Tuesday, December 1, 2009
April 2: "Jacksonians, Whigs, and the Politics of the 1830s"
What are the differences you see between the Jacksonians and the Whigs? According to Basch, how do these differences result in a culture war? After reading Sellers and Howe, what do you make of the suggestion that Jacksonian Democrats were nothing more than anti-elitist, mobocratic, populists while Whigs were elitist, establishment-bound, Federalists reborn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The biggest distinction I seen between the Jacksonians and Whigs is the old Federalist-Republican divide over economic policies. It seems like the Whigs dusted off Hamilton’s old reports on manufacturing and banking and sought to implement them. Their supportive stance regarding tariffs and especially the Second National bank epitomize those differences. The tariff worked in obvious favor of capital, stymying competition from cheap imports and giving them a monopoly over the supply of goods, which further enhanced New Englander economic domination over the West and East. The chronicles of land speculation with paper money have been well documented in the reader, but the simple fact about the bank is that it only serves those who have the capital and collateral to utilize it, of no value to a poor farmer or laborer.
ReplyDeleteBasch argues that this divide resulted in a clash of idealized images of a gentleman during the ill-fated 1828 election campaign. The wealthy, landed elite saw a prim, proper, legalistic Adams who personified certain virtues of the Second Great Awakening. Moral correctness, proper restraint and general self-discipline were the values imbued upon Adams to appeal to a culture that valued such predictable and stable attributed. Jackson on the other hand was imbibed with the qualities of a pioneer man, one more egalitarian in his outlook, less pedantic than Adams and one more concerned with general essence of the law and the concern of actual people rather than the expanding legal code in America. For Whigs, such a loose and unrestrained approach to the world was somewhat brutish or less civilized than their vision of proper place and behavior in society. Given the diametrically opposed natures of both men, the spirit of the gentry and the pioneer shone through in each and provoked a cultural clash through the electoral contest.
After reading Howe and Sellers, I don’t see the simple labels of anti-elitist and elitist encompassing these parties. Certainly Jackson’s policies carried a very anti-elitist tone to them, especially in his rebuke of the National Bank, but he seems more concerned with the general welfare of the poor American rather than razing the fortunes of the wealthy to the ground. He dealt with class very frankly, which is likely what earned him the unflattering labels from the Whigs. Coming from the pioneer himself and from a humble background it’s natural that he would not have the affection for and commitment to institutions like the bank of the tariff.
By the same token, Whigs likely believed that a rising tide lifted all boats and that growing the economy with infrastructure and banks would be for the benefit of all. They were establishment-bound and certainly Federalists-reborn, but they had a unique flair for moral crusading that attracted members of the middle class to support economic policies not in their best interests. This broader base of support drawn from all sorts of different circumstances still left the party as elitist (perhaps more so with it’s moral crusading, perhaps tyranny) and establishment-bound, but it simply was a different beast than the Hamiltonian Federalists.
The Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig party could not have been more of polar opposites. The Jacksonian Democrats favored small government, states rights and many other things the “Old Democrats” were in favor of. Including in these was agrarian rights, less federal government involvement, and the idea of an anti-elitist government where the common man can rise to power. The Whigs on the other hand were seen as elitists and essentially the Federalist Party reborn. They were in favor of an industrial economy with a big government aiding in the transition. They were essentially nationalists who wanted big businesses and commerce to push the states forward out of their “agrarian slump.”
ReplyDeleteAccording to Norma Basch these differences resulted in a culture war, which centered on the masculinity of each candidate. Adamsites, as they were called, spun the story of Jackson’s marriage to Rachel Robards in order to make it appear as if Jackson had stolen her from her husband and she in turn was an adulterer, which was not far from the truth. They claimed a vote for Jackson was a vote for sin. From this controversy stemmed a delineation of two forms of masculinity. Adams’ marital code was seen as didactic and contractual with a persistent emphasis on the ties to household and polity, while Jackson was more romantic with a distinct preference for heartfelt sentiments over precise legal forms. These two trains of though coinciding with the character of the men themselves, which also easily divided the society. On one hand you had Adams who was restrained and polite, a man of impeccable purity, but also a man who had his head buried in books as opposed to the real world. On the other hand there was Jackson, the 19th century American Badass who would take a bullet, take your wife, but would not take shit from anyone. Jackson was a man of action and therefore people on the frontier were able to deeply relate to him, it being a place where honor, friendship, and loyalty counted for more than legal fine print.
After reading Sellers and Howe I would not dub the Jacksonian Democrats as anti-elitists, rather they were a party concerned with the common man or farmer. This was not a party hell bent on the destruction of the rich, although it may seem that way with Jackson’s bashings of the national bank and claiming that the rich too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Although these points were acknowledged, the parties platform was one of poor man’s aid, not rich mans destruction. The Whigs were indeed establishment-bound and the Federalist party reborn, however their policies in their eyes were intended to aid the middle class as well as the elite to bring them to the upper echelon of society. They were not the monarchical elitists of old, they had reformed to adapt to 19th century politics as the “new” democrats had done.
The differences between the Jacksonians and Whigs are not at all new. These differences in politics had always existed. The people and parties representing these differences simply had different names. It’s easy to boil the Jacksonians and Whigs down to geography and interpretation of the world. In many ways the parties represented the identities of the regions in which they were strongest. The Jaksonian Democrats, strongest in the South, embodied the spirit of the people of the South just as the Whigs seemed to embody the essence of people of the North. However, there are examples of Whigs in the South and Democrats in the North. Many planters in the South advocated for internal improvements and other policies consistent with the Whig party. During this period and up to the Compromise of 1850, two famous Georgia politicians, Alexander H Stephens and Robert Toombs were both Whigs in Congress. Likewise, Democrats existed in the North. Martin Van Buren, Jackson’s Vice President and “architect” of this new two party system, was a New Yorker. Jackson vs Adams is a perfect personification of the identities of both parties pitted against each other.
ReplyDeleteThese differences between Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs can been seen in the context of a culture war, and Norma Basch paints such a picture in her article. She goes to the heart of the differences in terms of morality, principle and masculinity. She argues that, for the Whigs, masculinity and maturity in leadership was shown through Christian uprightness and piety, intelligence, temperance and level headedness. Additionally, these qualities made one a man. The Democratic ideals were a bit different. She writes that there was a “vividly romantic ideal of manhood.” Bravery and chivalry, both strongly present in General Andrew Jackson, were crucial to a man’s leadership and political identity. These were qualities respected in the South and on the frontier, whereas the qualities of a proper Whig, seen in John Quincy Adams, were necessary for a proper New England gentlemen.
It is very simple to keep Democrats and Whigs in the box of their labels and refuse to accept any depth or sophistication beyond their stereotypes. The thought of Democrats as simply “mobocratic” is not very accurate. To a large extent, they weren’t even truly populist. They may have painted their politics and policies in Washington as such, but they themselves were wealthy landed slave owners mostly interested in politics that preserved their status. Nothing is more elite than the top of society working tirelessly to preserve its privilege. And when Jackson “kills” the Second Bank of the United States, the ensuing panic that doomed Van Buren’s presidency had disastrous consequences and implications for the lower classes and individuals of whom the Democrats are meant to the defending knights in shining armor. Likewise, the Whigs were not what the stereotype suggests as elitist, etc. The aforementioned Georgian Whigs are evidence that not all were New England born “Boston Brahmin” types. Additionally, they fought for internal improvements. Clay’s American System, although marketed to perpetuate a market revolution, had real and beneficial impacts for average every day Americans. Their interpretation of the economy and the way one works within it was good for all Americans, not just the elite.
The differences between the Jacksonians and the Whigs was night and day. The Jacksonian party seemed to be all about the farming common man. Jacksonians favored a non intrusive government a laissez-faire of sorts mostly continuing on from the same stane as the Jeffersonians took. The Jacksonian party wanted to get rid of the national bank and believed firmly in expansion. On the other hand the whigs were nationalist elitists who favored a national bank and wanted the government to have its hand in every aspect of life. The whigs dispised Andrew Jackson and called him King Andrew. This two party system is where propaganda and the election techniques of today began. According to Basch the differences in the two parties led to public bashing of candidates and the twisting of truth to make candidates look bad which in fact would tear the country in two. Jackson took much of the heat for being involved in scandal or just not reading the fine print depending on how you want to look at things. Adams supporters in the 1828 election tried to paint a picture of Jackson as a man who was full of violence and an adulterer someone who broke the rules didn’t care and would kill you if you stood in his way. He carried a walking stick with a blade in it just in case someone stood in his way he would be ready to kill. Supports of Jackson on the other hand looked at things from a different angle taking a romanticism approach they wanted to get across the idea that Jackson was a leader with his ideals being set on loyalty honor friendship he didn’t believe in adultery just fell victim to a random accurance and small fine print details. They wanted to press on the ideas of Jackson being strong and manly with integrity. This culture war was the beginning of the bashings that we see every four years now a days when its presidential election time nothing is out of bounds. After the readings I do believe its true that the Jacksonians were anit-elitists and the Whigs for elitists establishment bound and reborn Federalists. The Whigs fought for the national bank why? I think to make the rich richer they didn’t really care about the every day farmers it really seemed they cared about there small section of other rich people and that was it. The Jacksonians wanted less power for the government they wanted to get rid of even the thought of a national bank. Its funny how this two party system seemed to have already taken place earlier. After the readings I feel very strongly that the Whigs are the Federalists reborn supporting a strong national government with its hand in everything, while the Jacksonians much like the Jeffersonians of before stood of the yeomen farmer. Reading Sellers and Howe’s essays at the end confirmed this idea in my head. I loved the part in Howe’s essay talking about how the Democrats wanted to liberate people from the burden of taxes and help the poor out while the Whigs loved taxes they wanted to keep taxes to help improve the counry no matter how big the burden for the poor.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, the Jacksonians were the left-overs of the previous power struggle after Washington left office. Immediately afterwards, it was easy see divides forming in the wake of a "near perfect" presidential legacy. The Federalists wanted stronger centralized government and openly admitted that they disliked too much democracy and any form of government not run by aristocrats. Contrasting this were the Anti-Federalists, who eventually became the Jeffersonians. The Jeffersonians heavily supported less government involvement and more rights of the states, and as a result they found favor with the masses. The way I see it, the Jeffersonians eventually became the established party in government, and everyone claimed to be their own brand of Republicanism. The group that put more emphasis on commercial expansion and perpetuation the market was the Whig Party. People like Henry Clay cared most about canals and railroads being built because these things would bring more commerce to America and would strengthen the economy [and as a result help everyone supposedly]. Although they never claimed to be, they were often accused of their disproportionate aristocratic involvement. Contrasting greatly with this were the Jacksonian Democrats. Embodied by Andrew Jackson himself, the Jacksonians wanted nothing more than to conserve the values of the previously popular yeoman ideology. In any event, I don't necessarily see any actual stance the Jacksonians took, except for taking stances against changes that the Whigs preferred to make with regards to the market revolution and national commerce.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Basch, much more was going on than just politics. She claims that a cultural war was taking place to between the 'party of the masses' and the 'refined' Whig party. The Whigs were more inclined to support stricter national laws pertaining to marriage and morality, while the Jacksonians found it "a matter of individual and local concern." Whigs saw virtue and evangelical disciplines strongly bound together, which made Adams a great candidate for the 1828 election (although they were not calling themselves the Whigs yet). To that side of the conflict, virtuous masculinity came from piety and high culture. Jackson, embodying everything BUT those things, was the antithesis of what most Whigs would have considered a virtuous man, and his relationship with his wife was the prime example. At the same time, Jackson supporters saw him as the ideal romantic frontiersman, riding in on his horse to save the damsel in distress and labor hard in the wilderness.
After reading Sellers and Howe I still hold the opinion that Jacksonian Democrats were basically populists in their prime. Typically, populism takes on a negative connotation, but I don't find it as a value judgement, so much as an analysis of the facts. In the election of 1828, the voting electorate doubled and Jackson ended up winning 56% of the popular votes. This means the election of 1828 was the most popularly sovereign election at that point in American history. Although other Presidents before Jackson had gained much greater majorities, never before had the common man's vote been more prevalent than this election. In comparison to the previous election, the number of voters had doubled. In a way, that is twice as much democracy. The only problem with this is that sometimes, democracy does not always choose the most efficient and valuable choice, so problems can arise--such as the Panic of 1837 [see also: American Independence Party much later down the road].
After reading the essays and the primary sources, I think of course the two parties were different, and of course they had different plans as to where our country should be headed, but this is clearly not a good vs. evil type of debate. Each party had their differences from each other, and within each party there were members striving for power and recruiting those whose leaders had fallen to the side. This was a paradigm shift in the lives of Americans. A new generation of power was coming into the realm of government. According to Basch, the "culture war" that he addresses is the accumulation of strategies to the top. How do I get in there? Attacks on Jackson start as soon as he wins the office. Two views come up, this idea of romanticism in life and politics, and the idea of the self-made man, the evangelical, masculine intellectual. Personal attacks become the foundation for political stands. When an institution is built on mud, there is no hope for those trying to live in it. Moving into Sellers' account of the Bank War, it highlights the growing concern for the bank's power and size. Much concern arise for the overwhelming possibility of corruption with such a massive and societal dependent institution. Jackson lays right out there the possibilities. Like Hamilton, those for the bank, know who will ultimately benefit from a paper money society. This brings in the idea of implied powers which is just frightening. This means to an end mentality will only result in our country being subservient to an exponentially inflating fiat currency system. Currently we are almost a century deep into a mess in which the people opposing the bank were fearing. Which I believe makes the bank issues more important because it lays the foundations for the way we live in America today. Howe's essay on Whig values expresses again this societal psychological warfare for votes, patronage and organization versus moral appeals and didactism. I can see the idea of evangelical and didactic ideas being used against the people, its very hard for me to think that this idea wasn't used to indoctrinate the people, which is why it had such opposition. The people were not stupid. Mostly I believe, like most people who are apart of a middle or lower class with little constant education, these people were searching for a leader who in his heart would try and lift everyone out of this perpetual state of ambiguity. What is progress and where is the country headed? Jackson seemed to be most straight forward, to the people, he may be fearful but at least he comes across as speaking his mind and not giving the people a big lie. The Anti-masonic movement started from the idea of no secrecy, and no special under-the-table benefits. That was then taken over by the Whigs who needed support. All in all this time period only spun the nation into more anxiety, with the culmination being succession. The name of the game now was showing that you were cleaner than your opponents and through your promises and direct actions, could you show the public the hopes you brought to the country. How could someone appeal to a crowd best, and how could one get the most votes? Elections became a psychological warfare on the people with their ultimate well being serving as the sacrifice for the elites to have power. I disagree with the notion that any party was anti or pro elitist, only because those coming to power up until Jackson had been catered to take over certain roles in government. Now, Jackson, a self-educated man, comes to power challenging again the notions of the past. I think the idea of history being elitist vs. non-elitist is skewed to where we now think there were sides, good and evil kind of scenario. We’re forced to examine all the great and wonderful things Jefferson has done, meanwhile was pro-slavery. Jackson was a staunch opponent to the bank and considered a war hero, but also removed and murdered countless Indians. We lose touch with the fact that these are people, not celebrities, and not gods.
ReplyDeleteA few differences that stand out to me between the Whig and Jacksonian Democrat parties are the differences of opinions and ideologies towards government, race, morality, and the Indian question. These two party’s ideologies differed greatly in whom their supporters were and who the party’s themselves claimed to represent and their goals. The Jacksonians claimed to represent the great majority of people and strived to break down the barriers to entry in the political system that the elites have established. The reforms Jacksonians argued for were those that helped the common man and were the kind that “people undertook for themselves in pursuit of greater liberation and greater participation in decision-making” (Howe, p.350). Whig’s on the other hand gathered their base of support from the more affluent and wealthy farmers, planters, and used morality as rope in which to draw in support from the large middle class.
ReplyDeleteHowe describes the political culture of the Whig party as didactic and more geared towards the “elitist, commercial, and cosmopolitan,” which were centered in the coastal and urban areas of the country. The more rural areas, according to Howe, enjoyed following a “democratic, agrarian, and localist” perspective (p.348). I would have to agree with the notion that Whigs were more elitist and the Jacksonians were much more populist because of their bases of support. One party relied on egalitarianism as a base ideology, simplicity, and a distrust of a broad and far-reaching national government. The Whigs however tended to view the national government as beneficial and expedient to internal improvements and as a base from which they could shape society into a more perfect one.
Such glaring differences are exposed in their portrayals of Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828. Supporters of Adams relied on the “characteristically evangelical ideal of masculinity to sing the praises of their Unitarian leader”. They viewed Adams as a man of piety, self-control, purity, and profound intelligence (Basch, p.342). While praising Adams for these traits and many others, the supporters of the Adams campaign bashed General Andrew Jackson as lacking all of them. An adulterer, lacking self-restraint and refinement, opponents of Jackson believed a “vote for Jackson was a vote for sin”. These portrayals of Jackson took hold among those in society that believed the crises of the previous decade were a result of a loss of morality and a sense of goodness among men of power and influence.
The Jacksonian response was one of a variety of counter images and a reliance on his rugged image. As Basch puts it, the Jacksonians “identified their candidate with the physical prowess and self-sufficiency that Americans associated with westward expansion, they placed him beyond the artificial constrains of formal authority” (p.343). By portraying Jackson as a supporter of westward expansion, an Indian fighter, and a homegrown hero, his image resonated with a much larger audience during the 1828 election than did J.Q. Adams. The vast majority of people were not well off farmers, planters, and businessmen, rather they were those moving west and scraping out a living in the hopes of achieving a better life for themselves. Jackson made that better life possible for them by opening up lands, preaching egalitarianism, and trying to dethrone the elites of the nation.
The noticeable differences between the Jacksonians and the Whigs are numerous and very distinguishable. In their own ways they each have their own distinguishable attributes that made them successful but extreme opposites. The Jacksonians mimicked the old Democrats in their policies and their view of a small government and strong states rights. They wanted to protect the people from the evils of a strong central government. The Whigs on the other hand were essentially the Federalists reborn. They were the elite and drew a lot of powerful people in from the south and cotton country. They wanted a booming economy that was helped by a strong central government. Because these differences were so incredibly spread apart they created a huge culture war fighting for the Presidency. The 1928 election with the Jacksonians versus the Adamites, was marked by the continual bashing of the candidates, by the opposition. It started with the accusations around Jacksons recent mistake by accidentally marrying Rachel Robards whose divorce they thought final but was not. Adamites tried to make it look as if Jackson had stolen her out from underneath her husband. Basch shows that there were huge differences in the way that either of the two candidates viewed marriage. Jackson was a very headstrong romantic who did not really care about his image per say. Adams on the other hand was very traditional in his views of being pure and traditional. Their characters and personalities in general were very polar opposite which also helped with the split between them. They were both charismatic in their own ways. Jackson was the war hero seen as the go getter and as one of the people. Adams was an elite and seen more as the Thomas Jefferson figure, someone of incredible intellect who valued the old social and moral codes of society. I agree with the suggestion that Jacksonian Democrats were nothing more than anti-elitist, mobocratic, populists while Whigs were elitist, establishment-bound, Federalists reborn after reading Sellers and Howe. I do not really agree with the part that they were nothing more than that but that they were all that and more. In the 1832 election it became evident that there was a very large divide between the parties than before. Because of the bank wars Jackson had managed to piss off some of the elites in America. They began to side more and more with the conservative Whigs. However, the Whig party managed to win people over on moral appeal and ethnic identity as Howe pointed out. The divides between the parties became such that it depended where you were from, whom you lived next to, who you liked, who you didn’t like, and morality. There was a wide array of people who had similar views but belonged to opposite parties because of those reasons. The Whigs were seen as the moral examples of society and were holding on to the old Federalists principles. The split was made worse because of Indian removal and it divided the feelings of the citizens. Unlike the old Federalists though the Whigs had improved on not just looking to improve the wealthy but the other classes to. Jackson just wanted to destroy the wealthy.
ReplyDeleteIt was always apparent that the political changes in the 1820s and ‘30s were revolutionary. The farther I look into the issues that made the Republicans divide, the more it is obvious that the cultural differences between the East and West made the sectionalism that already existed between the North and South exponentially worse. While reading the three essays, it was interesting to find the major similarities between the three in the way they described the Democrats and the Whigs. They all agreed on an outcome of the 1824 and 1828 elections. It was revolutionary, this didactic system (as Howe puts it simply for us) was apparently essential to the American political structure. The disagreements between the Whigs and Democrats don’t make much sense when compared to the ways the Democrats and Republicans are divided today. Many capitalistic ideas of government were endorsed by the Whigs who tended to favor successful businessmen, while essential small-government Libertarian-type principles of today were used by the Jacksonian Democratic party to entice Southern and frontier voters. In the first essay Norma Basch focuses on the cultural differences that separated the Whigs (National Republicans) and Democrats (Old Republicans) by evidencing the way the two saw Jackson’s alleged adultery. Basch says that the issue over Andrew and Rachel’s marriage was an old mistake that now came to haunt them. The eastern followers of the Second Great Awakening saw Jackson’s marital issue as immoral and obviously avoidable. While those out on the frontier saw it more of a “matter of individual and local concern” more than a national issue and would not affect the way he ran the government. Comparing it to today’s standards (at least by the way Basch put it) our liberal attitude on personal choices would have been more willing to accept Jackson’s personal mistake as not a deliberate act of adultery. However, the Whig’s took advantage of it politically because it went hand in hand in their discrete humanitarian efforts than including mild black and Indian humility. Sellers shows the Jacksonian Party in a less favorable light straight off when he said that “Old Hickory gradually mobilized a seemingly invincible army of disciplined Democratic voters. Never has the majority seemed so close to actually ruling.” To the admirers of a pure democracy this must have seemed great.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this was a radically new issue. Whereas before the eligible voting population was limited to either property holders or men who paid a certain amount of taxes, now virtually every white adult man could vote. People at this time started calling America’s form of government a democracy; a term that seemed to be deliberately left out of public addresses before this time. The longest and most detailed of the three essays was the last by Howe. Here we can put together all of the pieces from the previous essays and documents and figure out why the divisions in the Republican party were so crucial to the formation of two new parties and how some (myself included) viewed this didactic system a good fit for the new pre-modern political landscape that formed the core of our current didactic system. Howe said “moral appeals were the Whigs’ substitute for party loyalty.” Since they weren’t held together by a strong base like the Democrats were, Whigs appealed to eastern ‘civilized’ folk to make up their constituents. Another good quote from Howe was that the “Whigs sought to strengthen the hegemony of the dominant group, while the Democrats represented all those out-groups who resisted,” that dominant group being those of Anglo blood. What is fascinating is that while this implicit belief in their own racial superiority (believed to be reinforced by scientific fact at the time) of the Anglo blood, did not mean that they were complete racists. They believed other racial groups assimilation with Anglos would give their offspring the superior traits of Englishmen. As for the Democrats, they appealed to the common man and other out-groups and this is reflected by their efforts to repeal taxations and give the yeoman more liberty.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats portray themselves as political party that looks out for low and middle class people. They believe that the government has been run by a group of aristocrats and these aristocrats have manipulated the government into benefitting themselves by making themselves richer while the poor get poorer. The aristocrats that the Democrats are battling against have allowed a national bank to control the paper wealth of the Union and therefore control who moves up and who stays up. The aristocrats have also enacted a tariff that hurts the agrarian culture while benefitting the industrious capitalistic culture. The Whigs portray themselves as a party that is moral and law abiding. The Whigs wanted to purify the people and make everyone moral. The Whigs launched a campaign against Jackson’s morals and not his policies. I think that it is ridiculous that Jackson’s marriage was brought up during the campaign in order to smear him and collect votes for the Whigs. But underneath all of the PR campaigns and the half truths and whole lies told to the people, the two parties were fighting for what they thought was the best economic policy. The Whigs wanted a capitalistic society that hinged on industry and big business that would allow America to compete on a global level but also monopolize the trade within America. The Democrats wanted a more agrarian culture that sustained itself on a large middle class. The Democrats did want to trade on a global level but I am not convinced that they were worried about competing at a global level. I found it interesting that the Democrats elected Jackson and that he only helped to widen the gap between the rich and poor. Jackson’s Indian removal policies ended up making more land available for planters to expand their empire. Then Jackson takes out the Second BUS and all the low and middle class people that did not have specie and relied on bank notes ended up being the ones that suffered the most. In one of the documents from MPER a Democrat talked about how America should be a country that circulated specie instead of paper money but they failed to realize that the people they wanted to help did not have specie to circulate. Basch talked about how the campaigns ended up as a culture war. The Whigs wanted to Americans to be moral but according to their values. Democrats revolted against this idea and did not like someone else trying to force their morals on them. “So the Irish Catholic immigrants became the most loyal of Democrats in reaction against Whig Protestantism, and the blacks voted Whig in reaction against the Irish, who hated them. In Louisiana, where the French Catholics were prosperous and long-established sugar planters, they were the Whigs, while the Protestant small farmers who resented them were the Democrats (p.349).” Political parties became a way to socially fight against one another. This still happens today, people do not for a person based on their policies but for whoever has the better PR campaign. I read a recent poll that the majority both African Americans and Mexican Americans view of what government should do aligns with Republicans but the majority of them vote for Democrats because Democrats cater to them better than Republicans do.
ReplyDeleteThere were many differences between the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig party. First of all the Jacksonian Democrats favored a small, decentralized federal government, supported states and farmer’s rights and it’s members were seen as part of the common man whereas the Whig’s were seen as elitist. The Whig’s also wanted a stronger centralized government to help transition to a more industrialized economy after a number of panics and recessions under the old agrarian economy.
ReplyDeleteThese ideological differences came to a forefront in the election of 1828 when both candidates defined masculinity and tried to prove why the other candidate didn’t have it. The Adamsites, Adams and his supporters, argued that Jackson’s marriage to a then-married Rachel Robards is a sin and they saw Rachel as an adulterer and Jackson as the linchpin to the Robards’ divorce. Out of this came two conflicting views on marriage, Adams’ view was didactic and contractual emphasizing the relationship between household and polity, while Jackson’s view was romantic and private with a preference for heartfelt sentiments over legal forms. This and the sheer differences between the two men helped to divide the U.S.
With regard to Sellers and Howe, I do not believe that the Jacksonian Democrats were anti-elitist populists, but the Whigs were Federalists reborn, but with a more modern twist to them. The Jacksonian Democrats were mainly interested in the common man, or agrarian farmer and their ultimate goal was not to destroy the wealthy, considering many of the leaders were wealthy, but to help the common man that supported their party. The Whigs were elitist, establishment-bound and the Federalist party reborn, except the Whig’s policies this time around not only aimed at keeping the upper class in their place, but also to help the middle class reach a higher standard of living.
The Era of good feeling was definitely over and here came the Whig party to face the Jacksonians in the 1830s. Andrew Jackson was at the heart of his presidency and trying to abolish he second national bank. His first term proved to be on with change with the Indian removal signifying the biggest change. The answer for the Andrew Jackson opposition was the Whig Party. They proved to be successful by taking Martin Van Buren spot as president and successfully bringing in William Henry Harrison. The Whigs were able to take tactics from the Andrew Jackson campaign and use a General to promote the highest national position. Andrew Jackson did suffer setbacks for the Democrats like with the tariff in South Carolina and the nullification and the Andrew Jackson vetoing the re-charter of the second national bank. With these successes with Andrew Jackson’s first term earned him another one by beating out Henry Clay in the 1932 election. The Whig party was dominating the senate as of 1834 and was claiming that Andrew Jackson’s decision were “Unconstitutional usurpations.” The Whigs exemplified a party that should be based around law abiding citizens and good morals. In the early 1930s Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, who he called Judas of the West and rightfully so it seemed, fought over Internal improvements, Jackson vetoed the Bill and Clay was quick to respond with a very convincing argument were he re-quoted our revolutionary ancestors by saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Henry Clay goes on by praising/defending the American System in document 2. With this American System, the consumers were able to receive goods at a cheaper price thus representing more of what the Whigs wanted which was a Capitalistic society. The Democrats represented more of an agrarian type society that was mostly represented by the middle class. However, they did want to trade on a global level which made complete sense with the vast amounts of raw cotton being grown in the south. The more global their trade was the more money they would make which seems contradictory to the democratic views. With Jackson taking down the 2nd National Bank, he affected the middle to lower class more than anyone because they mostly relied on banks more than the aristocrats. Jackson knew of the corruption the National bank produced however it created stability in the national economy. In Jackson’s message about the veto he refers to the president of the national bank, Nicholas Biddle and says that the states banks “existed by its forbearance.” South Carolina tries to leave the union in 1832 because of the excess tariffs imposed on them. Andrew Jackson claims that it just plain and simple wasn’t even possible. He says that a state could not claim a decision by congress to be void. The Whig party used some of Jackson’s methods of campaigning and their overall choice in a candidate when they elected William Henry Harrison as their candidate for office. He would prove to be far too much for Van Buren and win the presidency. Propaganda took a new level in the 1930s to 40s. A perfect example is the Log cabin picture of what would appear to be General Harrison’s house. Norma Basch would focus on the difference more culturally, referring to Andrew Jackson’s alleged marriage and all the problems that came with that issue. The differences would range from location; the followers of the second great awakening would be disgusted by Jackson’s decision while people out on the frontier knew its necessity. In Charles Sellers and Daniel Howe’s essay, they also talk about the differences in parties but in Howe’s essay in its conclusion he uses the example of Indian removal. The Whigs were known to never be as hostile as the Democrats which represent somewhat of their party ideology. The Jacksonian Democrats represented the common man and was for an agrarian bases society, not anti-elitist.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the Jacksonians and the Whigs had their origins in the first party system in the United States. It is true that the second party system in the US was quite different than the first, but the issues that divided the parties were similar. The Jacksonians compared favorably with the Jeffersonian Republicans, in that, they championed the yeoman farmer and believed in the principle of small government. The Whigs, it seems, were just a reincarnation of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist party. Men like Daniel Webster and Henry Clay favored internal improvements, and thought that promoting business interests was what was best for the country. The second party system was indeed much different than the first party system in America but many of the issues remained the same and helped create the fracture in the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the Jacksonians and the Whigs resulted, according to Norma Basch, in a culture war that is best seen through the election of 1828. From the onset supporters of John Quincy Adams attacked Jackson on the fact that he may have married his wife Rachel while she was married to another man. Basch asserts that the two competing sides had different interpretations of the martial code. The pro Adams camp saw marriage as, “didactic and contractual with an emphasis on the ties between household and polity,” while Jackson supporters saw marriage as “romantic and private with a preference for heartfelt sentiment over precise legal forms.” Basch also cites that each campaign used different tactics to display the masculinity of their candidate. Adams was seen as a “Christian gentleman” while Jackson was portrayed as a “man of the frontier.” Jackson drew on the language of the Second Great Awakening, which championed individualism and authenticity of emotion, to help carry him to the White House. In other words Jackson was, “in touch with reality” and he used his western roots and his rugged individualism to help him win the election of 1828.
To suggest that Jacksonian Democrats were populists and that Whigs were elitist Federalists reborn is a broad sweeping statement. It is true that Jacksonians leaned toward the policies of the populists and Jackson made this clear in his assault on the second Bank of the United States. According to Charles Sellers Jacksonians “were enemies of a souless market revolution that was taking over the country,” and they saw the bank as the chief engine of that market revolution. To label them populists however is going to far Jacksonian Democrats seem to be more in line with the values of the old Jeffersonian Republicans and less in line with the values of populism. It is more accurate to describe the Whigs as the Federalist party reborn in the second party system of the United States, but they too different in some respects to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton. According to Daniel Howe the Whigs “were officious and the Democrats could be callous” and the Whigs were less aristocratic than their Federalist predecessors. Although these labels are helpful in distinguishing between the Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats the actual picture is much more complicated.
According to Norma Basch the election of 1828 through the country into a kind of cultural war, sharply dividing the Jacksonians and the Whigs from each other as Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams both ran for the presidency. As Basch points out, the election soon became extremely intense and hit a personal level for the candidates when the Adams campaign attacked the legitimacy of Andrew Jackson’s marriage to Rachel Donelson Robards who was still technically married to Lewis Robards at the time of her nuptial union to Jackson. The Adams campaign was quick to expose the incident to the public, belittling the reputations of Rachel and Jackson. Basch comments on the effects of the negative publicity, saying that “The political implications of her illicit union were readily apparent: a vote for Jackson was a vote for sin,” (Wilentz 342). The Whigs and Adams supporters furthermore “[…] transformed the circumstances of the Jacksons’ marriage into an intense and gendered political controversy,” (Wilentz 342). The marriage scandal and other personal attacks made on both sides of the political line (Jackson was further criticized for being an uncouth frontiersman with little refinement and few morals. Adams was criticized for being a member of the aristocracy who was unable to connect with people on a personal level.) marked the 1828 election and fostered the new political culture that Basch describes in which elections and politics became a form of entertainment for the general populace who had never been so involved in deciding a political outcome before. Contemporary historians and politicians of the time viewed 1828 as the ultimate cultural war between the common man and the few and privileged aristocracy; 1828 was a unique opportunity to break the established mold of the American president and elect a so-called man of the people—Andrew Jackson.
ReplyDeleteCharles Sellers and Daniel Walker Howe set the nature of the Jacksonians and Whigs against each other in their respective pieces. Sellers uses the Jacksonians’ battle with the Bank of the United States to describe the nature of Democrats at the time. Jackson’s views on the national bank were clear: “Society’s most profoundly political decisions were being made out of public view by a private, profit-making corporation that was answerable only to a paper aristocracy of stockholders and banking interests, and to no public authority,” (Wilentz 345). For Jackson and his followers, “This class control of economic life…was the inevitable issue in the political showdown over the market revolution,” (Wilentz 345). The bank controversy marked Jackson’s presidency and made him some enemies in Congress, including Henry Clay who ran against him in the next election. Ultimately, however, Jackson found the support he needed not only to do away with the bank entirely, but to win re-election in November, as well. Jackson’s platform of anti-aristocratic rhetoric and action had worked. Howe, on the other hand, argues that the Whigs, though traditionally members of the upper class, united and held a majority in Congress for so long because they used moral appeals that were applicable to a large voting group: “If the Whig party won over most rich men by its economic program and some poor men by its ethnic identity, its moral appeal was particularly effective for those in between, the large middle class,” (Wilentz 348).
Though Jacksonians may have been characterized as anti-elitist and Whigs were characterized as aristocratic, both parties shared some elements. For instance, Jackson found himself reverting back to the principles of Jefferson, a member of the aristocracy, with the coming of the market revolution and the controversy over the national bank. Similarly, Adams and the Whigs who were traditionally from aristocratic backgrounds found themselves trying to appeal to the interests of the middle class. The politics of the 1830s did not resolve any of these inconsistencies in the policies of the Jacksonians and Whigs, but the formation of two opposing parties did give many common Americans who were voting for the first time, more choice in politics than ever before.
ReplyDeleteWith the arrival of the Second Party System in America between the 1820s and the 1830s, the Republicans morphed into the Democrats under Andrew Jackson and the Whigs came out of a Republican sect known as the New Republican Party. The previous decade was filled with only one political party, the Republican party, but within this party different ideas, opinions, and policies dismantled one-party America and thus the Two Party System of the Democrats a versus the Whigs were born in the 1820s. The Democrats and the Whigs had extreme political differences in almost all aspects of American society. Jackson’s Democrat’s favored a loose confederation of states while the Whigs were strong nationalists. The Democrat’s (and especially Jackson) despised the National Bank (BUS) and wanted to destroy it while the Whigs, and especially the northern Whigs saw the BUS extremely important to the financial and economic existence of American capitalism. The Democratic party of Jackson was much more appealing to the yeoman farmer, slave owner, and frontier settler as Jackson himself embodied many of the ideals of the founder of the Republican party (now the Democratic party) Thomas Jefferson, while the Whigs gained most of their support from northern businessmen, urban manufacturers, and capitalistic investors (although the Whigs did see some support in the southern frontier as shown through Henry Clay and Alexander Stephens.) But out of all these differences between the Democrats and the Whigs the most polarizing dealt with the direction American economics and finance should go in, as the Democrats heavily favored the republican agrarian dream of America, while the Whigs, similar to the Federalist party, believed America needed to expand its market economy, factories, and transportation in order for America to prosper.
ReplyDeleteAs shown in Document 1, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay completely differed in their opinions towards internal improvements and the necessity of the massive importance of creating new railroads, canals, and roads for the American economic system. In Document 3, Andrew Jackson vetoed the charter of the National Bank and demonstrates the Democrats negative view towards the Bank while Whig Daniel Webster completely opposed Jackson’s view and demonstrated the Whig’s opinion of the importance of having a national bank.
According to Norma Bosh, the differences between the Democrats and the Whigs created a culture war in America and more specifically looking at the campaign of 1828 dissects how competing styles of masculinity and authority are extremely relevant in this election and for every election in America’s future. The major differences the Democrats and Whigs had societal affects on how one even viewed marriage and divorce, an opinion extremely removed from the political debate in the previous 50 years of America. After reading Sellers and Howe, I would disagree with the statement that Democrats were nothing more than anti-elitist, mobocratic, populists while Whigs were elitist, establishment-bound, Federalists reborn? The Democrats main strife was against the importance the Whigs placed on the market economy and financial growth of capitalism in America. It was more than just being an anti-elitist, they believed the agrarian model of republicanism was the path the U.S needed to take and although they despised aristocratic order that simply fact does not just mean they were anti-elitist. For the Whigs, in a way they were born again Federalists but without the extreme aristocratic undertones the Federalist Party once had. The Whigs were not simply elitists, the wanted the U.S to participate in internal improvements in order to spread the prosperity and wealth of the market economy and American capitalism. Although majority of Whigs were northerners involved heavily in the market economy, southern slave owners, plantation owners, and frontier settlers who did not see themselves as elitist were attracted to the Whig party.
It is difficult to pull apart the views of two factions within what officially was one party. The sources in chapter eleven present President Andrew Jackson defeating legislation that would foster internal improvements, such as the bill for creation of the Maysville Road in source one. One is unable to decide from Jackson’s veto if he truly sees the process of road building as a “local concern” that should not involve the “General Government,” as he claims; or, if Jackson’s objection to the bill was primarily motivated by his hatred of the bill’s chief proponent Henry Clay as a result of Clay’s role in the “Corrupt Bargain.” Source two displays just how entwined Henry Clay and the “American System” of internal improvements were. Clay Championed this system as his own calling. Jackson’s veto of the Second National Bank, and Daniel Webster’s response, illustrate just how divided politicians were over this issue. Was the Bank really run by aristocratic entities in the United States and Europe that would subvert the country in times of war? This seems like a stretch; however, Andrew Jackson would certainly disagree. Webster saw the veto as a foolhardy and incredibly dangerous act. Source four illustrates Jackson’s intellectual side best. His response to South Carolina Governor Robert Y. Hayne effectively crushed any possible rebuttal from the state looking to champion nullification. Source five shows that Clay and congress could take petty jabs at Jackson such as their refusal to admit Jackson’s protests to congress.
ReplyDeleteThe next five sources attempt to show what citizens, or at least those at the lower rungs of power in congress, wrote regarding the political events at the time. Source six displays a workingman’s option of the political atmosphere as one defined by class struggle. As a poor man he favored the Jacksonian Democrats to the National Republicans favored by the author of source seven who bemoans his harassment by the masses as a rich man who votes against Jackson. Slavery remained front and center in the political debate as witnessed by source eight. The compromise seeking Martin Van Buren sought to pass a gag rule to the detriment of the free speech of abolitionist Americans. The emergence of the Whig Party finally broke the Jacksonian Democrat’s control of the executive in 1840, partially because the Whigs got smart and went with a pseudo-Jackson in William Henry Harrison as source nine shows. Lastly, source ten depicts a partisan manifesto of Whig ideology.
Unlike many of the chapters in this reader, the scholarly essays in chapter eleven do not portray competing thoughts about the period. Rather the essays precede chronologically, the first dealing with the campaign which elected Jackson in 1828. Norma Basch believes that the ferocious campaign rhetoric was at its heart a redefining of masculinity; both competing definitions relied in part on a belittling of femininity. Secondly, Charles Sellers sees Jackson’s assault on the Second Bank of the United States as it relates to the class struggle narrative that was illustrated by sources six and seven. Jackson and Van Buren successfully portrayed the bank as a bastion of aristocratic influence and appealed to masses for support, much to Clay and Biddle’s detriment. Finally, the Brit Daniel Walker Howe attempts to discover where both the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs stood on the issues of the day and who made up their supporters. Given the fact that the Whigs’ economic policies undoubtedly favored the rich, Howe believes that the Whigs focus on “moral discipline” and values are what allowed them to relate to the workingmen.
The Whigs seem to be a more elitist party with functions for market capitalism. They want to protect the interests of the labor industry at least in the upper echelon. The party also seems to be founded on evangelical protestant ism. This pint was supplied by Howe. Howe also describes the party as trying to correct “wrongs” in society, such as drinking and prison reform, due to their religious zeal. The party was not as closely tied as the Jacksonians were. Also so members were part of the party due to their dislike of Jackson. The Jacksonians seem to be on the other side of the spectrum. They are a pro agrarian with a desire to limit the market revolution. The Jacksonians also consisted of wealthy southern planters that wanted to keep their slaves. The Jacksonians held a policy to keep slaves while Whigs were more on the side of abolitionists. The Jacksonian party was looked at as corrupt and deceiving. The author of the first essay Basch uses the differences in perceived morality as a culture war standpoint. Basch sets up Whigs as being portrayed by themselves as the moral leaders while Jackson is painted as a moral deviant. Jacksonians in return portray him as a brave general and westerner that embraces the love the people had of the western frontier. Howe provides examples that agree with Basch’s statements. Howe supplies that the Whig party did place themselves on a pedestal due to their zealous nature. Howe emphasizes the fact that the Whig party was elitist while the Jacksonian party was agrarian. Sellers provides the fact that Whigs seemed to want to support the establishment of the bank which implies a more capitalist view, while Jackson would stop at no cost to rid the country of the bank. His view can be seen as a simple agrarian one. Sellers supplies that Jackson believed the bank hurt the mass while helping the view. This displays a strong dislike of aristocrat superiority. Neither author says directly that the Whig party can be seen as a Federalist Party reborn however all the ideals are there. The Whig party has some of the same members as the Federalist Party before they defected to the Democrats. It also displays the same ideals of big business as well as a strong support of an aristocrat party. They also seem to want a large government that protects the interest of the laborer instead of the agrarian farmer at least in the market. They seem to be a re-envisioning of the old Federalist Party. The Whigs were just not as organized as they predecessor.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the Jacksonians and the Whigs were created by the differences in the impact of the Market Revolution on different sectors of America. Jackson was certainly a believer in majority rule and the virtues of the common man, but his party was big enough for wealthy western entrepreneurs and land speculators along with the much-revered yeoman farmers. The issue of the national bank revealed key divisions between the mindsets of Jacksonian believers in small government and limited powers and the Whig supporters of a proactive, commerce-promoting big government. Because the Jacksonians were able to transform a practical economic issue (will rechartering the national bank be a net gain or loss to American lenders?) into a culture war (this is an instrument of the rich to get wealthy off the real work of the poor, also unconstitutional), they were able to triumph. However, this victory had disastrous consequences for the country and for the Jacksonian Democrats; the economy fell apart during the presidency of Martin van Ruin and the Whigs were able to gain the presidency by using the Democratic strategy of running a war hero/Indian fighter. The Whigs could appeal to Americans by promising a better economy through government intervention, but they had to push away men like Philip Hone and pull in men like Calvin Colton, who discuss the poor in a relatively non-condescending way and condemn class warfare as against the interests of both rich and poor. After reading Sellers and Howe, I remembered that the Jacksonians could not all be populists in favor of mob rule, because Van Buren and Calhoun (for a while) were on their side, and that much of what historians remember as iconic Democratic politics was actually the stubborn hatred of one man, Andrew Jackson, for a bank that had supported attacks against his wife.
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats, spearheaded by Andrew Jackson, were self-proclaimed "defenders of democracy," as their name would suggest. According to Howe, the fundamental difference between the Whigs and the Jacksonians was that the Whigs were "redemptive" and the Jacksonians wanted "liberation" from the tyrannies of government. In other words, the Whigs wanted to perfect the current system and the Jacksonians wanted to alter it more drastically. Howe writes that this difference was most perfectly illustrated in the debate over the national debt. Democrats wished to entirely eradicate unnecessary taxation in an effort to "liberate" the people from economic oppression. However, the Whigs wished to maintain the current level of taxes in an effort to improve the general society through the construction of schools, asylums, and charities. To that end, the Whigs advocated a type of "self-sufficiency" that emphasized involvement in a community to fulfill the democratic ideals of the nation. However, Sellers argues that the primary issue that divided the Whigs and the Democrats was the issue of the national bank. Jackson wrote that he was "afraid of banks" and the potential for tyranny that the National Bank inherently possessed, while Nicholas Biddle in a letter to Henry Clay wrote that President Jackson's veto was a "manifesto of anarchy." This point however does support Howe's view of the differences between Whigs and Democrats; the Whigs wished to keep the bank in power while conceding to Jackson minor modifications, while Jacksonians wanted to do away with it entirely. According to Basch, the "culture war" resulted during the election of 1828 between President Adams and Jackson in which the contest turned out to be nothing more than a type of metaphorical arm wrestling to see who was more masculine. According to Basch, President Adams represented a type of intellectual masculinity typifying the "republican" ideals of piety, self-restraint, and devotion. On the other hand, Jackson represented a "romantic" ideal of masculinity symbolic of his frontier upbringing, his service during the War of 1812, and his show of strength against the Native Americans. However, Basch also argues that in the process of depicting Jackson as a strong defender of the republic, his supporters also painted him as a defender of women, whose very existence was meant to symbolize the purity and modesty championed by the early republic. In short, Basch argues that the election of 1828 symbolized a rejection of the old political generation of intellectuals like John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, and a welcoming of a new type of rugged individualistic American who was not afraid to wield his power as president. However, to typify Whigs as "elitists" and Jacksonians as "anti-elitist" and "mobocratic" is not entirely fair to either side. While the Whigs did more closely resemble the old Federalists, their emphasis on morality and republican ideals was much more pronounced than that of the Federalists. Additionally, to call the Jacksonians anti-elitists and mobocratic would be going too far. Howe writes that the Jacksonians were "callous" and cared nothing for blacks and women, but he also acknowledges that this Whigs did not recognize the equality of blacks, implying that they pushed the slavery issue for political reasons. As far as the accusation that Jacksonians were mobocratic is concerned, Sellers writes that Jackson was able to mobilize a "seemingly invincible army of disciplined Democratic voters;" while Jackson's supporters were understandably much more enthused than President Adams' supporters, they were still for the most part a "disciplined mob."
ReplyDeleteAs is typical of an opposing candidate, Adams' supporters wished to paint Jacksons' supporters as irrational and incapable of free thought in an effort to combat the momentum Jackson experienced. A similar occurrence happened in the 2008 election, when many of McCain's supporters tried to paint Obama's supporters as captives of rhetoric and unable to think for themselves. This tactic is not new in politics, and it certainly will be used again. Even today, Republicans are accused of being "elitist" and Democrats of being anti-business. While on the surface Jacksonians may have seemed anti-elitist, it would be more accurate to call them pro-yeoman, as they supported the Jeffersonian ideal of the virtues of the yeoman farmer, virtues that the Whigs similarly prized.
ReplyDeleteWhen discussing the major differences between the Jacksonians and Whigs, it comes down to differences in fiscal policy, which is largely brought on by the differences in the constituencies both parties represent. Theses differences were embodied in many of the large issues of the time such as Jackson’s battle with the Second Nation Bank and the election of 1828. Even smaller issues, as Norma Basch points out, such as marriage could be used to show the great divide that existed between pro-Jacksonians and pro-Whigs. For example, the Whig’s “broader commitment to moral didacticism, self-discipline, and institutional reforms”, led them to attempt to delineate and control the boundaries of marriage in order to enhance it as an institution. In contrast, the Jacksonian beliefs in cultural pluralism, laissez-faire government, and broad-based egalitarianism led them to take a stance on marriage in which they believed it was a “matter of individual and local concern”, and not up for the government to control. It is differences such as these that Basch bases her claims that a culture war pervaded against Whig and Jacksonian in the 1830’s. How could such a “war” be avoided when the divides between parties were so great and the stances taken so opposite of each other?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Sellers and Howe, I would have to agree with the suggestion that Jacksonian Democrats were nothing more than anti-elitist, mobocratic, populists while Whigs were elitist, establishment-bound, Federalists reborn. The anti-elitist claims about Jackson could not be more accurate as he was a president who deeply cared for the common man, especially if he was from the south, and battled the Second Bank of the United States, which was used by and run by the socially and politically elite, embodied by Nicholas Biddle. As far as mobocratic, populists, Sellers writes, “Old Hickory gradually mobilized a seemingly invincible army of disciplined Democratic voters. Never has the majority seemed so close to actually ruling…” This seems to suggest that evidence points out that indeed Jackson was a mobocratic, populist president who rode on the backs of the common man. As for the claims that whigs were elitists, Daniel Walker Howe points out quite early in his essay that,” the party’s economic program was quite clearly designed to appeal to the “haves” rather than “have-nots.” With this being said, it was most certainly the major factory owners and large scale plantation owners who benefitted from the party’s fiscal policies, not the small farmers and urban poor that flooded Jackson’s party. It seems fairly clear that this suggestion is quite accurate and that these differences go a long way in also confirming Basch’s point earlier that a cultural war was inevitable.
Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig Party were sharply divided on a few key issues in the mid-nineteenth century; primary amongst those was economic policy. The boisterous, Southern Jacksonian Democrats seemed to embody the independent minded Southern and Western farmers and settlers who did not want a large national government over them. Examples of this can be seen in their desire for the repeal of the national bank and their intense desire for expansion no matter what Indian tribe was in their way. Whigs were primarily more centralized in the North and desire a greater power for the national government to levy taxes and spend money to improve the infrastructure of the country. Jacksonians wished to preserve Thomas Jefferson’s agrarian centered dream for society in America, and feared that excess spending on things would damage the feasibility of this. Whigs, such as William Henry Harrison and Henry Clay, wished to provide things like roads and canals throughout the country to encourage more trade and business. Jacksonian Democrats successfully painted themselves as the party of the common American and his ideals, rather than the wealthy Whig Party.
ReplyDeleteI found Basch’s writing quite interesting when she spoke of the current political climate as more of a culture war than a political struggle. I liked this section because I could liken it easily to today’s current political environment. Just as in the mid-nineteenth century, America is currently in a culture war more so than a political struggle between two parties. I found the idealism she spoke of that Jackson’s followers portrayed on him was quite interesting and lead me to realize even more why he is considered one of the most impactful presidents in the history of the United States. Sellers and Howe both wrote about the populist appeal of the Jacksonian Democrats and why their message struck with common people. I liked Howe’s message of how the Whigs were a party that appealed mightily to people’s morals and ideals as a country. This appeal was countered by an even stronger message of opposition and a refusal to be controlled by Jacksonian Democrats on the frontier. These people would have preferred greater freedoms and lowered taxes to any of the new ideas that the Whigs were bringing about. This section made me realize how divided the country really was at this time period and why tensions were as high as they were leading up to the Civil War. I found the reactionary voting patterns of Catholic vs. Protestant interesting as well as the ongoing issue of slavery rearing its head throughout. I think that politically both parties were smart to brand their opponents how they did. I believe, for the most part, they were both pretty accurate with their accusations. The Jacksonian Democrats really did seem anti-elitist while the Whig Party’s emphasis on a stronger national government bore a striking resemblance to the former Federalists.
Jacksonian Democrats held steadfast to the Jeffersonian ideals that originated within the republican party prior to the dismantling of the Federalist party. With the formation of the Whig party out of the one party system that had dominated American culture throughout the era of good feeling (or bad feelings), there came a second two party system, as the Whigs would adopt the old, more nationalist, federalist ideals (minus the aristocratic leanings).
ReplyDeleteJackson’s election would also mark a major turning point in American politics outside the formation of a second party system. Himself the embodiment of the American narrative, a Southerner born into poverty that ultimately attained enormous wealth and power, Jackson is the first true populist candidate. He was not all that academic, and definitely did not come from an elite family. In short, from the election of 1828 on, candidates needed a certain element of approachability.
Bosch argues that this environment created a culture war that stemmed from the election of 1828, as the incumbent, Quincy Adams, embodied the stately, anti-populist candidate that had dominated American politics from the onset of the union. Whigs would view the new populist candidates as Brutish, which gave them the perception of being elitist-creating a definite political dichotomy.
Jackson- and his party behind him- seems thoroughly convinced that he knows what is best for the country, that he knows which laws are "constitutional," that he knows which states' interests are American and which are unAmerican... Jackson was elected based on charisma and his record of getting results: if that was his mandate, he was very good at fulfilling it.
ReplyDeleteJackson defended his argument with the constitution when he warred with Henry Clay over improvements and he ignored the constitution and the Judicial when it came to the bank of the United States and Indian removal. The law was only as important as it was useful. Jackson, and his party, behaved in the way that many popular movements do...they gained power through pointing out dissatisfaction rather than by creating a consistent platform- and once they had power they set to using it freely (claiming popular mandate) and ensuring that their enemies had no voice of opposition.
The Whigs are a grab bag of the influential but displaced aristocracy and political leadership... I don't see any more of a platform or central ideology in the Whigs than i do in Jackson's party. They are pro-congress and pro-judiciary (pro- government) because those are the arms of influence that they had control of...checks and balances were the only hope they had of countering Jackson's executive power (which he was freely expanding).
Basch portrays the Whigs as stuffed shirts compared to Jackson's romanticism. The political ideology is not the difference, for Basch, the big difference is in personal conduct. The Whigs believed in restraint and the proper channels (the way things are done). Jackson believed in himself. Somewhere in between are the Democrats: the Van Burenites, who seem to be riding Jackson's image into power but they are well hidden in this chapter and this article.
Sellers seems to be as impressed with Jackson as the contemporary populace was. 'He might have been brash and unprecedented in his actions: but at least he was willing to stand up for his principles...and those principles sided with the REAL people of the US' or something like that. Sellers does offer great anecdotes to show just how the country reacted to Jackson (specifically regarding the bank).
Howe characterizes the Whigs as idealists, who were willing to support "the right cause" no matter its popularity. He compares them to John Stuart Mill. In the face of this sort of responsible, moral, decision making Jackson comes off as an irresponsible and unqualified renegade who did everything that he could to dismantle the American Government.