Andrew Jackson

March 31, 2014

The Rise of American Democracy: Chapter 13

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 13 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz touches up a variety of issues. In particular he focuses in on the Second Bank of the United States, the abolitionist movement, and Unions. Moreover, Wilentz highlights how the Jacksonian administration handled these particular issues, and rationalizes how these events set the stage for the emergence of a new type of American democracy.

I found it particularly interesting that abolitionists were targeted with violence in the North as well as the South. I had previously imagined the North as the primary breeding ground for abolitionism, and found it shocking that abolitionists were subjected to angry mobs and official repression by the government. Apparently, at least towards the beginnings of our nation, abolitionists were treated with the same disdain and concept in the North as they were in the South.

Wilentz made a good point when examining the Second Bank of the United States, and Jackson’s response to what he considered an impending crisis. Removing government deposits from the bank was a certainly a bold move, and gave Henry Clay and his rivals ample ammunition to use against him. His opponents could certainly construe his actions in a negative light, and ultimately were able to portray Jackson as a tyrannical despot who was overreaching the executive powers given to him. Previously, Wilentz had shown a certain bias for Jackson in his writing, yet I feel in this chapter he does a good job of highlighting both the good and the bad aspects of his character. In particular, he calls out Jackson for failing to enforce the 1836 Post Office Law, which left in question the relationship between national and state government.

The author of the post “Early 1800 Politics,” made a good point in his piece last week when he discussed the still developing system of American politics. Both national and state government officials were still trying to determine the appropriate balance of power in the recently formed government. In light of this, Jackson’s failure to uphold the 1836 Post Office Law is even more egregious. Jackson supposedly supported the notion of federal supremacy, and yet allowed states to violate the Post Office Law. Here Jackson contradicts himself, and sets a dangerous precedent. Instead of clarifying the relationship between national and state governments, he violates his own principles simply because it was easier to do so, and threw into question the power of the federal government.

Ultimately, I feel as if Wilentz does an exceedingly good job with chapter 13 of The Rise of American Democracy. In particular, I feel he rids his writing of a certain bias for Jackson that had shown up in previous chapters. In chapter 13 Wilentz does an excellent job of portraying both the good and the bad aspects of Jackson’s administration.

March 24, 2014

Early 1800s Politics

In Wilentz chapters 8-11 what really stood out to me, and after reading Ela’s post what seemed to stand out to her as well, was that politics in the early 1800’s was still a developing system. Officials at both the executive levels in the states and federal government were the first wave of politicians under the constitution still, and each group was testing the limits of their power and seeing how much they could control the new nation’s future. Debates seemed to be more centered on who has the power to enact certain legislation rather than the legislation itself. A clear illustration of this is John Adams fight with Georgia as president, and in general all the slave states resistance to anything Adams wanted to accomplish.

Another interesting struggle in politics was the result of the 2nd Great Awakening. This marked a time of high tensions between different denominations of Christianity, and most of this tension had to do with slavery. It brought about what the book called “moralistic politics” that would begin to change what was a rather corrupt early government. John Adams seemed very corrupt, which I hadn’t known until the Wilentz reading, like when he promised the Secretary of State job to one of his largest opponents as well as other things Rebecca has already posted in great detail. And it was explained that one of Jackson’s biggest changes when taking office was exposing this corruption and moving toward a moral presidency, although his presidency may have been inherently racist.

This racism led to the creation of slave policies like the ACS. The policy did want to free the slaves for moral reasons, but still did not see them as equals. Liberia was then created as a new country in the African homeland where the African-Americans could be free, and also that the United States would be free of African-Americans. It was a huge oversight to think that these Africans could thrive in Africa, or even wanted to return, because the slave trade had been abolished, and these Africans were now Americans. This was the most interesting part of the reading for myself, because it seems like such a radical plan an very hard to execute, but the government was still willing to go to these great lengths to not interact with Africans. It is stunning that assimilation and equality were not options at this point for most.

March 24, 2014

Jackson Through Wilentz

This reading in Wilentz begins with the rise of Christianity in America, the Second Great Awakening, which is a nice lead-way into the rest of the chapters, in which Wilentz describes the importance and rise of American Democratic values. In the Second Great Awakening, any common man could be a religious and spiritual leader, regardless of family or level of education. Religion was also seen as a moral guide in politics and other areas of secular life. It is interesting that Wilentz notes that this is relatively new in American history, even though I always thought the Revolutionists and Founding Fathers founded this country on a more religious platform than Wilentz implies. It seems that from this Second Great Awakening, we still find many Christian morals and values leading American politics.

Wilentz then delves into Jackson and Adams election, and Jackson’s eventual presidency. It is interesting here to see the rise of Jackson alongside the rise of the Working Men’s Party. While I initially thought that the idea of unions and the glorification of the common working man could unite the North and the South, the election came down to a battle between uplifting the nation’s intelligence and prosperity against the suspicions of a centralized government, and how a centralized government is undemocratic. I find it interesting that both these approaches want the best for everyone, but the method in which that is approached differs.

In response to Rebecca’s approach, I find it interesting that Wilentz does, indeed, paint a positive picture of Jackson. Having little background in American history, I don’t know many other depictions of Jackson besides that which I’ve read for today’s reading. Rebecca adds many other complicated layers to the picture than Wilentz shows, which reminds me that every source is somewhat biased, regardless of having an explicit agenda. My impression from the Wilentz reading was that Jackson tried to stay close to central on many issues, which led to a lot of issues, such as the condoning of the removal of Indians, and other things that happened under his watch. However, Jackson is definitely introduced in a positive light.

I agree with Ella that there definitely seems to be a lack of defined political parties. I myself have been a bit lost in the reading as to which sect of which Party supports which cause, which I think speaks on the lack of overall national identity that Parties have, with differing voices within the same party in the North and in the South. However, regardless of the positive or negative aspects of just a single man (Jackson), as Wilentz discusses, Jackson’s win marks the complex development of American democracy through the huge turn out of white adult male suffrage seen at the election.

March 24, 2014

Jackson’s election marked a new era of politics, one in which appealing to the population at large became crucial. Universal white male suffrage had largely prevailed, and populism swept national politics (Wilentz 164). Jackson succeeded in uniting a number of disparate groups with general calls for reform, and many others supported his campaign in the interest of defeating the unsuccessful John Quincy Adams. While the Era of Good Feelings ended a major period in American politics, the rise of Andrew Jackson signaled the beginning of another one.

The election itself in 1828 clearly indicated a huge change, as described by Wilentz. The slanderous campaign proved more personal than political, and Wilentz argued that “politically charged cultural styles” supplanted actual “political issues” (162). The Adamsites laid heavy criticism on Jackson’s wife and mother, an attack which later led Jackson to blame his wife’s death on Henry Clay. Wilentz asserted that the Adamsites aimed to portray Jackson as a “boorish, lawless, frontier lowlife” (162), although I was a little surprised that Wilentz did not give a couple more examples of the political slander taking place, given the level of detail with which he wrote. He scarcely mentioned the equally absurd attacks made on Adams, such as the fact that Adams had made the government pay for his personal billiard table and had been involved in shady affairs in Russia that likened Adams to a pimp (or so I remember from my high school history class).

Wilentz didn’t seem to quite capture the nastiness of the 1828 presidential campaign, although perhaps that was intentional, since he focused more on political issues and movements. I agree with his overall point, however, that politics had suddenly become much more personal. The Peggy Eaton conflict further highlighted this. In her blog post, Ella attributed this personal aspect of politics to a lack of defined political parties. I agree with her that such issues were often petty and distracting from larger political issues, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the lack of today’s defined political parties. In fact, this trend of personal politics has continued into today’s media. One need look no further than accusations of Obama being Muslim or Mitt Romney travelling with his dog on top of the car. Even if such fixations were true, who cares? Evidently, many Americans do.

What surprised me most was that finishing these chapters left me with the impression that Jackson was not so different from his predecessors. I was hesitant to adopt fully Wilentz’s perspective on this matter, but perhaps his writing showed that popular myths of Andrew Jackson as a near lunatic are unfair to his undeniable political skills. Wilentz did mention Jackson’s unusual background, including squandering his inheritance on “drinking, gambling, and women” at the age of fifteen (83). Such aberrations were never a focus for Wilentz, though, and Wilentz almost seemed to describe Jackson’s aggressiveness as a suitable virtue for a fearless leader. The Jackson Wilentz described seemed likely to raise his voice, perhaps, but not to beat down a man with his cane in the middle of a crowd after an assassination attempt. I don’t doubt Jackson’s intelligence and drive, but nonetheless, he always seemed a little unhinged to me.

While Jackson accomplished much during his political career, many questions also arose as to whether he was overstepping his authority. Even before his presidency, he met criticism as a major general for “expell[ing] the Spanish from Pensacola and provok[ing] a diplomatic row” with Spain (129). At times, he seemed to give little regard for what was appropriate to do, and instead he went to extreme measures to accomplish what he believed needed to happen. Although we didn’t read about his war on the bank in these chapters, it exemplified his approach to politics. When Jackson had a secretary of the treasury who would not support his plan, the secretary was fired and replaced. When Jackson couldn’t kill the national bank outright, he proceeded to move as much money as he could to local pet banks, a move which almost certainly contributed to the economic crisis for which Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, was blamed.

Andrew Jackson is a complicated figure, and although Wilentz’s portrayal of him departed from that with which I was most familiar, I appreciated the fresh perspective. Perhaps Jackson’s legacy is unfairly tainted, and his presidential career was born out of much larger political circumstances than anything of his own initiative. Admiring such a man is difficult in a modern context, considering, for example, his role in the violent removal of Indians, but remembering that context has changed drastically is crucial to understanding history.

March 23, 2014

The Personal Nature of American Politics and the Presidency

In her post from March 23^rd titled “Social Movements of the Early 1800s” Beth Wright explores how various social movements, including religious revivals and the Masons, political history of this period. I agree with Beth’s assessment of chapters 8-11 of Wilentz’s The Rise of American Democracy, but I was also struck by how leader-orientated American politics still are in this time period, in terms of individual ideologies and relationships driving politics. These chapters generally the rise and fall of political relationships, with explanations of how various social and political events influenced these relationships. Wilentz’s references to Jacksonians and Adamsites reminded me that political parties and platforms were still developing in this time period (162). This focus on individual political ideology seems to be tied to structural characteristics of American politics even today. Though there are now distinct political parties, the President continues to campaign and be elected independently from senators and congressmen. In the Canadian parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is appointed from the winning political party and holds little legislative power in the house, beyond their role as a member of parliament and a cabinet member. In class we have talked about how early American politics can be seen as progression of trial and error as early leaders try to create a political system that has few precedents. In these chapters Wilentz shows us how the unique individual role of the president continued to be shaped through the early decades of American politics.

Before today’s defined political parties, electing a president with a strong individual political stance gave voters more flexibility to choose a leader that represented their changing and growing political values and needs. But Wilentz also demonstrates how this focus on relationships also became petty. Wilentz discusses one parlor scandal involving Margaret “Peggy” O’Neal Timberlake Eaton, the wife of Jackson’s secretary of war, John Eaton, who had a reputation for being immoral. Vice President Calhoun’s wife, Floride, led a boycott against all events to which Peggy Eaton was invited. Wilentz comments that “The cabinet broke down into anti- and pro- Eaton factions, the latter led by Secretary of State Van Buren […] For a time, the Eaton affair appeared to be the premier issue of the day” (167). I am inclined to argue that the pettiness stemming from the system’s focus on individuals and relationships undermined its value in successfully representing and fulfilling citizens’ desires for government. Wilentz writes, “[the scandal] cloaked a great and widening divergence between Calhoun and Jackson over fundamental principals of American Government,” which indicates not a value judgment, but an acceptance of the fundamental interconnectedness of high society and politics (167). We also see this interconnectedness in the election leading up to Jackson’s election. Wilentz writes, “a great deal of the campaign would be a propaganda battle of personalities and politically charged cultural styles rather instead of political issues” (162). Further demonstrates how the nature of politics and the presidency at the time was focused on the individual and how this permeated all facets of politics from campaigning, to the issues debated to daily political life.

Works Cited:

Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.

March 17, 2014

Politics, Politics, and Politics

Chapter 5 in The Rise of American Democracy is abundant with political issues. Wilentz discusses several different aspects of this time period, but they all converge on the fact that political troubles become highly volatile and interconnected. This observation seems particularly evident throughout his discussion of Clay, Calhoun, and Randolph (70). Indeed, domestic political struggles served as a catalyst for the War of 1812 because of the conflict between the parties based on differing ideologies. Moreover, Wilentz provides a commentary on the reelection of Madison, and he specifically observes that Madison won by a slight margin. This close election further indicates the political strife of the time. Additionally, Wilentz notes that “a continuing political and spiritual revival among the displaced western Indian tribes” served as the “second key domestic factor in leading America to war” (71). Again, the political interests of the United States motivated them to engage in war with Britain. The reasoning here was that the potential “renewal of British-Indian alliances” would have posed an insurmountable force for the Americans to face (73). Thus the federal government sought to avoid future tensions with these combined powers.

Apart from the macro analysis of partisanship, Wilentz discusses the rise of certain individuals, namely two future U.S. presidents. We are first introduced to William Henry Harrison when he was “the governor of Indian Territory” (72). Later on when in conflict with Indian forces, “Harrison made a decisive strike against Prophetstown” (74). Secondly, Andrew Jackson becomes crucial in this time period, especially because he was “barely known to the citizenry before the war” (81). Wilentz comments on the many political and social factors that contributed to Jackson’s rapid and widespread popularity. In particular, Jackson enjoyed several war successes, including a “crushing military victory in two major battles with the Indians” (85). I find it fascinating that both of these future U.S. presidents are important in the War of 1812. These individuals arguably garnered enough political support from their past military participation to win the presidency.

The work of Harrison and Jackson contributed to the eventual American victory, which gave Madison a “treaty and crushing military victory” (87). In “The War of 1812 and Western Expansion,” my classmate discusses how the War of 1812 essentially rendered the Federalists obsolete. This observation finds its roots in Wilentz, who comments on the effect of the war on domestic politics. This cause and effect of the military struggle brings this post to the end of its full circle: the war escalated from political problems, produced political figures, and ultimately changed the domestic political dynamics.