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 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.