Jefferson – U.S. to 1877

October 23, 2013

The Rise and Fall of Federalism, America’s first Crucial Election, and the War of 1812

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

A major theme of this week’s reading is the examination of American government structure immediately following the Revolutionary War. After gaining independence, the founding fathers aimed to control individual states, prevent division among states, and manage unorganized territories in the west. As the first official president of the United States, George Washington led the young nation as the symbol of the Federalist Party. The two major political parties during the time period were drastically different; the Federalists supported a strong and centralized federal government while the Anti- Federalists favored a decentralized federal government that gave most of its power to the states. Moreover, Federalists believed that an overly-liberal democracy would breed disorder and possibly revolution. In contrast, the Anti-Federalists believed that an overly powerful central government would develop into an oppressive monarchy much like the one in England. Despite holding an early advantage over the Anti-Federalists with the presidencies of Washington and Adams, the Federalist Party began to lose support as America entered the 19th century.
The presidential election of 1800 marked a significant turning point in early American history because the balance of power among the two major political parties shifted for the first time. Disputes between John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (two of the remaining leaders of the Federalist Party due to the death of George Washington) exemplified that “Federalist solidarity had collapsed” (Wilentz, 39). In contrast, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson emerged as a political force for the Democratic- Republicans by attracting support in both the North and South and then soundly defeating the Federalist incumbent John Adams to take control of the White House. As my classmate ROMANGONE pointed out, the American people became detracted from the Federalist Party as well as the idea of Federalism following the election of 1800. Also, Americans began to favor Thomas Jefferson’s republican form of government. The ramifications of the election of 1800 were far-reaching not only because it was the first shift in power between parties but because it represented a shift in the political ideals of Americans.
In Chapter 5, Wilentz discusses the consequences of the War of 1812 for politics in the United States. At first, the war appeared to be a meaningless yet costly use of American resources, however, the war ended up providing James Madison with a ton of political momentum and producing future political mavericks like Andrew Jackson. In addition, the war sparked the support of the Republican Party and essentially buried the Federalists. Wilentz emphasized that the United States did not gain copious amounts of land through the war but acquired respect from nations around the world as well as the confidence that they could operate independently. I know that some of my classmates have argued over when exactly the Federalist Party should be pronounced dead, some have said after the crucial election of 1800 and some have said during eruption of Republican support that followed the War of 1812. I believe that the Federalist Party began its steady decline after losing the White House in 1800 but did not completely implode until America was in strong support of Jefferson ideals and Republican government after their victory over Britain.

October 23, 2013

Jefferson, Reality vs Actuality

In chapters 3 and 4 in The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses on the battle between the Federalists and the anti-federalists/Republicans. Early on in chapter 3 wilentz starts with the Adams presidency, yet ultimately spends much of his time giving background into Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, rather than focusing on the presidency of John Adams. This choice of spotlight reveals the perceived importance of Jefferson by Wilentz. The election of 1800 was a significant election for Jefferson in that because of the division of the national government and of the people of the united states, he had to prove himself worthy of presiding over all people of America. The discrepancy between Jefferson’s writings and Jefferson’s actions is usually the main focal point for many historians when analyzing Jefferson’s presidency. But Wilentz points out that Jefferson’s actions, specifically with the Louisiana Purchase and the judiciary scenario involving the repeal of the Judiciary act of 1801, were generally the correct and rational decision, rather than the hypothetical decision noted in Jeffersons writings. Jacob Newton talks about this in his post about how Wilentz “seems to be a big fan of Jefferson.” In this sense, Wilentz is almost protecting Jefferson from much scrutiny. I think Wilentz’s stance on Jefferson’s presidency is affective in that shows the other side of the coin, yet I do not think that this softer political scrutiny is justified simply by the fact that his writings differ from his actions. Sure, Jefferson may have made more passive practical decisions than his writings, but that does not give him a pass from stringent political examination.

In chapter 5 of The Rise of American Democracy, the War of 1812 is Wilentz’s main focus. What is surprising to me in this chapter is how close America was to loosing its independence from Britain. Wilentz spends much time focusing on the weak points of our young nation that I had not seen before in respect to the War of 1812. In 1814, after the total destruction of Washington, many New England states “were talking openly of secession and a seperate peace with the British” (Wilentz 80). I believe Wilentz is purposefully pointing out that America was not as strong of a country that the majority of people assume it to be today—even in the early years of independence. Although, Wilentz does not address very thoroughly the British side of the War of 1812. Maybe Wilentz is trying to draw more attention to the struggles and successes in America, but I feel like some deeper analysis of Britain’s mindset in the war may be beneficial (even though this is an American History book).

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.

October 23, 2013

Mastodon: Myth or Symbol?

The making of a Jeffersonian democracy was a big deal and had an immense impact on American history and the development and advancement of American politics. Jefferson was considered an anti-federalist and his views sided with those of the Republicans, which favored states rights and a decentralized federal government. Ideally for Jefferson, states would have the biggest impact on its’ citizens while the federal government would have very little impact. In fact, Jefferson was one of the major proponents in forming the Democratic-Republican Party. When faced against John Adams in the election of 1800, Jefferson came away with the victory and became the third president of the United States in what is known as the revolution of 1800.

Jefferson had some major events occur in his presidency from his infamous inauguration speech to the Louisiana Purchase as well as the Embargo Act of 1807. These are events that we hear of most when defining Jefferson’s presidency, yet one that tends to get neglected, even from an impartial Wilentz, is Jefferson’s interest in the Mastodon. As CATHOMSON mentions in their blog post, Jefferson among others are often criticized for their unscientific-like behavior. Yet this high interest that Jefferson displays for the Mastodon is a direct opposition to this criticism. In fact, Jefferson goes as far as to send Lewis and Clark on an expedition in the newly purchased Louisiana territory to explore and search for one of these beastly creatures. This creature is often neglected from many history writings when analyzing the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The question that arises with this is why is the Mastodon often left out of our history?

One possible theory or argument that one could make is that history is trying to wipe away the remnants of this beast. Or the negligence simply alludes to the failure of a symbol that the Mastodon was. When the bones of the Mastodon were first discovered many including Jefferson used it as a symbol of the great American spirit. This big and powerful creature that was thought to be carnivorous and ferocious was used to symbolize America’s newly found independence and resemble their dominance and power of the Americas. Yet, one thing piled on top of another and with more information it was concluded that the original depictions of the carnivorous beast were biologically inaccurate and the creature was actually extinct. Therefore, the Mastodon went from and American symbol to nothing more than a myth as it disappeared from American history for some time. The disappearance and relative unimportance of the Mastodon are why it was unable to outlast and become America’s symbol like the bald eagle. The Mastodon captured many including Jefferson for some time but later proved quite irrelevant and symbolized an America that many could argue in the wrong light.

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 Expansion of the American Frontier

With the independence of the United States, the frontier states looked to expand the countries borders west. This expansion was no small feat and required the full attention of the government to deal with native tribes over land disputes. According to Turner, the frontier was, ” the outer edge of the wave — the meeting point between savagery and civilization” (Turner). This belief that they were the tamers of this savage land allowed them to feel no qualms when they infringed on native land. It is important to note that Turner does point out that, “the environment is at first too strong for the man” (Turner). This shows that they acknowledged that expansion into the frontier would not be an easy job but with time that, “little by little he [can] transform the wilderness” (Turner). Also Turner mentions the, “European germs developing in an American environment” which shows that the American people were trying to create their own identity (Turner). The American people did not want to be known for, “German germs” but as, “a new product that is America” (Turner). As America’s frontier expanded, “it meant a steady movement from the influence of Europe” (Turner).

As the movement from Europe increased, President Thomas Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on their historic expedition. When they were gone the bones of a Mastodon were excavated and put on display at the Philadelphia Museum. This is important because they wished to associate this creature with the new image of America. With the then still recent defeat of Britain, America needed to prove its ability to survive as an independent country. Jefferson thought that a good step forward would be an animal that was thought to hunt many other predators such as lions. This is symbolic because the national animal of Britain was a lion which signifies that the Americas were able to defeat them. While the Mastodon did not become a national symbol the concept of it shows how prideful that America felt at the time which it needed to survive the early years of being a new country.

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.

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.