Democracy – U.S. to 1877

November 19, 2013

The Road to Emancipation

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

After multiple compromises between northern and southern Whigs and Democrats, President Fillmore falsely assumed that, “Congress had achieved a final settlement of sectional discord” (Wilentz, 349). Wilentz emphasizes how the truce of 1850 was in fact fruitless, for it once again avoided the question of slavery instead of trying to solve it. One of the compromises included a much more stringent Fugitive Slave Act, which inadvertently led to intensifying tensions between northerners and southerners. “By denying the fugitives jury trials, it attacked the most democratic aspect of American jurisprudence…and brazenly violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause” (353). Slavery had marred the reputation of the Democratic Party, challenging the egalitarian doctrine and democratic principles that the party was originally founded upon. In the Republicans’ eyes, a true democracy could not exist where the institution of slavery existed and denied people their basic human right of freedom.

Wilentz also highlights a different side of the 1850’s nativist movement, one that opposed the expansion of slavery and the bloody consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska conflict. Based on our class discussion and the online article about Charleston’s Irish laborers, the main reason poor Irish immigrants supported the slave system was because they were no longer stuck at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The massive influx of Irish immigrants during the 1850’s led to increased antipathy towards both free and enslaved blacks by immigrants who wanted to fit in to slave-societies. I believe that nativism, in a way, helped reduce the number of pro-slavery Irish in the South who would eventually side with the Confederates in their fight for slavery.

Davis links the British emancipation of slaves to the growing paranoia of southerners over abolitionism. The southern slaveholders’ defense was that the British were the ones who tried to oppress the American people, and the emancipation of slaves had greatly reduced profit from colonies in the Caribbean. However, the British were also the ones who took the initiative in freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves in the West Indies, which was undeniable evidence that the abolishment of slavery in the United States would be the ultimate test of American freedom and democracy. Britain’s emancipation of slavery confirmed the southerners’ senseless fear of northerners allying with Britain to ensure the destruction of slavery in the South. “The overreaction of Southern extremists had made it much easier for moderate Northerners to rally in a political campaign against a home-grown tyranny that threatened the very survival of democracy in America” (Davis 286).

November 12, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 14: Jacksonian Democracy, Delivered With Force

Sherwood Callaway

HIS 141, Blog Post 7

Jackson’s vision of democracy was implemented with force, and predictably, the result was destruction. The two subjects that best characterize this phenomenon are indian removal and the bank war, both of which Wilentz covers in chapter 14.

Indian Removal was a violent and clumsy process. He pursued it to please his constituency, much of whom resided in areas of population growth and frontier expansion. And although the government desperately needed to implement national Indian policy, Jackson’s was a crude proposal. The stories vary, but in every case, moving Indians across the country was inefficient and cost unnecessary lives. In some cases the natives responded violently, as in the Black Hawk War and the Seminole War. In other cases the natives attempted to deal with the Americans on their on terms, through the courts. In Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia they were defeated “when Chief Justice John Marshall declared…that because the Cherokees were a “domestic dependent nation,” they lacked standing to sue” (223). Worcester v. Georgia had a more promising result, in which Marshall declared that “the Cherokee Nation was “a distinct community, occupying its own territory”” (223). But ultimately, legislators had little tolerance for even those Indians who were most similar to whites.

In the case of the bank, Jackson vehemently sought its destruction, because he thought it favored northeastern states over western and southern states, and because it seemed to serve only to make the rich richer. He managed to quash its rechartering, and withdraw funds from it, thereby rendering the institution impotent. Striking against state banks as well, he passed the Specie Circular, which demanded that federal lands be bought with gold or silver. Suddenly, the paper currency issued by these state banks became worthless, and speculators demanded specie in exchange—specie that the banks did not have. Ultimately, Jackson’s violent dismembering of banking within the US spiraled the country into panic and recession, and left the government ill equipped to deal with financial matters.

By the time Jackson’s presidency ended, his successor was left with a real mixed bag. Indian Removal had been a long and costly process, and the Specie Circular had incited a national financial crisis. Jackson’s constituency had degraded and Van Buren was forced to establish political friendships upon different principles, as well as make new allies altogether. Frontiers people disliked the restrictions of Jackson’s Specie Circular, Southerners objected to the tariff that Jackson had defended, and the planter aristocracy was upset with the loss of the BUS. Despite the mistakes of his predecessor, Van Buren was able to win his election by gaining a popular reputation amongst southerners as “eager to mollify southern slaveholders and silence the abolitionists” (236). Hard to believe.

November 11, 2013

A Divided Democracy

Beginning with the Nullification Crises, the Tariff of 1828, and the Bank War, Wilentz illustrates the growing internal rifts within the Democratic Party, especially between Andrew Jackson and his Vice President, John C. Calhoun. United opposition against Jackson resulted in the emergence of the Whig Party, which would eventually overtake the Democratic Party in the election of 1840.

Chris argues in his post, “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.” I do not necessarily agree with this statement, for Wilentz is right in that Jackson’s Specie Circular led to the financial crash of 1837, just as Martin Van Buren happened to take office. The requirement of gold or silver payments to purchase federal land resulted in the loss of millions of dollars worth of paper money; land sales called for a shift to hard money that speculators just did not have. “The largest New York City banks lost more than ten million dollars in federal deposits and saw their specie reserves drop from 5.9 million dollars in August 1835 to 1.5 million dollars by May 1837” (Wilentz 231). Similar to the way George Bush left President Obama to deal with immense financial issues exacerbated by Bush’s presidency, I believe Wilentz is correct in characterizing the Panic of 1837 as Van Buren’s inherited dilemma from Jackson’s presidency.

Martin Van Buren’s attempt to compromise and gain supporters ultimately backfired as it further fueled the antislavery movement. Calhoun returning to the Democratic Party had pressured Van Buren into appeasing him and the proslavery southern Democrats. To the antislavery northern Whigs and abolitionists, Martin Van Buren appeared to be an advocate of slavery, something he was trying to avoid the entire time. His willingness to support slave-owners presents a contradictory image of Democracy as the party of the common farmer, yet that still defends the interests of the wealthy slave-owners. “Van Buren’s and the Democrats’ political difficulties exposed, once again, the deepening contradictions and dilemmas of Jacksonian egalitarianism” (252). This brings us back to the political debate over not only racial divisions, but also over socioeconomic divisions fueling the abolitionist movement.

November 11, 2013

We Can’t Stop, We Won’t Stop

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 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 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.

October 30, 2013

Bringing Slavery to Light

Wilentz portrays President John Quincy Adams as weak-willed and lacking a certain charisma that defined most presidents at the time. There is a definite truth to Robbie’s assertion that, “The 1824 election, won by John Quincy Adams, resulted in an almost stagnant presidency, an exception for the time period.” However, I wouldn’t quite say it was a “stagnant” presidency, as this new Era of Bad Feelings was also filled with much political turmoil and shifting powers in American government. One of the most evident examples of Adams’ ineffective presidency was his failure to stand up to Governor Troup and the Georgia legislature. He simply submitted to the Georgians as they forced the Creeks and Cherokees off their legally occupied land. Not only did this conflict make Adams seem weak, it also made the federal government appear powerless, something the South used to their advantage when advocating stronger state governments. “In the first menacing assertion of what came to be known as southern state-rights sectionalism, Adams permitted the nation to surrender to state” (Wilentz, p. 139). John Quincy Adam’s presidency was not stagnant during this time, for there was a greater development of southern sectionalism and much more tension between federal government and country democratic movements.
As Andrew Jackson assumed presidency, another issue emerged alongside state-rights and would become the main catalyst in the split between North and South. Beginning with the Missouri Compromise, the question over slavery’s constitutionality in America was more apparent in national affairs than ever before. “The nub of the matter was, as ever, political: either American democracy could tolerate slavery or it could not” (Wilentz, p. 165). By removing the Cherokee Indians from their land, Andrew Jackson inadvertently reinforced the notion that whites were superior to nonwhites, which included blacks as well. This was also demonstrated by the fact that he owned slaves himself. The issue of slavery in national affairs gave rise to an abolitionist movement led by free blacks in the North. However, as the abolitionist movement grew, it only further threatened the national unity of the country. “The rise of the abolitionist radicals aggravated divisions within the North and the South as well as between them” (Wilentz, p.179).

October 29, 2013

New Era

The early republic was characterized by multiple changes in the political power in the United States. From the beginning of the nation and the power of the Federalists to the dramatic growth of middle and lower class power inspired by Jackson it was always evolving. The 1824 election, won by John Quincy Adams, resulted in an almost stagnant presidency, an exception for the time period. Adams wasn’t able to accomplish much during his presidency because of issues stemming from the election, such as the “corrupt bargain” and also because “Congress would enact none of [Adams] improvement projects” (Willentz 138) The most important part of Adams presidency may in fact be that he opened the door for Jackson to become the President in 1828.

In an earlier post on October 23rd NAKINDIG said that “environment also played a huge role on early American History” and this was very true, especially when it came to Jackson’s rise to power. His growth to power started because of his rise to fame during the War of 1812 and it didn’t stop there. He became the man of the people, someone that the lower and middle class could identify with. His victory “marked the culmination of more than thirty years of American democratic development.” (Willentz 164) He was a savvy political mind and his building of his party he changed how democracy would forever be run in America. This was the true beginning of universal white male suffrage.

Now Jackson’s actual presidency was by no means perfect as it was quickly riddled with scandal and his removal of the Indians will forever cloud his presidency. But his ability to reach out to the common man, and his identity as an everyman changed how politics would be done forever. It was no longer just the elites who had a say in the governance of America.

October 2, 2013

What is this, Europe?

For real, though.

I’ve scrolled through the other blog posts and I see I might be the first to write about this so here’s my chance to bias everyone’s opinion! (Just like Thomas Paine)

The stance which the author of The Rise of American Democracy Wilentz takes on the American Revolution can almost be classified as Marxist. He prefaces his talk on the American Revolution with outlining of both the country and urban democracy, and defines the development of both as class struggle, with in each respective case the Rural farmers struggling against the aristocratic landowners or the Urban working class and petty merchants struggling against intelligentsia, Enlightenment era political leaders. Wilentz essentially outlines the causes of the American Revolution in the same manner that one would outline a revolution in Europe, with an extremely focus not on The British domination of Americans, and draws attention to the socio-economic conditions which existed within the colonies at the time. He makes his case by citing famous writings like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense as driving factors which increased antagonism towards both the British and the ruling elite as a whole.

So far I’m finding the new perspective very interesting and I’m honestly very excited to read on and see where Wilentz is going with this.