Democracy – American History to 1877

March 24, 2014

Jackson Through Wilentz

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

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 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.

February 19, 2014

Democracy and Slavery

Achieving American Democracy was not as simple of a process as writing the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution. According to Wilentz there were many obstacles involving class warfare that did not make it a smooth transition. Yeoman, gentleman, merchants, and artisans, whether they are city dwellers or rural countrymen, all wanted their rights protected. To me, a key turning point was when the Berkshire Constitutionalists proposed the plan of equal representation that was not rooted in how much wealth or property you had. Another key for democracy in the reading was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, which put to rest early the idea of an elected monarch for life. As Thomas stated in his post, to really bind the United States Democracy together as a nation, Shay’s Rebellion was instrumental in getting a stronger federal government planned in the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

In Davis’s Inhuman Bondage, I believe his point was that American Slavery lasted longer here than in other countries because they were too weak as a union to withstand abolition in the early years of the country, and as a result slavery was able to take strong roots into the culture. As Thomas also wrote, keeping slavery was a huge contradiction to the American Revolution. I agree with what Olivia stated, that white colonists wanted liberty from a British oppressor and that was the same logic the slaves followed, but they did not receive it. On of the most interesting take always for me from the Davis reading was that the 1784 Continental Congress was one vote away from outlawing slavery in Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, and Ohio. If that had passed I think the United States might have been better able to avoid a Civil War because it would have divided the Confederacy in a big way. Ultimately, it was the fear of a Civil War for a just born country that led to the creation of free soil and slave holding places. I also found very interesting in Olivia’s post about how it was the act of making slaves property that led to such a strong slave system.

February 17, 2014

Welding Democracy

In Thursday’s reading, both Sean Wilentz, in The Rise of American Democracy, and David Brion Davis, in Inhuman Bondage, explore the discrepancy between what the ideals of the American Revolution represented and what actually occurred.

Wilentz’s argument centers on the difficulty of creating a common democracy in a country that consisted of such a varied people, geography, and economy. To simplify these complex divides, Wilentz’s considers the difference between what the city dwelling artisans and merchants considered “democracy” and what the rural yeomanry considered “democracy.” These key demographics, though internally, effectively summarize a key divide in the newborn nation based on dissimilar political conflicts. In the country, a population of mainly farmers expected their democracy to mirror the influence their land afforded them, while people in cities were happy to relegate power to an institution as long as it considered policies which encouraged economic independence and trade opportunities. As a result of this, a divided America emerged in which each state, based on its population’s identity, crafted its own political identity. The Articles of Confederation compounded such disunity because the weak government that they created failed to formalize a national identity. Spurred on by Shay’s Rebellion, American leaders called together a Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to keep their democratic experiment alive.

Here, switching to Davis’ text concerning slavery helps capture the nuances of the regional divide that dominated the Convention. This divide was still rooted in the rural/city division, but, on a national stage, it took on the added scale of dividing the nation between North and South. The main discrepancy between the two, as we know, was slavery. As both Wilentz and Davis point out, by 1787, the North had exponentially reduced its slave population thanks to both economic and moral reasons. Even the Upper South was moving in a similar direction, but the Deep South was still deeply reliant on slavery. At the center of democracy is compromise, which, at the Constitutional Convention, manifested itself in the form of Northern “protection” of Southern slavery in order to protect unity. The concessions made to slave owners were large, including things like the 3/5 clause and the 20-year delay of the slave trades outlawing, yet necessary considering that “any attempt to free Southern slaves by law would lead to civil war” (Davis 155).