Uncategorized – Page 8 – U.S. to 1877

November 11, 2013

We Can’t Stop, We Won’t Stop

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

While reading chapters 14-16 of Wilentz, the belief that history is to repeat itself kept popping into my head. These chapters seemed to echo all of the American history I have read about and am living. The idea of manipulative political parties fighting each other, whether it is Whigs and Jacksonian-democrats or democrats and republicans, is not foreign to us. Nor is the fight for race relations. At the time of Jackson, Van Buren, Calhoun, etc. the fight was over slavery, but race issues stood flood our computers and television sets daily. William Lloyd Garrison even brings women into the equation, which is a conflict that pervades every aspect of politics today.

In addition, the Whig party struggles with Van Buren dominating the polls with his popularity. ALKAROUT mentions this through democratization by saying, “The party’s attempts at democratization demonstrate that the party was more or less obligated to reshape itself if they desired to maintain political relevance.” I would say this is true for today’s politics as well. I believe we are left with two parties, one who is popular and the other realizing that it will not win an election without changing some views.

Then, of course, there is this economic debate over banks and money. At the time, Jackson was still shutting down most of the popularly approved ideas regarding the banks and any money relations. We see at this time a large debate over the use of gold vs. paper money and the gold standard. As gold and silver ran low, there was an issue over money and many politicians of the time referenced paper money as a solution. Many other politicians saw the threat of inflation through paper money, something that has been considered since we picked up the dollar. A shipment of gold from Britain would quell their uneasiness for a short time, but as we now, the shift to paper money would occur eventually.

From the economic crisis of months and years past to the on going disagreement and refusing to settle between the democratic and republican parties, I would not go as far as to say that we are mirroring the past, or repeating it, but it important to note that we are still fighting the same things. Process of great strides has been made but the issues still remain. My question is whether or not we will ever move past these issues. My answer- in a democracy, I am not sure we ever will.

November 11, 2013

Democratization of the Whig Party

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.

November 11, 2013

Jacksonian Democrats and Whig-Calhounites Play the Blame Game

Chris Masone
His 141 Blog

In chapters 14-16 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz discusses the fight between the Whig-Calhounites and Jacksonian Democrats during the end of Jackson’s second term and into Martin Van Buren’s presidency. In his blog post, Will summarized this period well. Will said, “The Democrats efforts to attract nationwide appeal led to catastrophic contradictions, and the Whig’s hatred for Jackson provided only an ephemeral glue to hold together members with sharply different ideologies.” However, I believe Wilentz puts too much blame on the Whig Party and intentionally avoids criticizing Jacksonian Democrats.

While Jackson and his admirers fought “for the common man” against a corrupt closed-door aristocratic system running America, John C. Calhoun and the Whig party insisted Jackson had developed “a new class of selfish elected and appointed officials.” These politicians, the Whigs said, were the “true oppressors of the people.” (Wilentz 255) It feels as though Wilentz portrays the Whig party as the villain in this political mess, especially when discussing Martin Van Buren’s presidency and I don’t know if Wilentz is warranted in doing so.

Wilentz describes a sense of inherited guilt with Martin Van Buren. He leads us to believe that “Van Ruin’s” presidency was overshadowed by the problems inherent with the divide in Jacksonian Democracy in the southern stronghold. Rather than attributing guilt to Andrew Jackson or Martin Van Buren, Wilentz describes the panic of 1837 as an inevitable “long-feared financial crash” as a result of the “Whig-Calhounites’ Deposit Act” which stripped banks reserves. (239) This idea of inherited guilt attempts to relieve Van Buren of blame, even though the panic of 1837 happened directly under Van Buren’s leadership.

While there is merit in Wilentz’s argument that the financial meltdown of 1837 could have been directly caused by the Whig-Calhounites, I think the second collapse in October of 1839 can be attributed to Van Buren. Wilentz makes the point that the collapse helped Van Buren in the short term as it “reminded the public of his link with the hero of the Bank War, Andrew Jackson.” (243) Even with the country belly-up in a second bank collapse, Wilentz describes the effect as bolstering the “Jacksonians’ contentions” regarding a nationalized bank. Even though the country was suffering financially due to political fighting in Washington, Wilentz does not blame this on Van Buren. Rather, he attributes Van Buren’s eventual political fall to a split in southern politics instead of any fault in leadership.

However, as Will pointed out, the Jacksonian Democrats’ attempt to appease everyone actually hurt their overall position. Blame for this period of corrupt policies and confusion, illustrated by the financial crisis’ of 1837 and 1839, should be shared equally between the Whig-Calhounites and the Jacksonian Democrats rather than, as I think Wilentz portrays, the blame resting solely on the shoulders of the Whig Party.

November 11, 2013

Political Power and the People

Jackson ran on a platform of populism. Being from the west and making his own success, as opposed to the eastern elites who traditionally won the presidency, he appeared to be the common man’s man. However, as Jackson himself learned, it was impossible to satisfy every common man in a country so large as the United States. Eventually the president has to take sides and, in the process alienate some of the common people he claimed to support. During his second presidency, Jackson seemed to have given up on attempting to appease the majority and instead stood firmly in support of his own ideas whether many people were in support of them or not. This was clearly demonstrated by his determination to experiment in hard money economics, a policy which created a lot of conflict throughout the country.

I agree with Sylvia’s point that one of the legacies of Jacksonian Democracy was its role in the development of the Whig party and populism at large (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/a-party-for-the-people/). The contrasting way in which Wilentz presented the Democratic Party and the Whig party during this time period was very interesting. Under Jackson and Van Buren, the Democratic party’s policies were mainly shaped by economic concerns such as the battle over the national bank and the experimentation in hard money policy. There was also some concern over slavery, however Wilentz emphasized the influence of economics during this time more. The Whig party that rose in opposition to Jacksonians, on the other hand, was driven mainly by a very Christian humanitarian way of thinking. The Whigs’ focus on improving the individual through institutions such as schools and insane asylums seems to sharply contrast the way in which the Jacksonians approached politics. Perhaps, Wilentz presented these two parties as being so different in order to emphasize the degree of change American politics went through during this time period as more and more people turned toward the political process as a way to elicit change.

November 10, 2013

A Party for the People

Jackson came into office with the platform to return the power, which had long been in the hands of the elite, to the people. The Jacksonians prided themselves on majoritarian politics, but as Jackson would see, being president meant trying to please many different groups of people, and in doing so, not always protecting the common man. While historians often represent Jackson as a man who stood by his own beliefs no matter what others said, Wilentz describes how even Jackson got caught up in trying to please too many people. For example, abolitionists thought Jackson was trying to annex Texas in order to spread slavery and help the planter elite, while on the other hand the southern elite were angry about Jackson’s attacks on the Bank and on their appeals for a nullification law. I agree with Nate’s point (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/an-era-of-uncertainty/) that Jackson tried to balance his own beliefs with the beliefs of all the different groups he was trying to appease. In doing this, he ended up being attacked by most people and left office with the country on the brink of financial disaster and a sectional battle still brewing. Van Buren, like Jackson, spent his presidency attempting to satisfy as many people as possible, but in the end, he was also attacked from both sides and was not able to accomplish much during his presidency because of it.

While Jacksonians took power with the idea of a party for majoritarian politics, they did not truly stick to that notion. The party constantly tried to maintain their bases of elite voters while not worrying as much about the common man. This could be seen as a misstep in the fight to return the government to the people, but I like Wilentz’s opinion that Jacksonians actually helped advance the people’s struggle. By not actually staying true to their promise to the people, it allowed for the Whig party to develop with a platform that attacked Jacksonians on the basis that they were not for the common man. Future party developments, then, were based on which party could appeal to the common man more, which actually propelled majoritarian politics to the front of the minds of party leaders and government officials.

November 10, 2013

Dishevelled Democracy

Chapters 14 through 16 in Wilentz explored the chaotic politics prevalent during Andrew Jackson’s second term and Martin Van Buren’s term as president. This era featured numerous pressing political issues and resulted in remarkable shifts in the political landscape. The tension also created significant divides both between and within political parties. The Democrats efforts to attract nationwide appeal led to catastrophic contradictions, and the Whig’s hatred for Jackson provided only an ephemeral glue to hold together members with sharply different ideologies.

In its effort to appease voters from all areas and walks of life, the Democratic party under Jackson and Van Buren featured striking hypocrisies. The most obvious example, the gag rule, challenged its most fundamental principle: preserving equal rights and the true meaning of the Constitution. Like MASPEED (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/november-5th-post/), I was shocked at the gag rule’s blatant disregard for substantial Constitutional ideals, as it solely served to appease Jackson’s slaveholding constituency in the South. Not surprisingly, contradictions in policies such as this one resulted in factions within the Democratic party, as divides within the Democratic party manifested themselves more than ever.

Grounded solely in their opposition to Jackson, members of the Whig party had various disagreements threatening their unity. Most notably, the Whigs consisted of the most adamant abolitionists alongside many wealthy Southern slaveholders. Clearly, this recipe for disaster could not last for long. The lack of organization and unity rendered the party unsuccessful initially in national elections, most importantly the 1836 presidential race. The Whigs, however, impressively consolidated forces prior to their victory in the 1840 election with William Henry Harrison. The triumph delayed inevitable doom for the divided party.

I found Wilentz’s treatment of the various political struggles to be discombobulating. I had difficulty in identifying which party, faction, or politician supported each side. I felt the narration of the Whigs’ consolidation and democratization in Chapter 16 was particularly fascinating and well-framed. Overall, despite the headache I got sorting through the issues, Wilentz did a fairly nice job of investigating the crazy politics of the 1830’s.

November 7, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 13 / Davis, Ch. 13: A Hotbed for Abolitionism

Sherwood Callaway

Blog Post 6

In chapter 13, Wilentz writes:

“Abolitionism represented a new kind of American political community. Its activists, at great personal risk, defied widely and deeply held social conventions. This community set itself apart from sinful complicity with slavery and racism and created a new humane model of equality, freedom, and love.”

To synthesize and summarize his argument, within American society, the abolitionist movement sought unprecedented goals and held unprecedented values. But though the idea of ending the institution of slavery may have been radical and new (which it wasn’t), the movement itself was founded on principles that were both well recognized and well liked—which contributed to the movement’s widespread popularity.

For example, Wilentz mentions that abolitionism appealed to the “revival-soaked areas that defied greater New England.” This is because revivalism and abolitionism both emphasized similar values—individualism and progressivism. Revivalists encouraged a personal relationship with God, unlike traditional forms of Christianity. Both men and women, whether free or enslaved, were accepted as converts and allowed to profess their new faith. Subsequently, revivalists often came from the margins of society—the frontier, for example, or poverty, or slavery. Revivalism also represented a departure from ceremonial traditions; churches, priests and sacraments were no longer necessary for worship. Revivalists would have been excited about furthering the causes of individualism and progressivism through the abolitionist movement, which proposed to liberate slaves from oppression and end a tradition that primarily benefited the white landed elite.

The first great awakening, which saw the initial emergence of revivalism in British America, was during the 1730s and 40s. The second enveloped this period of abolitionism, running from the 1800s to the 1840s. It is no coincidence that these periods coincide; rather, because they held similar values, they energized one another. Revivalism during the 18th century laid the foundations for Abolitionism; revivalism during the 19th century popularized it.

But the goals and values of the abolitionist movement cannot only be tied to those of revivalism. Consider also, the spirit of 1776. Wilentz says abolitionism favored “equality, freedom, and love.” I cannot account for the latter of these, but I can certainly account for the former two. The notion of “equality” featured heavily in pre-revolution dialogue, as American-born Britons sought the same rights and representation as those across the pond. Of course, these sentiments did not stretch to the margins of society, as they did during abolitionism, but the language of equality was very much present. “Freedom”, also, was obviously associated with the spirit of 1776—personal freedoms such as the right to expand along the frontier, and the right to refuse quarter to visitors, for example.

Wilentz argues that abolitionism was a wholly new phenomenon in the United States. But rather, it seems as if the US would have been a hotbed for such a movement.

November 6, 2013

Getting rid of problems for the people

The reading for tomorrows class was interesting view of how Jackson destroyed the National Bank and Abolitionism. I personally thought it was crazy how Jackson appointed his secretary of the Treasury and quickly dismissed him from the position because he was unwilling to “remove the deposits without the assent of Congress” (208). I also think its an interesting point that the book brings up the “eighty thousand dollars” the bank spent against Jackson in the 1832 election (208). After reading this, I instantly wondered if that was the main reason Jackson had a problem with the Bank and wanted it removed at all. It was in fact in his favor to not be around because it was money that couldn’t be used to oppose him. I also thought it was interesting how Biddle tried to keep the fight going for supporters of the bank, and Jackson used the people to shift the blame to him. This gained support for Jackson as he made the businessmen think that the bank was their problem and Jackson was all in support of the people, and it made those who supported the bank look as if they don’t care about the people and they sacrificed the businesses that went under to keep their bank.

Another piece of the reading I found interesting was how it spoke on abolitionists. I feel like my classmates made a lot of good points when talking about abolitionists, but one that I felt was really well stated was how they talked about the divide in the movement itself and how that weakened the movement as a whole (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/abolition-the-bank-and-jackson/). I also thought it was crazy how the movement spread across the country. Of course it was not well liked in a lot of places because it took money out of the people’s pockets, but it still started more groups and gained people’s support on the fact that enslavement of other humans was wrong. I feel like this section leading into labor unions and strikes was perfect because in my mind the abolitionists were basically a large labor union that had an effect in more places across the country.

November 6, 2013

An Era of Uncertainty

With brand new political ideologies coming out of the rise of Jacksonian democracy, the federal government was once again left with many questions about what it could and could not do. As the new political era began, many different issues gained importance during Jackson’s second term. The federal government had to decide first, whether or not it had the power to issue a second state bank, and second, to decide whether or not it wanted to issue a second state bank; disagreement led to economic hardship for the country as a whole, and the recession led to a rise in worker’s unions. The rise in union participation gave way to a new political force. Finally, the abolition movement continued to grow to the point where it greatly affected politics in the north while increasing sectionalism.

I agree with MASPEED that the economic section (as well as the political/union section) was hard to understand, but I think that Wilentz’s main point is that Jackson had to deal with many issues in his second term, and when he dealt with them, he greatly increased federal and executive power. With many differing opinions about the magnanimous issues of economics, labor, and slavery, political parties became more fragmented. If the Jacksonians and anti-Jacksonians were more established, or if the first party system of the United States was still in tact, I think that the federal government may have been more capable in dealing with the issues. Because Jackson’s supporters’ opinions varied between the three major issues, he did not know how to lead one party, and Jackson’s weak followers led to him making controversial executive decisions in trying to appease different supporters while upholding his own values.

Perhaps the greatest issue of the 1830s was the abolitionist movement and attitudes toward slavery. Not only did people argue about whether or not slavery should be abolished, but they also argued about how it should be abolished (e.g. gradual vs immediate). Abolitionists appealed to both selfish and selfless ambitions in order to try to grow their movement. In the lead up to the Civil War, the abolitionists tried to throw many blows to the Southern pro-slavery advocates, and the South counterpunched right back, but when the time came to solve the issue once and for all, the only ammunition (no pun intended) that the Southern states had was to secede from the Union.

November 6, 2013

Abolition-Davis and Wilentz

Abolition in the Early Republic was a movement that created a new era of American history. It brought to light the ethical and moral issues of slavery, but also exposed how deeply intwined slavery was with the economy all over the U.S. The abolition movement was in part caused by the evangelism religious revivals present in New England, also known as the Second Great Awakening. The evangelism view was that the system of Negro slavery was the great national sin that must be removed so a new Eden or New Jerusalem could be established in America. SYSTRAUSS mentions Theodore Dwight Weld as an example of an abolitionist that has a deeply rooted set of religious ideals. Davis writes about two different groups that emerged within the abolitionist movement. The colonization movement and the immediatism movement. The colonizationists argued that the racial prejudices and differences present in America were too strong for the races to ever live together as equals. Many African-Americans saw this movement as disrespectful towards their ancestors who helped build America. They viewed this movement as taking their ‘American status’ away. The immediatism was triggered by an eruption of immediatism in Britain. Unlike the British abolition movement, the American movement had a larger participation of women. Unlike slavery in Britain, American slavery was deeply intwined into the interstate economy and virtually every aspect of not only southern, but also northern life. Wilentz also wrote about the abolition movement in chapter 13. Wilentz claims that abolitionism became a genuine popular movement in the U.S. The violence associated with the abolitionist movement in the North was surprising to me. I didn’t realize until Wilentz pointed it out that the violent hostility was located in the North most of the time. The abolitionist movement created hatred in the South, but not as many violent mobs as the North. The abolition movement spread from small farmers, shopkeepers, and businessmen in mostly small cities to a larger group of wage earners in major cities and factory towns. The growth of abolition was due to the Second Great Awakening and the abolition movement in Britian. However, abolition of slavery was hindered by the deep racial prejudices and the slave economy and further complicated the tense period of the Early Republic.