Study of the McKinley Houses and a Comparison to the Modern House of Representatives (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1973); in addition, Jerome M. Clubb and Santa Traugott, “Partisan Cleavage and Cohesion in the House of Representatives, 1861–1974,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 7 (Winter 1977), 375–402.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robert Zemsky,Merchants, Farmers, and River Gods: An Essay on Eighteenth-Century American Politics (Boston: Gambit, 1971); Jackson Turner Main,Political Parties Before the Constitution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973); Herbert Ershkowitz and William G. Shade, “Consensus or Conflict? Political Behavior in the State Legislature During the Jacksonian Era,”Journal of American History, 58 (December 1971), 591–621; Rodney O. Davis, “Partisanship in Jacksonian State Politics: Party Divisions in the Illinois Legislature, 1834–1841,” in Robert P. Swierenga, ed.,Quantification in American History: Theory and Research (New York: Atheneum, 1970), 149–62; Wright,Politics of Populism; Hart,Redeemers; and Parsons,Populist Context.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Glenn M. Linden, “‘Radicals’ and Economic Policies: The Senate, 1861–1873,”Journal of Southern History, 32 (May 1966), 189–99; Bogue, “Radical Voting Dimension”; Benedict,Compromise of Principle; H. James Henderson,Party Politics in the Continental Congress (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974); Mary P. Ryan, “Party Formation in the United States Congress, 1789 to 1796: A Quantitative Analysis,”William and Mary Quarterly, 28 (October 1971), 523–42; Bell,Party and Faction; and Main,Political Parties.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    For example, Ershkowitz and Shade, “Consensus or Conflict?”; and Wright,Politics of Populism. Peter Levine, “State Legislative Parties in the Jacksonian Era: New Jersey, 1829–1844,”Journal of American History, 62 (December 1975), 591–608 attempts to show that both arguments were valid.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    For example, Silbey,Shrine of Party; Shade et al., “Partisanship in the Senate”; and Clubb and Traugott, “Partisan Cleavage and Cohesion in the House.”Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See, for example, the general critique and especially the comments on Guttman scaling by Robert Zemsky in “American Legislative Behavior,” in Bogue, ed.,Emerging Theoretical Models, 57–76. Compare this with Allan G. Bogue's defense and use of Guttman scaling in “The Radical Voting Dimension in the U.S. Senate During the Civil War,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3 (Winter 1973), 449–74. A very useful methodological critique of several recent works in Ballard Campbell, “The State Legislature in American History: A Review Essay,”Historical Methods Newsletter, 9 (September 1976), 185–94.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    David J. Rothman,Politics and Power: The United States Senate, 1869–1901 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966); and David W. Brady and Phillip Althoff, “Party Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1890–1910: Elements of a Responsible Party System,”Journal of Politics, 36 (August 1974), 753–75.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shade et al., “Partisanship in the Senate.”Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clubb and Traugott, “Partisan Cleavage and Cohesion in the House.”Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Compromise of Principle, 26.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See Bogue's “Radical Voting Dimension.”Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See Campbell's suggestion of four criteria for evaluating roll-call analyses in “State Legislature,” p. 186.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    It is also an old technique. One of the first such studies was Charles Beard'sAn Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1913). Cf. Richard D. Brown, “The Founding Fathers of 1776 and 1787: A Collective View,”William and Mary Quarterly, 33 (July 1976), 465–80. See also Lewis J. Edinger and Donald D. Searing, “Social Background in Elite Analysis: A Methodological Inquiry,”American Political Science Review, 61 (June 1967), 428–45.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    See, for example, Allan G. Bogue et al., “Members of the House of Representatives and the Process of Modernization, 1789–1960.”Journal of American History, 63 (September 1976), 275–302; Ballard Crooker Campbell, “Ethnicity and the 1893 Wisconsin Assembly,”Journal of American History, 62 (June 1975), 74–94; Thomas Alexander and Richard E. Beringer,The Anatomy of the Confederate Congress: A Study of the Influences of Member Characteristics on Legislative Voting Behavior 1861–1865 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1972); Main,Political Parties; and Rothman,Politics and Power.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    William L. Barney,The Secessionist Impulse: Alabama and Mississippi in 1860 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974); Jean H. Baker,The Politics of Continuity: Maryland Political Parties From 1858 to 1870 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973); Robert Sherman Laforte,Leaders of Reform: Progressive Republicans in Kansas, 1900–1916 (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1974); and Bruce M. Stave,The New Deal and the Last Hurrah: Pittsburgh Machine Politics (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Leonard Tabachnik, “Political Patronage and Ethnic Groups: Foreign-born in the United States Customhouse Service, 1821–1861,”Civil War History, 17 (September 1971), 222–31; Kenneth Prewitt and William McAllister, “Changes in the American Executive Elite—1930–1970,” in Heinz Eulau and Moshe M. Czudnowski, eds.,Elite Recruitment in Democratic Politics: Comparative Studies Across Nations (New York: Halsted Press, 1976); Ralph A. Wooster,Politicians, Planters and Plain Folk: Courthouse and Statehouse in the Upper South, 1850–1860 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1975); and Kermit L. Hall, “Social Backgrounds and Judicial Recruitment: A Nineteenth Century Perspective on the Lower Federal Judiciary,”Western Political Quarterly, 29 (June 1976), 243–57.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Edward M. Cook, Jr.,The Fathers of the Towns: Leadership and Community Structure in Eighteenth-Century New England (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976); Gerald W. McFarland,Mugwumps, Morals, and Politics, 1884–1920 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975); and Hart,Reedemers.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    To mention only two: William T. Kerr, Jr., “The Progressives of Washington, 1910–12,”Pacific Northwest Quarterly, 55 (January 1964), 16–27; and E. Daniel Potts, “The Progressive Profile in Iowa,”Mid-America, 47 (October 1965), 257–68.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    See Malcolm E. Jewell and Samuel C. Patterson,The Legislative Process in the United States (New York: Random House, 1966), 101–22. Richard G. Miller provides a useful table showing the rise of mean wealth for both Republican and Federalist candidates over a range of office categories.Philadelphia—The Federalist City: A Study of Urban Politics, 1789–1801 (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat Press, 1976), 18.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    For examples of such an error see Laforte,Leaders of Reform; Baker,Politics of Continuity; and O. Gene Clanton,Kansas Populism: Ideas and Men (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1969).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barney,Secessionist Impulse, 70; also 65–76.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Heinz Eulau et al., “Career Perspectives of American State Legislators,” in Dwaine Marvick, ed.,Political Decision Makers, International Yearbook of Political Behavior Research, Vol. 2 (New York: Free Press, 1961), 219–20, 259. Also, see Eulau and Czudnowski, eds.,Elite Recruitment; and Lester G. Seligman et al.,Patterns of Recruitment: A State Chooses Its Lawmakers (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Parsons,Populist Context; and Clanton,Kansas Populism.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Considerations of this factor would have been very useful for Barney,Secessionist Impulse, passism; and Hart,Redeemers, 125–31.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bogue et al., “Members of the House,” is based on this data collection. See also Rothman,Politics and Power; James Sterling Young,The Washington Community, 1800–1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966); and Donald R. Matthews,U.S. Senators and Their World (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seligman et al.,Patterns of Recruitment, 5. Also consult Chong Lim Kim, Justin Green, and Samuel C. Patterson, “Partisanship in the Recruitment and Performance of American State Legislators,” in Eulau and Czudnowski, eds.,Elite Recruitment, 79–104, which cites much of the relevant literature.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    See Jewell and Patterson,Legislative Process, 118–21; David Ray, Voluntary Retirement and Electoral Defeat in Eight State Legislatures,”Journal of Politics, 38 (May 1976), 426–33; David Ray, “Membership Stability in Three State Legislatures: 1893–1969,”American Political Science Review, 68 (March 1974), 106–12; and James B. Kesller, ed.,Empirical Studies of Indiana Politics: Studies of Legislative Behavior (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970). For the U.S. Congress, see the sources in note 54, as well as Nelson W. Polsby, “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,”American Political Science Review, 62 (March 1968), 144–68.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    For example, George B. Galloway,History of the House of Representatives (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1962); and George Haynes,The Senate of the United States, Its History and Practice (2 vols., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1928).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Polsby, “Institutionalization of the U.S. House”; and Nelson W. Polsby, Miriam Gallaher, and Barry Spencer Rundquit, “The Growth of the Seniority System in the U.S. House of Representatives,”American Political Science Review, 63 (September 1969), 787–807.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    For example, see Charles O. Jones,The Minority Party in Congress (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970); and Randall B. Ripley,Majority Party Leadership in Congress (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Some of these factors are considered by David W. Brady, “Congressional Leadership and Party Voting in the McKinley Era: Comparison to the Modern House,”Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (August 1972), 439–59; Brady,Congressional Voting; and Brady and Althoff, “Party Voting in the U.S. House.”Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    One exception is Zemsky,Merchants, Farmers, and River Gods, a good study of the colonial Massachusetts legislature. See also Douglas C. Chaffey, “The Institutionalization of State Legislatures: A Comparative Study,”Western Political Quarterly, 23 (March 1970), 180–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    For studies of bureaucracy consult Sidney H. Aronson,Status and Kinship in the Higher Civil Service; Standards of Selection in the Administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964); Matthew A. Crenson,The Federal Machine: Beginnings of Bureaucracy in Jacksonian America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975); and Paul H. Bergeron, “Politics and Patronage in Tennessee During the Adams and Jackson Years,”Prologue, 2 (Spring 1970), 19–24. For courts see Hall, “Social Backgrounds and Judicial Recruitment”; and Larry L. Berg et al., “The Consequences of Judicial Reform: A Comparative Analysis of the California and Iowa Appellate Systems,”Western Political Quarterly, 28 (June 1975), 263–80.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    See William Nisbet Chambers and Walter Dean Burnham, eds.,The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (2nd ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1975); Frank J. Sorauf,Party Politics in America (2nd ed., Boston: Little, Brown, 1972); Ronald P. Formisano, “Deferential-Participant Politics: The Early Republic's Political Culture, 1789–1840,”American Political Science Review, 68 (June 1974), 473–87; David Hackett Fischer,The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1965); and Robert D. Marcus,Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880–1896 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    See Jensen,Winning of the Midwest; Kleppner,Cross of Culture; and Ronald P. Formisano, “Political Character, Antipartyism and the Second Party System,”American Quarterly, 21 (Winter 1969), 683–709.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chambers and Burnham, eds.,American Party Systems; Burnham,Critical Elections; Sundquist,Party System; Formisano, “Deferential-Participant Politics”; Ronald P. Formisano, “Toward a Reorientation of Jacksonian Politics: A Review of Literature, 1959–1975,”Journal of American History, 63 (June 1976), 42–65; and Sternsher, “New Deal Party System.”Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Critical Elections.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    For example, Campbell, “Ethnicity and the 1893 Wisconsin Assembly”; Alexander and Beringer,Confederate Congress; Main,Political Parties; and Parsons,Populist Context.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Alexander and Beringer,Confederate Congress; Main,Political Parties; Sheldon Hackney,Populism to Progressivism in Alabama (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969); Barbara Sinclair Deckard, “Electoral Marginality and Party Loyalty in House Roll Call Voting,”American Journal of Political Science, 20 (August 1976), 469–81; and Owen S. Ireland, “Germans Against Abolition: A Minority's View of Slavery in Revolutionary Pennsylvania,”Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3 (Spring 1973), 685–706.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Congressional Voting; Brady and Althoff, “Party Voting in the U.S. House.”Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Campbell, “State Legislature,” 189. As an example of the use of this false assumption see John D. Buenker,Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974).Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    For example, Burnham,Critical Elections, 7–10.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    “Critical Elections and the Substance of Party Conflict: 1844–1968,”Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16 (November 1972), 603–25.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    “Elections and Public Policy,”American Political Science Review, 70 (March 1976), 41–49.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Michael R. King and Lester G. Seligman, “Critical Elections, Congressional Recruitment and Public Policy,” in Eulau and Czudnowski, eds.,Elite Recruitment, 263–99.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    David W. Brady, “Congressional Policy Responses to Issue and Elections: A Time Series Analysis,” paper presented to the Social Science History Association Convention, Philadelphia, October 30, 1976. Another study which shows the important relationship between committee membership and policy output is John A. Ferejohn,Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbours Legislation, 1947–1968 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Richard McCormick discusses this problem with regard to ethnocultural histories in “Ethno-cultural Interpretations,” 70–78.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    See, for example, David J. Pivar,Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social Control, 1868–1900 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973); Norman H. Clark,Deliver Us from Evil: An Interpretation of American Prohibition (New York: W. W. Norton, 1976); and William L. O'Neill,Divorce in the Progressive Era (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    For example, Luebke,Bonds of Loyalty; and Alan P. Grimes,The Puritan Ethic and Woman Suffrage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967).Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Irwin Unger,The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865–1879 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964); and Frederick C. Luebke,Immigrants and Politics: The Germans of Nebraska, 1880–1900 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), 156–68.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    American Imperialism: A Speculative Essay (New York: Atheneum, 1968), 17–43, 226–30. Also see Thomas J. Pressley, “The Systematic Study of Public Opinion Without the Use of Modern Opinion Polls,” in Bogue et al., eds.,American Political Behavior, 335–47.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    “Political Parties and the Community-Society Continuum,” in Chambers and Burnham, eds.,American Party Systems, 153–54.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    To cite only one of his discussions, see “The Social Analysis of American Political History, 1880–1920.”Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stout, “Culture, Structure, and the ‘New’ History,” 216.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    The quotation is from Formisano, “Reorientation of Jacksonian Politics,” 65. For another critical appraisal see Dean C. Tipps, “Modernization Theory and the Comparative Study of Societies: A Critical Perspective,”Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15 (March 1973), 199–225. A recent and sophisticated use of the theory by an historian is Richard D. Brown,Modernization: The Transformation of American Life (New York: Hill & Wang, 1976).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba,The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (rev. ed., Boston: Little, Brown, 1965), 12.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    For discussions about the factors and categories of political culture see Almond and Verba,Civic Culture, passism; Daniel J. Elazar,Cities of the Prairie: The Metropolitan Frontier and American Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1970), 256–363; Formisano, “Deferential-Participant Politics,” 484–87; and J. Rogers Hollingsworth, “Perspectives on Industrializing Societies,” in Bogue, ed.,Emerging Theoretical Models, 108–19.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    A useful essay relating to this topic is Robert R. Dykstra, “Stratification and Community Political Systems: Historians' Models,” in Bogue, ed.,Emerging Theoretical Models, 77–96.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    As examples of the use of referenda see John M. Rozett, “Racism and Republican Emergence in Illinois, 1848–1860: A Re-Evaluation of Republican Negrophobia,”Civil War History, 22 (June 1976), 101–15; Phyllis F. Field, “Republicans and Black Suffrage in New York State: The Grass Roots Response,”Civil War History, 21 (June 1975), 136–47; Larry Englemann, “Dry Renaissance: The Local Option Years, 1889–1917,”Michigan History, 59 (Spring-Summer 1975), 69–90; and John M. Allswang,A House for All Peoples: Ethnic Politics in Chicago, 1890–1936 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1971).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    On officeholders see, for example, Michael E. Frisch,Town into City: Springfield, Massachusetts, and the Meaning of Community, 1840–1880 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972); and Cook,Fathers of the Towns.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Richard S. Alcorn, “Leadership and Stability in Mid-Nineteenth Century America: A Case Study of an Illinois Town,”Journal of American History, 61 (December 1974), 685–701; Don Harrison Doyle, “Social Theory and New Communities in Nineteenth Century America,”Western Historical Quarterly, 8 (April 1977), 160–63; and Carl V. Harris, “The Underdeveloped Historical Dimension of the Study of Community Power Structure,”Historical Methods Newsletter, 9 (September 1976), 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    See Theodore Hershberg et al., “Occupation and Ethnicity in Five Nineteenth Century Cities: A Collaborative Inquiry,”Historical Methods Newsletter, 7 (June 1974), 174–216.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    See Bogue et al., “Members of the House,” 284; VanderMeer, “Social Analysis,” 252–54; and the sources listed in note 43.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    In particular, see Paul L. Hain and James E. Piereson, “Lawyers and Politics Revisited: Structural Advantages of Lawyer-Politicians,”American Journal of Political Science, 19 (February 1975), 41–51; Heinz Eulau and John D. Sprague,Lawyers in Politics: A Study in Professional Convergence (Indianapolis: Bobs-Merrill, 1964); and Kan Ori, “The Politicized Nature of the County Prosecutor's Office, Fact or Fancy?—The Case in Indiana,” in Kessler, ed.,Indiana Politics, 157–73.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Two recent historical studies of lawyers are Jerold S. Auerbach,Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976); and Maxwell Bloomfield,American Lawyers in a Changing Society, 1776–1876 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    A recent and valuable evaluation of contemporary participation is Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie,Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality (New York: Harper & Row, 1972).Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Richard Jensen provided one classification scheme for campaigns in “Armies, Admen, and Crusaders: Types of Presidential Election Campaigns,”History Teacher, 2 (January 1969), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pergamon Press 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip R. Vandermeer
    • 1
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations