Henry Clay – American History to 1877

April 16, 2014

Battle for Compromise and Exiting Leaders

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

Chapter 21 of Wilentz was my favorite Chapter of “The Rise of American Democracy” yet. This specific period in time is one that I feel often gets brushed under the rug in a sense. While in every American history class there is bound to be some teachings of the Civil War, Wilentz describes specifically the true causes that lead the civil war, and the steps that the Government took to attempt to prevent the secession of the South. This chapter also brings names that are familiar to me in a more clear light with historical analysis.

As my classmate pointed out in “The Compromise of 1850. Did it Work?”, upon the conclusion of the Mexican-American War several key issues faced our country. The most apparent ones were the admittance of California, New Mexico, and Utah into the Union as states. There were numerous differentiating opinions on the correct way to go about doing this. As described in Wilentz, President Taylor wished to quickly admit California and New Mexico into the Union as free states, as he did not foresee slavery taking root in those regions. This obviously upset the pro-slavery factions who viewed this as a attack and complete destruction of the Missouri Compromise, which would lead to a permanent imbalance between the free and slave states. Henry Clay on the other hand drafted an eight step plan to have compromise between the two sides, and he worked to ratify this bill in Congress. Wilentz says of this, “Superficially, Clays compromise slightly favored the South”(344), but then goes onto to describe how the important decisions about the territories favor the North.

I found it very interesting how Wilentz describes the battles in relation to all of these contrasting views. There are all three sides that Wilentz tags with leaders: Calhoun as staunch pro slavery Southerner, Clay/Webster as seekers of compromise, and Seward as the clear Abolitionist. Having these leaders for the differing views made it very easy to follow and put the political battles in perspective. It somewhat reminds me of today, as our congress has many struggles agreeing on particular subjects. The battle for Healthcare is not all that much different than this battle in terms of different parties and people fighting for different opinions on an issue.

I also really liked how Wilentz described the role of Douglas after Clay’s version of the bill had failed. It was very interesting to see how his strategy to pass small parts of the bill at a time would prove to be effective for temporary compromise. It was also interesting to see Douglas as an actual political figure. All of my previous exposure to him is simply as the other person in the “Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. Being able to see a different side of him was very rewarding.

Also, in relation to William Seward, knowing that he would eventually be Lincoln’s Secretary of State, it made me wonder if a reason the South was so quick to succeed after Lincoln was elected was because he aligned himself with abolitionists like Seward.

April 7, 2014

The Rise of American Democracy: Chapter 17

In Chapter 17 of The Rise of American Democracy, Wilentz focuses primarily on discussing parties. In particular, he details carefully the “big” names that associated themselves with the Whigs and the Democrats, and discusses how these people influenced the early American party system, as well as early American politics in general.

Wilentz gives a fair amount of attention to the surprising ascendency of John Tyler to President of the United States. This makes sense, as Tyler’s presidency threw the political system into confusion and turmoil. Tyler ran with Harrison under the banner of the Whig Party, yet it soon became clear after Tyler gained the Presidency that he had no qualms with resisting popular Whig policy.

Tyler quickly fell into dispute with Henry Clay, previously a political ally, over the re-chartering of the national bank. A personal war soon broke out between them. When it became apparent that Tyler would not support a national bank, much like President Jackson, Henry Clay cut all ties with Tyler and isolated him entirely from the Whig party. This type of political squabbling is a theme throughout this chapter of The Rise of American Democracy. Wilentz does a good job of describing the cutthroat elements of American politics at this time. He notes all the scheming, strategizing, and manipulation of early American politicians in great detail, and the reader leaves with a real sense of how cruel and ferocious early American politics could be.

Particular interesting to me was Wilentz’s description of the Dorr Warr. Dorr and his fellow reformers attempted to push through a new constitution with the use of a state convention in Rhode Island. Angered, the conservative government already in power began to arrest Dorrite leaders. Violence ensued between the two parties, and the episode culminated with the arrest of Dorr. Legally, this incident is fascinating because it tested whether the majority in a state had a right to overthrow the government as stated by the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that Dorr and his supporters had no right to attempt a revolution.

This chapter, while not focused on the abolition movement, does highlight some progress in the department of racial equality. As mentioned by the authors of the blog posts The Connection Between Women’s Rights and Abolition and Ask a Slave, during this time period abolitionists were actually making headway with regards to racial equality. We finally start to see the North developing into a hotbed for the abolition movement. Women’s rights activists begin to sympathize with African-Americans, and people in general were more open to discussing the abolition of slavery than ever before. Thus, the conservative constitution in Rhode Island during the Dorr War “enfranchised black males who met the same minimal taxpaying requirements as native-born whites.” I personally was shocked by this, because this constitution legally viewed African-Americans as having the same rights, at least with regards to voting, as whites. Here we clearly start to see an example of the decline of the pro-slavery movement in the North.

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.