U.S. to 1877 – Fall 2013 – Page 12 – Just another My blog Sites site

October 22, 2013

The Growth of a Nation and the Decline of a Party

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

When America was first brought into existence it was under the control of the Federalists, a political party which believed in a strong, centralized government. From the Constitutions conception, until the death of Washington in 1799, the country was firmly in the grips of this Federalist party, and there was never much of a challenge from other parties, such as the Jefferson led Democratic-Republicans. But after Washington’s death and the Federalist passage of controversial laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts there was a change in the government, putting the Democratic-Republicans in power. “The Republicans united behind Vice President Jefferson-‘the rallying point’…[and] began to create of perfect electioneering machinery in every important state early in 1800.”(Wilentz 37) The election of 1800, in which Jefferson won power was a turning point in American politics. The change of political party in power represented much more than than a simple change as this was a successful, peaceful transition of power. It showed that the Republican model of government could function in America. There would be peaceful transitions of power even when political parties were voted out of office, and forced to relinquish control to another party which had very different views. The election of 1800 was a growing point for politics in America but also the beginning of the end for the Federalist party. In his post JELAWS says “The War of 1812 marked the decline and eventual disappearance of the Federalist Party” but I believe that was started much earlier in the Election of 1800. People became disheartened towards the Federalist party and began to embrace Jeffersonian style democracy. Although the party didn’t totally disappear until after the war of 1812 the decline began as early as 1800.

Even as the Federalist party was fading from relevance the Democratic-Republicans were growing to new heights of political power. Under Jefferson the country flourished. Willentz seems to be very favorable of Jefferson, almost to a fault. He appears to be a great admirer of Jefferson and talks about him almost entirely in a positive light. While I do appreciate the style that Willentz brings because it makes the read more enjoyable his constant adoration of Jefferson is almost a detractor from his credibility. Jefferson did make some hypocritical moves as President, such as the Louisiana Purchase which was an expansion of central power, something Jefferson had said he disagreed with but Willentz is quick to push decisions such as that off as “largely flexible responses to unforeseen events.”(Willentz 64) Through Jeffersons presidency though one thing remained constant, the “sink[ing] of Federalism into the abyss.” (Willentz 66)

The War of 1812 was an important time period in America’s history, because it is one of the first times America has tried to flex her muscles and see how she matches up to European powers. The growth of Nationalism led by Calhoun was a major reason for the war. There developed an anti-British sentiment that ultimately led to Congress’s declaration of war. This war didn’t mark the beginning of Federalist decline, but rather the final nail in the coffin. “That engagement…would complete the Federalists’ ruin”(Willentz 82) It also opened up a new breed of Republican party. The war brought the name of Andrew Jackson to Americas attention and eventually he would lead one of the greatest political revolutions the country had ever seen. The politics of early America were complicated but the decline of the Federalists opened the door for the Democratic-Republicans, and other parties to take control of the country.

October 22, 2013

The Mammoth in the Room: American Identity Crisis and the War of 1812

Our readings this week address the evolution of the early American Republic and, in doing so, suggest a seemingly unified American spirit, described by Semonin as the nation’s “conquering spirit” (2) and by Turner as it’s “consolidated nationality.” Though one could point to the Americanization of the West, with its ever-advancing lines of demarcation, or the rise of Moderate Republicanism, with Jefferson’s unifying inauguration speech or the promise of young nationalists Clay and Calhoun, as indicative of this unified spirit of the age, I think the Mastodon—the gentle giant cast as a “tyrant of the forests”—best exemplifies the real state of the American character at the time (Semonin 4). Simply put, despite the initial successes in the West by the Louisiana Purchase and in Washington by the Jefferson presidency, the United States suffered a serious identity crisis, particularly during in the War of 1812.

Though by the end of the war the US “commanded international respect,” American victory didn’t come without serious threats on the home front (Wilentz 88). Naval victories by the USS President and ‘Old Ironsides’ might have invigorated Americans with confidence, but that confidence seems more like hubris when one considers the embarrassing defeat at Detroit in August 18012 or the psychological trauma of the new capitol’s destruction in July 1814. Equipped with a meager regular army and disorganized state militias, Madison and the US appeared to be biting off more than they could chew by confronting the real imperial powerhouse of Britain. The initial strategy of invading Canada seems ambitious at best considering the United States’ military disorganization. Even more, amidst the perils of war at home, the Union faced serious internal threats both before and during the war. Exploiting disgruntled and disorganized American military officers, then-Vice President Aaron Burr conspired to establish a new, seceded nation comprised of the western states and territories in the build-up to the war with Britain. And later in 1814, a dissatisfied and decidedly Federalist New England convened at Hartford, CT to propose seven “nonnegotiable” amendments as a restitution for its wartime grievances (82). Were it not for the remarkable success of the well-outnumbered US navy or the unlikely victories of Andrew Jackson in Louisiana, the young republic might not have survived its first, real international conflict.

Considering the many crises, both military and political, faced by the United States, the Mastodon seems a fitting symbol of the American spirit at the time. Sylvia Strauss notes in her blog this week that “having a fierce symbol, like the mastodon, gave Americans [an] idea . . . . [which] transferred to western expansion, where Americans felt it was their calling to gain more land and power” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-beginnings-of-western-expansion/). I agree. I also, however, think that symbolically the mastodon not only motivated, but reflected the events of the time. Influenced by the same “conquering spirit” of the American frontier, the United States challenged a daunting European empire and received a much-needed reality check (Semonin 2). Though the initial successes of the Jefferson presidency, Westward expansion, and a new, revolutionary republic might have led Americans to believe they were a ferocious carnivore ready to rival the “British lion” or its European counterparts, they were in fact no more than an eleven-foot-tall, prehistoric herbivore—imposing and noteworthy, but certainly no “tyrant [in] the forests” of international politics (Semonin 4).

October 22, 2013

Post-Midterm Blog Post #1- President Jefferson

Sean Wilientz focuses heavily on the political career of Thomas Jefferson and his Presidency in chapter 4 of The Rise of American Democracy. Jefferson, while no doubt a great political figure who played a tremendous role in the development of the United States of America in its early years, is sometimes considered a somewhat controversial figure. In learning about him in the past, I knew that his strategy for dealing with Native Americans in his pre-presidential days, relationships with slaves and the somewhat aggressive style in which he often dealt with the opposing Federalist Party made him a polarizing political figure. On top of that, he has also been accused of being a hypocrite because of his decision to go through with the Louisiana Purchase without a vote after years of fighting for individual citizen rights. Wilentz, however, seems to be a big fan of Jefferson. He negatively describes Jefferson’s main political opponent John Adams and positively describes the way Jefferson fought against the Alien and Sedition Acts that he believed were certainly “unconstitutional” while Adams was President. Throughout chapter 3, Wilienz seems to admire the way Jefferson battled against the Federalists, ultimately winning and taking the Presidency in the election of 1800.

In chapter 4, Wilenz further approves of the job Jefferson does as President, highlighting the diplomatic way Jefferson dealt with the French to avoid war, the Lewis and Clark Expedition and the Louisiana Purchase. His emphasis on westward expansion was huge, something that greatly benefited the United States in the long run. @systrauss talks about this more in her blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-beginnings-of-western-expansion/). Wilentz’s most glowing description of Jefferson comes on page 66 when he describes him as a man who had the “intellectual breadth and the personal prestige that helped [him] hold together the querulous Republicans and sink Federalism into the abyss” (Wilentz). I liked Wilentz’s writing, but personally I thought he was too biased towards President Jefferson. While he highlights the goods of his presidency he barely touches on some of the bad. In the bottom paragraph of page 65 he gives Jefferson credit for his handling of the government and how successful he was in having his legislation passed by Congress. He doesn’t mention however that some of that legislation had adverse affects on the country. For instance, the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809 only further irritated the British and drew the two nations closer to war (Wilentz, 69). Ultimately, the two countries would go to war just three years after Jefferson left office. I think Wilientz could have done a better job of addressing the impact Jefferson’s presidency had on the War of 1812, a war he divulges into in Chapter 5.

October 21, 2013

The Beginnings of Western Expansion

Western expansion gave people more power to own their own land and confidently create their own lives, but it the people’s independence had to then be balanced with a growing Presidential supremacy.

While the new nation was trying to feel more equal in a world of ancient empires, the Founding Fathers agreed that the mastodon, a giant prehistoric skeleton found by naturalist Charles Peale, would be a “symbol of dominance” to inspire the people to support the budding government in their attempts to legitimize the country (Semonin 2). When Peale first discovered the skeleton, he placed the teeth in a way to show the animal was a carnivore. Having a fierce symbol, like the mastodon, gave Americans the idea that in the past the natural world was shaped by violent conquests. This idea transferred to western expansion, where Americans felt it was their calling to gain more land and power, and by moving west, decimated the wilderness and even Indian tribes. What I found interesting in this story of the mastodon was that Peale’s initial placement of the teeth, the detail that made the animal more ferocious, was incorrect. Instead, later naturalists discovered the mastodon was actually an herbivore. At this point, the myth of the powerful mastodon had already swept the nation, but it begs the question that if Peale had correctly identified the mastodon’s eating patterns from the beginning, would this animal ever have become such a symbol for the nation? Would the American people have had the confidence to expand westward, and by doing that strengthen the nation?

When Western expansion became even more possible with the Louisiana Purchase, President Jefferson had to struggle with balancing his ideals of people’s individual rights and giving more control to the Presidential role. Jefferson accepted the Louisiana Purchase without asking the citizens for a vote, going against what TaSimmons notes in her post as the importance of the people’s expression of opinions as a way to affect the government. Instead, the move exemplifies Jefferson’s realization that the President has to hold a certain degree of power over the people. While it is undeniable that the people should have a say in the government and be able to change it when it is not working in favor of the masses, it is also important to remember that the President has a responsibility to make certain difficult and complex decisions without putting everything to a vote. In other books, I’ve seen the authors criticize this move by Jefferson as a power grab or a distancing from what he claimed were his principles. Wilentz, though, describes this move and Jefferson’s presidency more sympathetically. I liked Wilentz description of his presidency because it reminds readers that sometimes the President has to upset people when he believes his choice will benefit the country as a whole in the long run. Without Jefferson’s decision to accept the Louisiana Purchase, our country would be very different today, so his choice to use the power of the Presidency was warranted.

October 21, 2013

Democratic Divisions

In Chapters 3-5, Wilentz describes the political unrest present in the early decades of the United States. The parties were severely divided throughout Adams’, Jefferson’s, and Madison’s Presidencies. The Federalists were in control of the national political scene during Adams’ Presidency. Adams was a Federalist, and Congress was controlled by the Federalists as well. The Federalist majority passed anti-alien bills targeting their Republican enemies. The sedition bill passed “that outlawed and heavily penalized all statements…construed as contemptuous of the president or the Congress” (Wilentz, p. 33). As TASIMMONS stated last week, “the ability of the people to express their opinions shaped the political practices of the time.” The sedition bills hindered political practices of Republicans and any other people who disagreed with the national politicians. Republicans, led by Jefferson, went to the state governments to oppose the new federal laws. Republicans were hurt even more by the almost-slave revolt near Richmond. Jefferson convinced Monroe to pass a policy of the deportation of rebels outside the U.S. to help ease the embarrassment (Wilentz, p. 39). Despite these set backs, Jefferson was narrowly able to gain the Presidential seat in the election of 1800. Adams, however, would take advantage of his last ten weeks in office by passing the Judiciary Act of 1801 and creating sixteen new federal judgeships which he filled with Federalists. While in office Jefferson tried to be as neutral as possible when filling his political appointments. He made them based on the merit of the politician, not on the party he associated with. Jefferson was able to convince Congress to repeal almost all of the naturalization laws of 1798. He avoided armed conflicts at all costs even with the British attacking the U.S.’s ships. Instead Jefferson proposed an embargo, but that ended up hurting the Americans. The Non-Intercourse Acts were largely ineffective, but did delay any serious conflicts until Jefferson was out of office. With Jefferson’s support Madison was able to win the election of 1808. The war was inevitable. Although the Republicans were divided on the declaration of war, Congress declared war in 1812. The new anti-British Republican nationalists helped tip the scale. The Republicans divided into the younger nationalists and the southern Old Republicans. Even though the nationalists blamed the British for the entirety of the war, the natives substantially contributed to the cause of the War of 1812. The war created many heroes, none of which were Federalists. The War of 1812 marked the decline and eventual disappearance of the Federalist party.

On a personal note, Wilentz’s style and organization is very different from the other authors we have read. I find the short histories on the important people sometimes distracting. I think they make it hard to find the overall themes and subject of the chapters.

October 16, 2013

Pollitical Division in a New Government

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.

October 16, 2013

Influential Ghosts and Coercion

In Alfred Young’s essay, “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution,” he wrote about the influences from people that were not present at the Constitutional Convention. Young related the influences to the “ghosts” of Thomas Paine, Abraham Yates, Daniel Shays, and Thomas Peters (150). At the convention, radical democracy, new men in power, rebellion, and slaves were all current issues that the delegates were familiar with and that needed to be addressed. Young says that the delegates dealt with these issues either with coercion or accommodation. Additionally, the delegates had to balance their own political views with the needs and desires of the people, as mentioned in the post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-constitution-the-intentions-of-the-framers-and-the-realities-of-the-new-government/). The concerns of farmers and slave rebellions were handled with coercion, and the delegates “gave the national government the power to ‘suppress insurrections’ and protect the states from ‘domestic violence’” (Young 151). This method of approaching slave revolts and other rebellions does not seem to have changed much over time. The difference is that now the federal government can use force to “suppress insurrections,” whereas before, the task was delegated to individual slave owners or British officials. The federal government later abuses this power during the Whiskey Rebellion, and they use full force to put down a relatively small revolt.

Also, I found the concept of a “”mixed government”” interesting (Young 150). It seems that the founding fathers were still attempting to remain connected to their British roots by striving for “a perfect blend of ‘aristocracy’ and ‘democracy’” (Young 151). Even after the revolution, the delegates showed through the Constitution that they did not perceive Britain’s system as completely flawed when they strove to keep the idea of aristocracy alive.

October 15, 2013

The Constitution: the intentions of the framers and the realities of the new government

Alfred F. Young’s essay “The Pressure of the People on the Framers of the Constitution” focuses on the factors that the framers dealt with in order to create the document that governed the country. Most of the hard decisions the framers had to make came down to balancing the knowledge that these elite men had with the voice the Revolution had promised the people. Certain delegates, like Hamilton, wanted the government to benefit themselves more, which was exemplified in his proposal for a president and senate who served for life, the model of the English government that had helped his family gain wealth and prominence. James Madison fought more for the people, making sure the Constitution would reflect the “genius” of the people in order for the document to last well into the future (Young 149). While we often see Madison as the hero of the common people, I liked how Young also described how he could not always accommodate the people, and how his elite place in society sometimes affected his ideas. In an effort to curb the power of the state legislatures, Madison wanted a national veto over the states. This gave a lot of power to the federal government, not necessarily typical to Madison’s goals of giving the people a voice. As an educated man, Madison saw the problems that could come if the people had too much power. This decision was not one of a greedy elitist, like Hamilton, but one of an educated elitist looking out for the best of the country as a whole.

The framers of the Constitution had expectations for the country, but even just a few years after the document’s ratification, the emergence of political parties used those ideals differently than intended. Wilentz notes the importance of linking the political societies who were upset with the Federalist ideas and the growing Republican interest within the government. As a classmate notes (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/what-is-this-europe/), Wilentz writes of the class struggle for people both in the city and the country. With the establishment of the Constitution, however, these disgruntled people could affect the government by forming political societies and working with government insiders. This connection between the people and the government officials who were both upset with the way the government was working, provided the basis for the start of future political parties. We have to remember, though, how radical the idea of uniting the common people with the government elite still was at the time. In his essay, Jack N. Rakove notes the change from the intended government structure that came with the beginning of the political parties. He writes of Madison’s argument for ambition to “counteract ambition” in the legislatures so the people would benefit in the end (Rakove 158). Yet as the first political parties started to develop, this ambition Madison thought he would see, manifested instead in the representative’s hope for power in the party and society, instead of helping their constituents.

October 10, 2013

Good luck everyone!

October 3, 2013

Witchery and the Great Awakening

The Salem Witch Trials, and other witch trials though out the early American colonial period, were a terrible tragedy, the reasons of which are still debated. A variety of possible reasons have been claimed, but one stands out to me as the most likely reason. Many of my classmates have put forward one argument or another, and I think most of the reasons put forward did, to an extent, have an effect on the witch trials. Overall I agree with Kindig that the primary reasoning behind the witch trials were religious, however I would expand on that assertion.

In looking at the witch trials in the context of the great awakening, it bares an obvious resemblance to the witch trials which took place in Europe following the reformation. But what is the uniting factor which explains why both these periods of religious change should cause witch trials? As I see it, the witch hunts came about as a result of a shift of religious authority from the educated elite to a more personal or grassroots religiosity. This change in who controlled the religious power could have moved the concept of witchcraft into the forefront as the more superstitious religion of less educated common folk moved to the fore. This i think is the most logical explanation for the trend itself, however each individual trial was most likely caused by different individual factors, which played into the trend.