political societies – U.S. to 1877

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

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.

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.

Tag: political societies

Pollitical Division in a New Government

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