The Big Cheese


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 “The Cheese and the Words”, Jeffrey L. Pasley, argued that the period of the early 1800s during the Jeffersonian era elicited the greatest example of democratic representation what with the unique culture and mass participation. The Cheese presented by a small contingency of Jefferson’s supporters was just the beginning of an era where people who had felt marginalized by society beforehand (not able to freely practice religion in some areas), expressed their admiration for their leader who always seemed to empathize with the common folk and further their cause, to the chagrin of the elitist Federalists. It is easy to see how Jefferson manipulated the political realm at the time to fit his interests, as he appealed to all the necessary political demographics by representing their ideas in Washington but also by using his “Mammoth” press to his advantage and making the Federalists appear to be the outliers hoping to criticize anything that came out of the Democratic-Republican camp. Politics at this point often boiled down to whoever could subtly, or outlandishly, satirize their opponent to the best appearance of their own faction.

As Price stated earlier about the American populace, “the rich and the poor have separate interpretations of the word ‘equality’, and how it ought to be applied to politically, socially, and of course, economically, in American government.” I think this has been an element of many societies for a long period of time but I believe that America was really united to a certain extent at this time, at least within party lines. Newspapers began to pop up throughout the country in about 1798 fostering an ability for, as Alexis de Tocqueville stated, “some means of talking every day without seeing one another and of acting together without meeting.” Newspapers were the perfect antidote to a problem fueled by the rural nature of much of America and created a much tighter community where a speech that had once reached maybe 100 people could now infiltrate many counties and possibly disseminated throughout a whole region, as many political newspapers, like Phinehas Allen’s Sun, soon learned. These works of literature educated people about topics and politicians they never heard about, and forced people to form an opinion. These new resources and the excitement provided by the “People’s President”, fostered an excitement in politics never before seen in the United States, as record voting numbers were represented in the polls. This new medium of expression did not only benefit white property-holding  men, but also women and disenfranchised men (African-Americans, Native Americans), whose cause could be documented within special interest newspapers. Even though this segment of the population was denied the right to vote they still impacted politics, by “developing strong and partisan political interests and politics.” These newly powerful political actors were not lost on the later elections as the Federalists, who alienated too many “common people”, lost the presidency. Newspapers were the quintessential symbol of the birth of organized politics and democracy.

People Power Blog 1


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

Jill Lepore questions American Democracy and its origins with a plethora of differing opinions. She cites the primary two approaches to appraising Democracy during the era of the Early 1800s including the disparate philosophies of Noah Webster, Thomas Jefferson, and his successor, Andrew Jackson. Webster was, on the one hand, an unapologetic pedant and elitist who wished nothing more than for the rich to maintain the upper hand in society and for the poorer peoples of meeker status to be barred from participating in national politics. Jefferson and Jackson were of the opposite opinion that the farmers and “plain peoples” of the country were model citizens who showed that civic duty and hard work were all it took to to be honest, contributing members of society. Noah could only describe the average American as an “insufferable idiot” while that same (white) man was labeled a hero and “the great repository of Republican virtue”, in the words of Jefferson. These men clearly had starkly different beliefs into what a democracy should consist of.

It is easy to say presently, with so much time having elapsed since these events, that Webster was obviously out of touch with the masses. One must realize that in their time, there had been no true successful democracy so it would seem unlikely that a democracy providing sufferage to all “fools and knaves” would be feasible. Oddly enough, however, Webster married into a wealthy family and even required an allowance from fellow Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, in order to purchase a residence in New York. It appears the plain people of the country are not the only people who have the potential to become integral members of society.

It is less simple to note whether democracy arose from the West or the East. I find it unlikely that the West would have had a greater affect on the East than vice versa, as the East was the birthplace of so many political documents, parties and movements such as the Boston Tea Party which demonstrated the democratic nature of America. The West was simply populated by Easterners endowed with democratic principles who were inspired to spread these ideas to the furthest reaches of the continent. The West was clearly the depository for the Easterners most ambitious and desiring to spread the benefits of democracy West to those unaware. Lepore juxtaposed many of these ideas but it is necessary to critique each viewpoint if one is to realize that History has no right or no wrong, but what actually happened and the opinions (that of slaves or presidents) that have dictated the intermining centuries.