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
The topic from Tuesday’s reading that was particularly compelling was the democratization of the Whig Party prior to the 1840 election. Our classmate Will Robertson rightfully characterized the Whig party as being “grounded solely in their opposition to Jackson,” which threatened their unity as a party. However, I found that the reading for Tuesday, namely chapter 16, highlighted how the Whig party used their vehement distaste for Jacksonian politics to strategically unite themselves by changing their party’s ideals in an attempt to gain power.
Will highlighted the issue of hypocrisy in the Democratic Party to which the Whig party opportunistically responded. He stated that, “in its effort to appease voters from all areas and walks of life, the Democratic party under Jackson and Van Buren featured striking hypocrisies.” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/dishevelled-democracy/).Horace Greeley—a key addition to the Whig party after they began to consolidate their party to include more than just “high-toned Whigs”—felt that Whiggery would be able to “confound Democratic hypocrisy and uplift the masses” (Wilentz, 253-254).
The party’s attempts at democratization demonstrated that the party was more or less obligated to reshape itself if they desired to maintain political relevance. Van Buren, the Whig party realized, was popular among the people “Not so much for him as for the principle they suppose he represents. That principle is Democracy” (Seward, quoted by Wilentz, 253). As a direct response to this American desire for democracy, the Whig party revolutionized American conservatism (Wilentz, 253).
The way Wilentz characterized the Whigs attitudes of humanitarianism was rather humorous, highlighting the condescending tone they adopted when appealing to more radical-minded voters who sympathized with oppressed groups. The Whig party chose to focus “on relieving the misery of battered wives, abused blacks, and others who suffered deliberately inflicted hardship and pain” and on creating a benevolent society of people who would adopt “an affectionate regard for the lowliest of God’s creatures” (Wilentz, 257). Despite the haughtiness of the rhetoric surrounding their humanitarianism, there is no denying the progress that this shift in mindset was, especially since many Whigs were moved by the “benevolent impulse” to contribute to antislavery work (Wilentz, 258).
In addition to highlighting corruption and hypocrisy within the opposing party, the Whigs also exemplified impressive strategy in their ability to spin criticism in their favor. The harsh ‘hard cider and log cabin’ comment supposedly delivered by Clay was used by Whig leaders to “claim to be paragons of plain rustic virtue while condemning the Democrats as scornful, out-of-touch politicos” (Wilentz, 260).
I felt this reading was a bit more readable than some previous chapters in which the jargon creates a bit of an obstacle for readers who are less familiar with the concepts of the discussion. However, I feel Wilentz did a fantastic job in outlining the changes in the Whig party and the reasons behind them, guiding the reader clearly through the course of events.