federalists – U.S. to 1877

October 23, 2013

Blog post Oct. 23

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

This semester, I am taking both this history class and American Politics. Many subjects overlap when we begin to discuss American democracy. Consequently, The Rise of American Democracy has been a slightly boring read for me personally. However, historical details not mentioned in political science add to the knowledge I already have and help to fill in gaps and explain motives. The struggle between Federalists and Democratic Republicans in particular is an event I have now read much about. Though I wish Wilentz talked less about politics and more about history, I understand that leaving one side out could deplete the value of the chapter.

I agree with Mitch Han when he discusses Wilentz’s demonstrated dislike of the Federalists. Though historically, the Federalist party sputters and falls, Wilentz does not give them too much credit. He describes Adams as a “pudgy”, “short”, and “anxious”, and speaks very admiringly of Burr (Wilentz 32). Also, By highlighting the Alien and Sedition Acts as much as he did, Wilentz throws a negative light upon the methods used by Adams’s party. The Mastodon article puts the Republicans further ahead by crediting Jefferson with a symbol of continental domination and power. The Federalists never sent an exploration out West to possibly find an enormous, man-eating carnivore.

Luckily for me, Chapter 5 and the Turner article proved to be more historical and less like my political science class. I liked how in the Turner article, he described the frontier as constantly being moved back from, first, the Atlantic coast of North America, to the Mississippi valley and Appalachian Mountain Range, and then deeper into the continent. I wonder if this is an ethnocentric way of seeing the “unexplored” land, because the indigenous tribes had existed on the continent for quite a while. However, I did like the way the article lead me to think of where our frontier is now. Is it possibly the arctic? Or, since we’ve landed on the moon, is it outer space and the far reaches of our solar system? Beyond? I don’t believe history repeats itself but I can imagine a campaign into the unknown similar to Columbus’s or Louis and Clark’s.

October 23, 2013

A Split Between Parties

In his most recent post, Robbie states how the election of 1800 was a turning point in American politics because “It showed that the Republican model of government could function in America.” I agree with Robbie, but I also consider the election of 1796 to be a major turning point as well; it marked the first time a two party system existed in early American government. Throughout the early chapters of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz describes a constant struggle between Federalists and Republicans, the result of greater suffrage and contrasting views among the American people. A major question that emerges is whether elections for either Republican and Federalist parties were shaped more by split views between the elite and the common people, or by the conventional differences between North and South. Many government officials in both Republican and Federalist parties believed that only the wealthy and educated deserved to hold office.

Wilentz does not appear very favorable towards the Federalists; he portrays them as hypocritical and especially troublesome during the Republican presidency. For example, Federalists in New England and throughout the North were ironically the ones to propose the idea of seceding from the Union. Usually when we think about secession in America, we just assume Southerners were the ones who wanted to secede from the Union. Under John Adams, the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to prevent Republicans from criticizing the government. However, during the War of 1812 “paradoxically, the most inflammatory criticisms of the government came from conservative New England Federalists—with no Sedition Law raining down on their heads” (Wilentz, p. 89). I felt almost as though the Federalists were against Americans forming their own identity, as they intensely opposed nationalism and the war against Great Britain.

Wilentz focuses heavily on Jefferson’s actions and character as vice president and eventually president. Already faced with the debts and taxes from Federalist enactment, Jefferson favored a more passive form of treaty involving money instead of engaging in wars that would only lead to more debt. This approach was demonstrated by his purchase of the Louisiana territory to end French threat in North America, as well as his proposition of an embargo of British and French goods in order to avoid war. Although many argue that Jefferson was extremely hypocritical, he was still able to help fuel the American economy and keep the United States out of war. “After 1801, the federal government ran a deficit in only one year before 1809 and accumulated a net surplus of more than twenty million dollars” (Wilentz, p. 65).

October 22, 2013

The Growth of a Nation and the Decline of a Party

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

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.