Male Suffrage – American History to 1877

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

The Wilentz reading describes the change American politics went through. One major change was how much the people’s perception of the president’s integrity can affects his patronage. Wilentz first demonstrates this through the 1824 election in which Henry Clay appeared to have committed a wrong doing, forever smearing how the people perceived Adams, especially during the 1828 election (256). The emphasis on presidential integrity is further seen during Jacksons’ 1827 campaign period. Here, as Rebecca and Ella describe, the campaign became more focused on slander then politics (306). This development, although not entirely new, was partially due to the Second Great Awakening, in which scholars placed more emphasis and interest on Christianity (266). As Charlotte mentioned, religion was seen as a moral guide to politics. This factor on top of rising new political parties that represented the more common man headed a rapid transformation of politics not entirely understood by Adams and Clay, leading to Jackson’s presidential victory.

Furthermore, in spite of the emphasis on presidential integrity, I believe the greatest political development during this period was the new importance of the people’s interest. Jackson was said to be the common people’s president. In fact he, more than any other 19^th century president, won the presidency through a large marginal popular vote. His popular victory demonstrated the rising involvement of non-elites. In addition to this, all white males gained suffrage. One could further say that the stress on presidential integrity was likely due to the rising interest of the people in politics and their ability to express their interest. This growing public attentiveness is what will change American politics to what it is today and create a uniquely American government.

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.

Tag: Male Suffrage

The Transformation of American Politics

Jackson Through Wilentz