Jackson – U.S. to 1877

November 12, 2013

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

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

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

The Adventures of Andrew Jackson and the Invisible Hand

We find much of WIllentz’s commentary on Andrew Jackson and the American economic system within his description of the battle between Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (BUS) and the following aftermath. Generally, this chapter describes Andrew Jackson as a man of contradiction, especially in his populist stance. WIllentz tells us that Jackson fought for the liberation of the people and the government from the national bank, so that citizens could have the most direct access to a monetary system which funded a domestic economic system that was held accountable by the people. However, to reach these goals which are almost indicative of classical liberalism, Jackson engaged in major political manipulation which even led him to a censure. For someone who calls himself populist, this was a very realist maneuver.

Willentx goes on to state all of the problems which came about after the national bank was slain, which the changeover to coin currency from paper money and the massive levels of speculation which swept over the country before any benefit from the new system could take effect. Using the town of Woodberry, where ‘economic trauma’ took place due to land speculations and the new currency, many of Jackson’s supporters during the war on the bank began to criticize him for his ‘economic experiments’ but this whole debawkle just raises the question of just how much control does the president have over the economy? In most cases one could argue that the president has almost no control. In Jackson’s case, one could argue that the combination of taking land from the Native Americans and screwing with the currency was a perfect storm caused by Jackson himself. Some could argue that there was no way that speculation could get s out of control and there was no way for Jackson to know that. Magilland makes a good point in that this type of history tends to repeat itself, and by extension of parties fighting all the time always the misconception that the president is solely responsible for the state of the economy has arisen because the issue is almost constantly being politicized.

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 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

Abolition, the Bank, and Jackson

Wilentz in chapter thirteen divides this chapter into three sections: the Bank, Abolition, and Unions. May I start by saying I feel that Wilentz’s combination of these three topics takes away from their significance and in a way confuses me. The differing time periods and the attempt to tie these instances together seem unnecessary.
However, in the beginning of the chapter Wilentz focuses on Jackson’s forceful hand in getting his way, yet does not comment on whether Jackson had the authority to do so or not. Jackson appointed a new secretary of the treasury “after the cabinet reshuffle” in response to the House of Representative’s obstruction to Jackson’s bank deposit removal plan. Because Jackson could not pass this plan through the House, he appointed William John Duane to Secretary of Treasury to attempt to fix this problem. Again upset at not getting his will, Jackson promptly fired Duane and appointed yet another Secretary of Treasury to carry out his orders. Finally, Roger Taney the next Secretary of Treasury removed the federal deposits as Jackson ordered (Wilentz 207-209). Wilentz in this portion of the chapter refrains from commenting too harshly on Jackson’s debatable use of his presidential powers. Which poses the question “Did Jackson overstep his presidential powers?”
Next, I found it was interesting how systrauss (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/abolition-and-the-second-great-awakening/) points out Wilentz’s statement about the free black men separating themselves from the regular abolitionist movement. This in my opinion sets apart the abolitionists who believed in abolition based upon moral background and those who did not. Thus, as Davis stated, it is important to differentiate between the moral abolitionist and the spiritual abolitionists. Thus, the abolitionist movement may have been hindered in this way that the abolitionist movement was divided in itself. If the party came to agreement to collaborate together then there may have been a more effective abolitionist movement.

November 5, 2013

Northern Resistance to Abolitionists

Much of Chapter 13 in both The Rise of American Democracy and Inhuman Bondage focus on the gradual steps America took towards abolitionism during the mid 19^th century. The most interesting part of the reading, to me, was learning about the hardships that northern abolitionists faced from fellow northerners during the 1830’s. The fight for abolitionism in America is so often characterized as a North vs. South battle that it’s easy to forget that during the early stages of the battle, northern abolitionist faced extreme adversity from their northern neighbors. Sean Wilentz does a great job of describing the pattern of violence towards northern abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, a tremendously important player in the movement, who was forced to flee from a scheduled address in New York in 1833 (211). Wells King talks more about Garrison and abolitionism in America in this blog post (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/american-abolition-liberation-or-genocide/). Garrison was not the only one who faced aggression either. Wilentz explains that havoc wreaking mobs that fought abolitionism sprouted up in Philadelphia, Hartford, Utica, Washington, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati in 1834 and 1835 (212). It was interesting to learn that most of these mobs were ran by political and social elites who “abhorred the abolitionists’ challenge to their own social authority” (213). To me, this suggests that the anti-abolitionists were less concerned with the issue of slavery and more concerned with having their political power threatened. Looking forward, it’ll be interesting to learn how in just two decades, the sentiment towards slavery in the north became so collectively negative that the country split and went to war.

The role of the President in this situation is also notable. Both authors touch on it in their respective chapters. Wilentz chides President Jackson for his inability or unwillingness to enforce the 1836 Post Office Law. In not enforcing the law, southern postmasters often did not deliver abolitionists tracts that argued the merits of ending slavery. Davis, the author of Inhuman Bondage argues that Jackson failed to enforce the law because he “greatly valued the South’s electoral advantage in counting three-fifths for purposes of representation” (261). These sections of each chapter emphasize the importance of the President in regards to the issue of slavery. It also shows how impactful having a President who leaned one way or another on the issue could be.

October 30, 2013

Post-midterm Blog Post #2- Politics then and now

Before taking this class, I was under the impression that politics in America’s early years were vastly different than politics today. And to a degree, that seems to be true. After reading chapters 8-11 in The Rise in American Democracy by Sean Wilentz however, it is clear that there are striking similarities between politics in the early 1800’s and politics today. Andrew Jackson and his life before and during his presidency were the focus of the chapters. In reading about his rise to the Presidency, the challenges he faced during campaigning and the divide between him and his main political opponents, I couldn’t help think about how similar it sounded to politics today.

Wilentz describes in chapters 8, 9 and 10 how Andrew Jackson rose to the presidency and the type of hardships he faced on his way to office. On page 160 he describes how Jackson, on the outside, remained upstanding and conducted himself with t “etiquette” when running for President. He also says however, that Jackson “threw himself into the fray behind the scenes as no other presidential candidate before him had”. He also points out that Jackson used generalities when campaigning, and began clarifying those generalities almost as soon as he got into office. (166) I liked Wilentz’s writing in this part because I think it gives the reader a description of an early 19^th century politician that could easily be used for one today. That wasn’t something I would’ve thought before reading this. The propaganda and slander that Adams and his supporters used in the election against Jackson is also something that I drew parallels with to modern day campaigning. Anytime elections are going on, it is common to see negative ads, attacking a candidate. Before reading this, I had no idea that this type of campaigning was utilized in 1820’s America. Jackson dealt with disparaging rumors about his mother and sister however, showing that this was indeed commonplace during this time period.

My one critique of Wilentz’s writing in these chapters is the way he characterizes Jackson’s handling of “indian removal” (170). While it was a different time, meaning Jackson’s opinions regarding native peoples is far less offensive and inhuman in 1830 than it would be now; I believe Wilentz almost unfairly defends Jackson. He compares Jackson to Henry Clay, saying that Jackson was a “benevolent, if realistic paternalist”(170) compared to Clay. He argues that Jackson truly believed that “removal was the only way to safeguard both the Indians’ future and the Constitution of the United States”. In my opinion he does not give Jackson enough blame regarding the Trail of Tears and the death of thousands of native people (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html)

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 23, 2013

Alright Guys, Let’s Make a Government

For the first time, I was not bored while reading about how we made our government (which is arguably the most important time in American History). Willentz does an excellent job of making politics more appealing. I don’t entirely agree with his portrayal of Adams, though. He illustrates that he “believed that political leadership should come from America’s aristocracy” (Willentz 32), but he fails to stress the importance of how Adams believed that he was doing what was best for the country. Although his views were not egalitarian, he did have a heart for the good of the country. I love Willentz’s explanation of the person of Jefferson. He iterates that although Jefferson made decisions that increased federal power, he always made decisions based on the good for his people, down to creating a national symbol of the mastodon for the American people. Who wouldn’t double the size of their country at 3 cents an acre? I do agree with Willentz when he argues about the importance of the War of 1812; for the first time, the new country garnered international respect. I also like his characterization of the wild Andrew Jackson, a very emotionally motivated man.

Environment also played a huge role on early American History. Willentz alludes to its importance on politics when describing the Federalists’ fear that the Democratic-Republicans would make an innumerable amount of rural states composed of citizens more likely to support the Democratic-Republican platform. Turner explains many different facets of the importance of the frontier and American history. Not only did the frontier shape early American politics, but, as AJ pointed out, Americans were able to create a new identity through expansion. The increased national identity was even helped by the gradual changed of state-federal relations over time. “In 1789 the States were the creators of the Federal Government; in 1861 the Federal Government was the creator of a large majority of the States” (Mr. Lamar, quoted by Turner). Although American land was expanding rapidly, the national identity became more cohesive even though the distances between American citizens became greater and greater. Expansion also helped lead to the Civil War, which further increased the number of American citizens via the 14th Amendment.