March 2014 – Page 3 – American History to 1877

March 17, 2014

The War of 1812 and Western Expansion

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 five of his The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz convincingly debunked myths that the War of 1812 amounted to nothing more than a waste of resources. Declaring it a “bungled, needless, and costly effort,” while not a ludicrous accusation since the war was costly and messy, misses some important points (88). America had the worst of its troubles in the early stages of war, and even if the burning of Washington proved a “symbolic embarrassment,” it was followed by a number of accomplishments. The fledgling country displayed “skillful management of war debt,” returned many captured Americans to their homes, and at last established vital international credibility (88). While America did not win the war, I agree with Wilentz that this conflict was a pivotal moment in American history nonetheless. America had finally proven itself a viable nation amongst the other world powers. I therefore respectfully disagree with Charlotte’s assertion that the war was unproductive and accomplished little to nothing. I do not think Wilentz was attempting to argue this point, for he seemed more focused on providing counterarguments to similar statements from other historians. Instead, Wilentz identified the Indians and Federalists as the “losers” of the war while maintaining that it was an important success for the nation at large (88).

Wilentz also did an excellent job tracing the decline of the Federalist Party. I knew the party’s influence waned as the war they had failed to support drew to a close, followed by the so-called “era of good feelings,” but I was unaware of Federalist activity during the early stages of the war. Indeed, early on in the war, neither the outcome nor the level of support for the Federalist Party was yet clear. Many were, for good reason, skeptical of the war, and it was not clear until later that the Federalist Party would inevitably decline. As Wilentz described, Madison held a “vulnerable” position and incredibly limited military resources (77). Until Madison secured Pennsylvania in the election, DeWitt Clinton had a legitimate chance of winning the presidency and weakening the Democratic-Republican Party’s influence.

The outcome of the war is what ultimately solidified the Democratic Republican Party and doomed the Federalists to “political isolation” (80). I agree with Wilentz’s interpretation here, and I believe it raises the question: what if the war had ended differently? How might the political parties have been affected? Even in the last stages of the war, Madison was eager to proceed with peace negotiations due to a threat of secession from the New England Federalists. I cannot help wondering if the Federalist threat was a very real one, or if the Democratic-Republican Party would have emerged as the sole political party even under different circumstances. Thomas claimed in his blog post that the Democratic-Republicans’ ability to “grasp political power,” unlike the Federalists, defined the subsequent era in American politics. I would need to think about the issue more extensively before arriving to such a conclusion. Especially in an era where political parties were virtually nonexistent, exactly how important was the winner of this struggle? Would a Federalist rise to power have changed everything or almost nothing?

As for Frederick Jackson Turner’s suggestion that the frontier defines much of American history, this exact thesis was the focus of my American history class a few years ago. I may even have read excerpts from this same article, although I cannot be sure. At any rate, it’s an idea to which I have already devoted a great deal of thought, and I think it is a very useful way to approach American history. The best way to study history, in my mind, is to take a number of different approaches. Giving careful consideration to Turner’s argument alongside other viewpoints ultimately provides the best sense of history, one that encompasses a variety of theses.

March 16, 2014

Political Factions & Unproductive Wars

In chapter 5, Wilentz explores how nationalism plays out in response to war, and the different political makeup of the United States before and after the War of 1812. He begins by discussing the lead up to the War of 1812, and the rise of Republican nationalism through their support of the war. Federalists were against the war, and the two parties seemed to become increasingly distinct and oppositional voices over the war. However, it is interesting to see how the New England Federalists’ initial anti-war activities led this once anti-British party to become pro-British. This can be seen in their threats of secession from the Republican government and their talk of independent peace treaties with British in Maine.

During the lead up to the war of 1812, Wilentz also discusses the dissent among Republicans. New Republicans promoted westward growth and development, and connected internal gains and successful market with agricultural exports. However, to Old Republicans, this new sect seemed to resemble a new type of Federalists. However, this is far from accurate, as Thomas points out in his post. Federalists at this time believed that American success was dependent on trade connections with Great Britain.

As Wilentz points out, during the War of 1812 neither the British nor the Americans were successful at thwarting the other. This is ironic given that the policy over which the US first declared war was revoked right after the declaration, before either side had heard the other’s statement. After two years of fighting, Madison began negotiations with the British. However, it is interesting to note that nothing seems to change policy-wise with Britain and the US, which is what began the conflict and war.

I found it very interesting that American’s fear of Indians allying with Britain became a self-fulfilled prophecy based on the despicable treatment they indured by Americans, such as Harrison burning Prophetstown to the ground and opening Indian graves. Indians, understandably, became allied with British in their opposition of America’s westward expansion. It is also interesting to note that Wilentz mentions the large role Indians had in the deterioration of Britain and American relations leading up to the war. This is a side of the narrative I had never heard. It is also interesting to see how many of the same issues that the War of 1812 tried to resolve were the same as less than 50 years earlier. The issues, motivations, and causes for this war are nothing we haven’t seen before. However, as Wilentz points out, the end of this war led to a new kind of American hero (none who were Federalists), which helped bring the Federalist party to an end.

March 16, 2014

The New Democratic-Republican Party

Our most recent reading in Wilentz explores how the American democratic experiment dealt with its first official war. Specifically, the reading focuses on how the different demands and outlooks of the American people manifested themselves in the development of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Leading up to the war, several important rifts within the Democratic-Republican Party developed based on disagreements over war with Britain and over the extent of federal power. The Old Republicans, led by John Randolph, were dedicated to minimizing federal power while maintaining good relations with the British. The city and country democrats, though supportive of minimal government by barring it from aiding internal improvement, favored conflict with Britain. In the end; however, a new generation of young Republicans pushed the other factions aside.

Derogatorily named the war haws, this faction was vehemently anti-British in sentiment. Also, under the influence of Henry Clay, they were also strong supporters of federal aid for internal improvement, and thus the broadening of federal powers. This faction of the Democratic-Republican Party drew its support from the West and South. John Caldwell Calhoun, who was another prominent leader of the war hawks, exemplifies the young Republicans who entered the political fray in the early 1800s. As part of the slaveholding elite, Calhoun’s wealth rested on his ability to trade freely and effectively. This naturally manifested itself in supporting the improvement of infrastructure as well as in taking an aggressive stance against Britain in order to undermine its domination of the seas.

The sudden emerging prominence of the wealthy elite scared many of the Old Republicans. As Kaylie points out in her recent post, the Democratic-Republican Party emerged so that the “voice of the common people” had its outlet, meaning that the rise of an aristocratic-like elite seemingly undermined the principles upon which the Party was founded. However, as Wilentz points out, the young new Republicans were far from “neo-Federalists.” Unlike Federalists, these national leaders wanted to stimulate American commerce at the cost of severing ties with Britain. More importantly, unlike the Federalists, the war hawks were able to effectively grasp political power, shaping the direction of the nation for several decades to come.

March 16, 2014

Sectional Differences

The varying opinions and political parties of the nation have been, in many cases, geographically grouped. The Turner reading helps to explain some of these differences through the westward expansion of the Americas, while the Wilentz reading helps to express how the differences coalesce around the War of 1812. As discussed in Knowlton’s post, from last week, the government was set up in such a way that these divisions were bound to have some consequences.

Changing societies in different regions caused ideologies to vary between regions. Turner talks a lot about this in the first chapter of his book “The Frontier in America.” As the North grew away from agriculture and towards industrialization their ideologies changed from those of the southern agrarians. This caused strife between the two groups especially when it came to representation in the government with the three fifths clause. Wiltenz mentions that this strife almost tore apart the nation during the War of 1812. Some of the northern states had talked of secession openly because of Madison’s presidency. The U.S was almost torn apart before it could get a foothold in the global scale by the differing ideologies of the American people.

The War was caused by strife between the two regions of America and its former mother country, Great Britain. The American people had changed from the colonies to a nation that could sustain itself. This is a similar advancement to the advancement of the north to industrialization, or the western frontier to elite farmers. These are the social changes that Turner is talking about in his book. And it was the same change in ideologies of the societies in the different regions that caused strife between Britain and the U.S.

The same differences in society that Turner talks about with the frontier would be the cause for the Civil War. As the west was expanded and slavery extended to half the added states, the resentment between north and south grew. The talk of succeeding by the north during the war of 1812 would shift to the south. The north had thought they were unfairly represented and wanted someone other than the Virginians to be running the government. It caused them to want to succeed just as the southerners would when Lincoln took office.

March 11, 2014

Partisanship in the United States’ Early Years

A theme that stuck out to me most in the Wilentz reading for this week was partisanship, conflict. How often do we hear that the twenty-first century is an era of gridlock and uncompromising partisanship, perhaps even to an unprecedented degree? We hear exasperations that “[p]artisan polarization… is greater than ever,” and we all shake our heads at an inefficient, distance Congress (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/17/partisan-polarization-in-congress-and-among-public-is-greater-than-ever). While I don’t mean to say that current criticisms of the government are baseless, they certainly seem hyperbolized when one considers that the United States has almost always been divided. The issues change, as do the political parties, but as early as the late 18^th century, an intense struggle between Federalists and Anti-Federalists dominated American politics. Today’s problems are not so surprising when juxtaposed with past political fights and incidents such as the midnight appointments of John Adams.

As Dr. Shrout highlighted in class, modern popular views of history suffer from a misconception that the Founding Fathers had a clear vision and plan for the country (“Confederation and Constitution”). It’s important to take a step back and realize that the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing, and that is okay. They attempted to create something new, and such an undertaking required mistakes and trial-and-error. As Beth mentioned in her post, conflicts and the rise of political parties “tested the system” rather than harmed it. The democratic system, although frail, was designed to be egalitarian rather than monarchical, and conflict is inevitable in a system where many people, not a king alone, have the right to participate.

In light of this early turmoil, I appreciated Wilentz’s defense of Jefferson against more unkind portrayals. Jefferson certainly made mistakes, and the inconsistencies in his presidency are undeniable, such as increasing the power of the national government despite a campaign slogan that promised otherwise. No one could have foreseen, however, the events of Jefferson’s presidency, and labelling him a hypocrite grossly oversimplifies these initial stages of the United States. Despite Jefferson’s faults, he accomplished much during his two terms and did so under an inordinate amount of pressure from his opponents and his fellow Democratic-Republicans (Wilentz 64).

Some of the problems of early America that Wilentz covers were especially interesting because typical history textbooks sometimes gloss over such details. I knew of the fragility of the new nation in terms of the Articles of Confederation, but I had scarcely heard of some of the issues Wilentz addressed. Burr and Wilkinson’s conspiracy to attack Mexico and convince some western states to secede, for instance, shocked me (Wilentz 60). Even my knowledge of America’s international struggles with Britain and France was limited, and I soon discovered that I had also severely underestimated the internal strife that the nation faced in its earlier years.

Acknowledging the well-founded anxiety of the founding fathers, then, one can easily follow Paul Semonin’s logic on an often forgotten piece of American history. Of course America wanted to assert its viability as a nation, even if paleontology seems now an unlikely mechanism for doing so. As Wilentz explained, various conflicts in Europe left the British in charge of the Atlantic and the French in charge of European land. Little room in this picture was left for America, except as “a neutral with no military leverage whatsoever” (Wilentz 62). As we mentioned in class today, the founding fathers had already been anxious about repaying war debts to France, lest France decide to reclaim America as its own territory (“Confederation and Constitution”).

As Yuxi explained in her post, in an odd way, the mastodon became a crucial “emblem of power for… insecure” leaders, a story that has since been overshadowed by other contemporary events. Although the new nation had many obstacles to overcome, its foremost political figures met that challenge with passion and zeal. Yes, their commitment often engendered anxiety and internal strife, but it also created the United States as we know it today.

March 10, 2014

The Voice of the People

In this week’s reading by Wilentz we read about the very beginning of the United States’ government and the emergence of the common people’s voice through the formation of the Democratic-Republican party. Although the party ultimately failed, the concerns voiced by the people would “plant the seed” for a bipartisan congress, as Yuxi mentioned in her post. The creation of the societies, made up of mostly planters and artisans, were designed to voice a dissenting opinion to what they saw as unfair benefits to the elites. However, the self-created opposing party never challenged the voice of Washington, but rather the documents and laws created that did nothing to help the commoners.

Beth mentioned that the conflict stemmed from an aversion towards a monarchy or a fear of a dictatorial president. Although, this was part of the reason, I do not believe it to be the only one. As Wilentz stated, the Democratic-Republican party, when voicing a disputing opinion, even in Congress, were sure to do it a way that did not directly oppose Washington (52). While openly challenging the highly-supported George Washington would be difficult, I believe it would have been done if the party truly believed Washington was becoming too powerful of a leader. Rather, the parties were willing to improve the government in a way they believed to be best.

The Democratic-Republican party especially feared that the voice of the common people would never be heard in the shadow of the elites that currently governed. While some may have been afraid of a government similar to that of a monarchy I believe the real push behind the formation of parties was a desire to hold the elites accountable to the Constitution and to create a government they themselves wanted. Even though some parts of the centralized government may have been modeled after Britain, it was simply that, a model and not a true representative of a monarchy.

March 10, 2014

Democratic Development: The Democratic-Republicans and the Roles of Women

Wilentz’s second chapter of The Rise of American Democracy depicts the rise and struggle of the Democratic – Republican Party near the end of the 18^th century. The development of an opposition was a major development for American democracy. The interests of a new group came forward and tested the system of expression and opposition, in what Wilentz describes as a “democratic widening of American politics” (pg. 18). Much of the conflict that spurred this group’s formation stemmed from a wish to keep the governmental system more democratic rather than ruled by a dictatorial president or an elected monarch. Federalists such as Hamilton believed that centralizing power (through control of both money and political power) was a part of keeping order, and that there was a right and natural separation between classes. Jefferson, on the other hand, had a love of working people and called for a system where their voices could be heard and protected. He pushed for the Bill of Rights that could protect the people from the abuses of a coercive government. Jefferson also kept contact with the people through print, and through what he wrote, we can see how his party’s ideals challenged the Federalist system. This party challenged Federalist leaders due to its progressive nature and the tenderness of the new government. As Yuxi mentions in her post “Women Suffrage, Mastodon, and American Democracy,” the debate was testing not only ideologies but also the structure of the system. Proper management of concerns between elections and the ability to challenge those in power grew from the formation of the Democratic-Republicans.

More equitable representation was a major battleground for the Democratic-Republicans. It was a first step in addressing the many fundamental discrepancies in equality in the American society. Lewis discusses women and their roles as one of the major, explicitly unmentioned minorities. He holds that women were mentioned through the gender-neutrality of the Constitution’s wording and through some implicit assumptions that were held at the time. Though we often praise the Constitution for being an documentation of citizen’s rights (often as a better alternative to the unwritten constitution of England), it is an imperfect document that vaguely addresses the rights of many of its citizens. These issues included whether women earned the same protection and travel rights as white men or slaves. Women were considered citizens who were indirectly represented and protected by the government, unlike slaves who were controlled, represented, and protected by their masters. White women and children constituted an area between slaves and white men, in which they were counted as a citizen for apportionment and protection under the law, but they were not allowed to participate in political society. They were fundamental to the formation and continuation of white society, which was recognized, but were denied the vote due to the societal structure. These norms and the hierarchical organization were so much a part of their societal configuration that there was no great pressure for them to be clearly stated (unlike the issue of counting slaves for apportionment), and the vague discourse of the issue proves a discrepancy of opinions that the framers did not have the ability to address. Other conflicts, such as apportionment, finances, and construction of the representational system, were more pressing at the time. The Constitution left the matter open enough so that women and other races were not permanently blocked from political equity, but the timing of its construction prevented it from being endorsed from the beginning. I find that the Constitution’s relative neutrality was helpful for women’s eventual suffrage. However, it frustrates me that the battle for equal rights for both African Americans and women took as long as they did. The arguments for these rights have been present for centuries, but yet took centuries receive the necessary political pressure to take strong action. The fight from Jefferson’s Republicans marked the start of the system that challenges norms and grievances that has allowed- and allowed at the time- for democratic development. These changes are difficult to make, and take a very long time, as they ask for the structure of society to drastically change and often face a strong opposition.

March 9, 2014

women sufferage, mastodon, and American democracy

This week’s readings are primarily concerned with refining the ideological foundation and implementation of the Constitution. The readings provide different perspectives ranging from political elites, common people, and even discussions of symbolic sign to justify the Constitution and American democracy in general. The debate between Hamilton and Madison and the subsequent evolvement to Democratic-Republican societies challenged assumptions about deference to political leadership. Moreover, the discussions between different political groups demonstrated that government power was still constrained by the perception and the understanding of ordinary citizens. The emergence of the societies (parties) had also changed the political landscape by raising concerns of how people could voice their concerns between elections. The aforementioned discussions and concerns planted the seed for the formation of a bipartisan congress and new institutions that were not specified by the Constitution. Another discussion was about the role of woman in the Constitution through the proportion of suffrage during the Philadelphia Convention. James Wilson from Pennsylvania suggested representation in the lower house should be “in proportion to the whole number of white& other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years and”. He claimed that if the purpose of government was “the improvement of the human mind and the protection of personal rights, women must be included”. He also argued that women were never any less honest, virtuous, or wise than men. Therefore, women and men should have the same right in the society. Philosophically, Wilson contended that government was created for society and particularly a domestic society because marriage was the foundation for social relationships and for patriotism because women’s role as wives and mothers. Therefore, they had to be represented by the new government created by the Constitution. I found his arguments quite compelling, modern and progressive considering the era he lived in, which also means that it was not well conceived at the time. However, this radical statement made during the Philadelphia Convention foreshadowed the rise of a new liberal nation that we live in today. Finally, we learned about mastodon, a symbol of the new nation’s conquering spirit. Mastodon, native to North America, helped the founders to envision themselves as rulers of the new world. People at the time imagined the mastodon as a ferocious carnivore to express an American superiority and capability to defeat the British lion. Furthermore, mastodon was an emblem for the leaders to justify their dominance in the New World and the conquest of the American west. Even though mastodon was later found as an herbivore, it served as an emblem of power for the new leaders who lived in a psychologically insecure society at the time.