This dissertation argues against the conventional wisdom in political science that nineteenth century American presidents were weak and passive. It challenges the common belief that because of the suffocating effects of partisan politics in this period, chief executives for the most part did not insert their policy preferences into national politics. By looking at the leadership strategies of four presidents in the party period, I posit that early incumbents, while certainly not empowered by the modern office's apparatus for independent action, were purposive, goal-seeking actors who maneuvered around the constraints of the party state by (1) utilizing control over executive patronage, (2) manipulating the fragile, locally-oriented parties, (3) communicating with the public through administration newspapers, and (4) seeking extra-partisan means of support.

Drawing on nineteenth century presidential papers, letters, biographies, and newspapers, I demonstrate through historical process-tracing that the early presidents James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Benjamin Harrison, and Grover Cleveland, like their modern counterparts, occupied an inherently assertive and politicized office constitutionally involved in the national policymaking process. This meant that while presidential nominees may have expressed unflinching fidelity to their parties in a campaign context, once in office they pursued “great and arduous enterprises” with an eye on accomplishing their programmatic objectives in office. The case studies show how pre-modern executives exploited the dynamics of American party politics by using strategic tools for policy action.

I conclude with a discussion of the study's broader implications. Contemporary scholars need to revisit the dichotomy between the passive pre-modern and the goal-seeking modern presidencies, which I show does not hold up under close historical examination. Researchers for the most part have incorrectly applied modern theories to the pre-modern presidency, devising inaccurate empirical indicators for presidential activity in the nineteenth century. In this regard, this study joins a relatively new literature focused on reinterpreting executive leadership in the pre-modern period, concluding that over time what changes from president to president is not the substance of goal-seeking, but rather its form and execution .