In chapters 3 and 4 in The Rise of American Democracy<\/em>, Wilentz focuses on the battle between the Federalists and the anti-federalists\/Republicans. \u00a0Early on in chapter 3 wilentz starts with the Adams presidency, yet ultimately \u00a0spends much of his time giving background into Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, rather than focusing on the presidency of John Adams. \u00a0This choice of spotlight reveals the perceived importance of Jefferson by Wilentz. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0\u00a0Jacob Newton<\/a>\u00a0talks about this in his post about how Wilentz “seems to be a big fan of Jefferson.” \u00a0In this sense, Wilentz is almost protecting Jefferson from much scrutiny. \u00a0I 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. \u00a0Sure, Jefferson may have made more passive \u00a0practical decisions than his writings, but that does not give him a pass from stringent political examination.<\/p>\n In chapter 5 of The Rise of American Democracy, the War of 1812 is Wilentz’s main focus. \u00a0What is surprising to me in this chapter is how close America was to loosing its independence from Britain. \u00a0Wilentz 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. \u00a0In 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). \u00a0I 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. \u00a0Although, Wilentz does not address very thoroughly the British side of the War of 1812. \u00a0Maybe 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<\/em> History book).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In chapters 3 and 4 in The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses on the battle between the Federalists and the anti-federalists\/Republicans. \u00a0Early on in chapter 3 wilentz starts with the Adams presidency, yet ultimately \u00a0spends much of his time giving background into Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, rather than focusing on the presidency of John Adams. … <\/p>\n