Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In chapter two of “The Rise of American Democracy,” Wilentz focuses on the influence Democratic-Republican societies had on the political landscape in the United Sates soon after the Constitution was ratified. I found this emphasis on the ideological divide between the common people particularly interesting, because in the past the emphasis has always been placed on important national figures such as Jefferson and Hamilton. While political leaders are undoubtedly extremely important to the early political development of the United States, it is important to keep the ideas and divides of the common man during this time period in mind, like Wilentz does, because the founding fathers had just created and ratified the most radically democratic government in history. The implications of such a government cannot be understood without looking to the people.
The formation of Democratic-Republican societies demonstrates the monumental importance of the Bill of Rights to the political evolution of the United States, because without the rights it guaranteed, specifically freedom of speech, these societies would probably not have gained the broad influence they did. The ability of the people to express their opinions shaped the political practices of the time. For example, the formation of the National Gazette in opposition to the Gazette of the United States and the governmental policies it supported set the precedent of “…organiz[ing] a wide but gentlemanly opposition…” against the Federalists which continues, to some extent, today (Wilentz 22).
As AmGaither notes in her post, “the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people” when writing the Constitution, but making everyone in the nation completely satisfied with the document was simply impossible. The formation of Democratic-Republican societies and the growing Federalist-Republican divide are evidence of this. The federalists believed a more centralized government would be best for the nation while the republicans wanted the government to give more power to the people. In describing the two opinions, SyStrauss refers to Hamilton as a “greedy elitist” Jefferson as an “educated elitist.” While the two views are different, I don’t believe it is right to claim that one is morally better than the other. Both schools of political thought could be supported and justified, the formation of political parties for both sides demonstrates this, so neither can truly be inherently better than the other.