During the late 1820s and early 1830s, American politics evolved
into a new party system dominated by Democrats and National Republicans/Whigs.
Political historians have traditionally focused on the impact that market
change, religion, slavery and ethnocultural factors had upon party formation.
More recently increased attention has been paid to the role which federal/state
relations played in this process. While historians of the South might readily
concede this point, few have looked at the impact of state's rights sentiments
north of the Mason-Dixon line. This essay examines the role these views
played in shaping the second party system in Maine. Here, the northeastern
boundary controversy and the resulting dispute over thousands of acres
of land guaranteed that assertions of the state's right to the territory
would become a central issue.
As loosely organized factions of Maine Republicans began to evolve into a new, more formalized party structure, they had to compete for votes in an increasingly democratic environment. Local issues of great importance proved useful in attracting voters to the emerging parties. No local issue played a greater role in state politics during this period than the northeastern boundary. Maine's citizens increasingly viewed the disputed territory as one of the state's most treasured resources; when the federal government showed a willingness to negotiate a settlement, Maine voters looked to local politicians to protect their interests. It therefore became imperative for all politicians in Maine to take a solid stance on the issue. Initially, friends of the Adams administration counseled restraint and cooperation with the federal government, while anti-administration forces attacked the president and offered clear assertions of state power.
Andrew Jackson's victory at the polls in 1828 and 1832 transformed how the local parties dealt with the issue. With both political camps evolving from local factions into more highly structured entities with close ties to national organizations, each had to pay some heed to national party policy. Local Democrats had to reconcile their state's rights views with the imperatives of the Jackson administration. The result was a failed effort by administration supporters to finesse the state's rights issue and have the national government resolve the boundary. Although Democrats became more muted in their criticism, they continued to insist in asserting a recognition of such rights, often in a tortured and convoluted manner. Efforts to broker a settlement combined with the nullification crisis to bring party divisions into the open. Nullification made obvious serious divisions among Democrats. When news of a secret boundary agreement that would have required Maine to alienate part of the disputed territory came to light later in the session, the dominant and more moderate faction among Maine Democrats paid with a loss of political power. The emergence of the younger, more state's rights-minded faction not only showed a willingness to buck the administration on the boundary issue, but demonstrated that the party was adamant about asserting state's rights.
National Republicans, on the other hand, had urged cooperation while Adams was president, but vociferously criticized the Jackson administration's handling of the issue. But aside from appeals to state honor designed primarily to embarrass the Democrats, they refused to make a coherent policy statement asserting state's rights. Still, events of the late 1820s and early 1830s made clear that despite differences over how much theoretical right Maine had to determine a boundary settlement, no political party could survive without aggressively asserting Maine's right to the territory.