democratic-republicans – 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 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.