Early in the nineteenth century, the political parties formalized their nomination process, entrusting the choice of nominee to their congressional caucuses. Soon though, concerns about representation and corruption began to undermine the legitimacy of the process. In 1824, in an effort to displace the congressional caucus process, state Democratic-Republican legislative caucuses in five different states nominated five different candidates for the party. The result was disastrous, with the five candidates splitting the Electoral College vote and triggering the contingent election process. In 1832, keenly aware of the need for a centralized process that would select one nominee for the party, the Democrats settled upon holding a national convention of delegates from the various states to select their nominee. The creation of the national party convention, however, did not democratize the process as much as reformers hoped. As the first national party conventions revealed, most of the delegates were state and local officeholders and prominent citizens. Ordinary voters still remained largely excluded from the process.

When remembering America’s first ladies, there is a general assumption that these women were the wives of the presidents. This is not surprising since, with the exception of James Buchanan, all the presidents have been married men. However, several presidents were widowers or husbands of women who could not assume their duties. These men had to rely on women who were neither their wives nor their companions as stand-in first ladies with the primary duty of entertaining visitors to the White House. They included daughters Martha “Patsy” Jefferson Randolph, Martha Johnson Patterson, and Margaret Woodrow Wilson; nieces Emily Tennessee Donelson and Harriet Lane Johnston; daughters-in-law Angelica Singleton Van Buren and Priscilla Cooper Tyler; and sisters Mary Arthur McElroy and Rose Cleveland. They were real persons who each brought a unique experience to their work, which, unlike the service of their more famous married counterparts, has long been forgotten.

This chapter explores the emergence of the question of abolition within the District of Columbia in the presidential campaign of 1836. Over the course of the presidential campaign, Martin Van Buren sought to hone his position on the question of abolition in the District in response to the pressures he faced from southern Whigs. From an early position that abolition in the District would be inexpedient or impolitic, Van Buren shifted by his inaugural address to the position that such action was counter to “the spirit that actuated the venerated fathers of the republic,” while through campaign materials, public meetings, and official addresses, the Democrats developed the view that abolitionist activity aimed at altering the extant inter-State settlement on slavery was counter to the “spirit of deference, conciliation and mutual forbearance” that underwrote the federal compact. This approach enabled Van Buren and the Democrats to successfully navigate the 1836 election, but it also legitimized an appeal to spirit as a method of resolving constitutional disputes that had significant longer-term effects.