Political Party History in New Hampshire
This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for
State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.
Political
Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the
state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic
prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a
traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a
population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have
tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has
endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The
state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant
industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile
manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances
with one another rather than individually. The structure of government,
especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made
party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a
one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further,
dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for
the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The
recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's
party structucture.
PARTY HISTORY
Several themes run
through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a
single party, strong party organization and competition only during
transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of
coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong
personalities.
At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of
the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was
synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that
land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required
towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was
restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).
Federalists
began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of
power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a
Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy
terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since
the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the
New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to
obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought
campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of
Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).
In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's
people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of
Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional
period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and
Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations.
The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a
"Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local
bodies, and the existing
New Hampshire Gazette (which
continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand
committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn
appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).
Bitter
conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered
Democratic-Republicn legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state
university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist
trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster
represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and jager
(1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The
decision against teh trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was
reversed by the Federalsit-leaning United States Supreme Court (
Dartmouth College Case,
4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation
of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.
The
transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the
Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835.
Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind
the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill,
editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S.
senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of
the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform
to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the
insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved
working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The
Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and
solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.
The
next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two
conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and
abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform
efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to
state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the
Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats,
and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party.
In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New
Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the
Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected
their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven
Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.
Following
the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and
huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of
the
New Hampshire Statesman and
Concord Monitor,
while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of
political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in
1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898,
8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state
committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds
(Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration
of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser
[party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898,
15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided
openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who
really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine
Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this
era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of
clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong
personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired
the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).
New Hampshire joined the
progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad
passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of
legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of
the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the
first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process,
electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature
regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform,
workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.
The
feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans
spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire
Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in1912, the
Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States
senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election
of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained
the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.
ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire.
Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)
Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981.
New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.
Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983.
New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.
Robinson, William A. 1916.
Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.
Wright, James. 1987.
The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
