Do you agree that the 1790s were years filled with political crises? Why/not? Drawing from Waldstreicher, Lewis, and/or Ashworth, how would historians who disagree with you construct their arguments?
After doing this week’s readings it’s hard not to agree that the 1790’s were a time of turmoil filled with political crises. When doing the reading’s it wasn’t until I started reading about the late 90’s that I would fully agree with the times being filled with crises. In the beginning of the 1790’s you saw a lot of turmoil as parties were trying to gain power. The mood turned as in the eighties it was a time of great celebration as media began to grow people were reading more and more about celebrations concerning America’s new found freedom and riots/parties celebrating the death of George the third and the British authority over the new America. As the people took to the streets to celebrate their new country an internal split was building individual parties wanted power. As Appleby states the Republican party was building its party on the principle of hope. Other parties had their own ways of trying to gain power. Many of these early parties were on the fence about many of the same topics it was hard to tell what they really stood for, therein lies one key problem even the Republican party which wanted to show hope didn’t fully stand for just this my favorite quote from this week’s reading was about Madison and his republic. “Madison’s republic was in a race against time”. Madison believed that the United States was going to develop just like Britain did in to a population of landless poor at best America could only prevent this in his eyes and not stop it completely. During the early stages of the newly found America John Adams would become president but due to the turmoil of the late 1790’s his re-election campaign would fail. There were some huge problems that arose during his presidency; one was based off the other. His huge problem he faced was with France and the Quasi-War which would lead to the Alien Sedition Acts being made. The quasi war was a undeclared war between American and French forces the war only lasted about two years from 1798-1800. Although the war was undeclared it scared the Americans a great deal. As Lewis states in the reading “ Both Federalists and Republicans expressed doubts that there would even be an election in the two or three years before the electors finally cast their votes in December of 1800. You can hardly say the 1790’s were years without great political turmoil if two major parties were unsure there would even be an election because of a possible upcoming war with France. In the end however things always seem worse as you go through them. It was a scary time for the country during this time with the war against France possibly looming. During this time is when Adams enacts the Alien and Sedition Acts which pretty much gave the president authority to deport any resident alien he wanted to, as well as extending the duration of residence required for them to become full citizens to 14 years. Adams would end the undeclared war with the France but sadly news of this did not reach the people in time to save his re-election. After the readings I felt like the times were filled with political turmoil, but I did not see eye to eye with everything I read. I felt like the authors were very dramatic and may have over analyzed certain things to make the times see more uncertain and unstable than they really were. The authors based these theories on several quotes of the time, and took several of the quotes out of context I felt.
After completing the readings I tend to agree that the 1790’s were filled with political crises, but in my view they mostly resemble growing pains more than outright political crises. Debates over national finance, security and taxes took center stage, issues that dominate American discourse today. The nascent factions in American politics that debated the Constitution were coalescing into political parties vying for power, and it was the struggle between the two with no precedent to guide their competition that seems to have made the decade so contentious. Their philosophies of the Federalists and the former Anti-Federalists spilled over into the major policy battles like national credit and tax policy, which judging by Jefferson’s protest was a clash over the reach of the Constitution more than the merits of a central bank or any single tax. This split over issues such as public credit and the national bank aroused Republican fears that Federalists sought to recreate America in Britain’s image, and these fears were heightened by the Jay Treaty with its favoritism towards Britain. Further centralization of power in the Federal government and seemingly closer relations with Great Britain over revolutionary France only confirmed Republican fears about Federalist intentions. The crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion did nothing to allay those fears either. The move in my view was entirely understandable; the weak Articles had to virtually beg state militias to maintain order, and affirming the government’s ability to enforce laws would be necessary to instilling confidence in the government. We know today where such precedent would lead, but Republicans and their revolutionary experience saw an alarming example of centralized power being used to oppress citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts which essentially outlawed dissent against Federalist policies increased the animosity between the two as well. The argument that the decade was full of political crises was given added weight when through the analysis of the “what-ifs” provided in Waldstreicher’s article. Issues similar to those discussed occur even today (Patriot Act, TARP, tax increase fears), but without an established order through which to deliberate and decide on them potentially disastrous contingencies were postulated by the then minority Republicans. This was especially true for the election of 1800, really the watershed moment for the proposed peaceful transfer of power embodied (vaguely) In the constitution. With Washington stepping down, what would happen if the Federalists or Republicans won? Both parties saw the potential for duplicity and disaster from their opponent and contemplated extralegal methods to prevent such a perceived catastrophe; the key point to remember when analyzing these crises however is that both factions made their plans contingent on the other side circumventing protocol. Initially plans were made in the event that elections may not occur, viewed as likely by both sides due to suspicion of the other. These suspicions exploded with the tie in the voting for the Presidency, specifically because the procedure to break a tie was not laid out in the Constitution. Mutual suspicion on both sides had the potential to make the stalemate a crisis but neither side aimed to seize power unfairly and none came to fruition. This event cemented the end of a decade of great uncertainty spawned by the novelty of the Constitution. Would it work? Could it work? Could the other side be trusted to answer these questions in the affirmative? Despite the surrounding controversies and fears both sides held, the transfer was conducted peacefully. In sum, while it’s fair to say the 1790’s were filled with political controversy, it’s important to remember that the novelty and importance of being the first were really more potent factors in the tension that the gravity of the issues facing the nation. Those same issues still endure in political discourse today.
Following my readings this week I would agree to the statement that the 1790s were indeed a period of political crises. It is important to note that the decade preceding the 90s was one of great celebrations and a common sense of patriotism. David Waldstreicher notes in his that newspapers and media perpetuated this sense of patriotism by telling of extraordinary parties and gleeful public celebrations. My favorite quote from the reading is from a gentleman from Massachusetts who exclaims, “Plato thanked heavens he was born in the age of Socrates: I give thanks that I was born an American.” All across the country citizens were pumped full of American nationalism and the feeling of triumph over those bastards across the big lake. “New Yorkers tore down the statue of George III and hacked it to pieces and in other places the monarch’s picture and royal arms were ceremoniously burned,” states Waldstreicher. The country was in a Dionysian state of euphoria, however like most good times, a hangover is sure to follow. Questions began to arise from the public on how the debts and war bond issues would be resolved. Some wanted a national government to control this, while others feared the power that might ensue from establishing such a system, after all they had just defeated an oppressive power. From these questions political parties gave birth, to the dismay of the framers. The election of 1800 encapsulated a period of great political turmoil. America, under John Adams had been in a Quasi-War with France for two years, resulting in utter French defeat. It was time for a change in the executive and the country was split between Thomas Jefferson, the agrarian Republican, and Aaron Burr, the Federalist. The two had the country divided like oil and water. Jefferson preached that America should be an agriculture economy with self -sustaining yeoman farmers, and contain a less intrusive central government. Burr on the other hand, like most Federalists, wanted a strong central government and the creation of an economic empire in America. The schism was so deep that Alexander Hamilton proclaimed if the Republicans lost, “Virginia would resort to the employment of physical force.” There were also talks of secession in states such as South Carolina. Jefferson, as James E. Lewis points out in his article, feared the Federalists would prevent an election all together and thus the presidency would fall to the president pro tempore of the senate, then the Speaker of the House, both of whom were Federalists. There was so much shady activity going on that it was difficult for each party and their followers to trust the other, it was not that the other party simply had contrasting ideas, in their minds they were the ‘enemies of liberty.’ Thus when Jefferson was elected to the presidency in 1800 it was dubbed the “Revolution of 1800.” Jefferson, as quoted by John Ashworth, proclaimed that Republicans cherished the people, while Federalists feared or despised them; the Jeffersonian faithful were hopeful about the future, the Republicans were not. As you can imagine these powerful statements reverberated throughout the country and further deepened the trench lying between the two parties. Thus it is difficult to say, although some do, that the 1790s were not a time of political crisis. Those who claim the decade of 1790 not to be a political crisis draw from the fact that America was simply experiencing “growing pains.” This was unprecedented territory for the new countrymen and every step they took was in uncharted territory, they were “in a wilderness without a footstep to guide us.” Of course there will be political turmoil when formulating the ideas of a new country, everyone had a different opinion, but it was turmoil nonetheless and cannot be justified as “growing pains.”
The 1790s ushered in an era where clashes would emerge as a result of the farmers feeling that their democracy was being taken from them. Likewise, the wealthy elites in the country thought that there should be less democracy in their hands. Factions began to emerge between the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Republicans led by Madison and Jefferson. These two parties were split in the manner that the Republicans tended to want to progress socially, while the Federalists were interested in progressing economically. This analysis is not to say that there was a political crisis, because the word “crisis” implies that there is something fundamentally wrong needing to be fixed. Instead, what one finds is simply the beginnings of the modern day political system that, one can argue, simply protects the interests of the people that it represents. Waldstreicher focuses his interpretation of the Revolutionary era with an analysis of Americans nationalism that came out of local celebrations and the press. These celebrations and rituals that were continually reprinted gave rise to a nationalists ideology that encompassed the nation. Whether this be in the form of parades, funerals, or birthdays, celebrations were used to promote national sentiments among the people. Historians such as Waldstreicher would disagree with my interpretation of factions splitting the populace due to the fact such historians believe that most Americans were under the same mindset, that of some kind of American nationalism. Yet, such as I do, he fails to see any real political crisis of the 1790s. He states that most citizens comprehend republicanism and are united virtuously devoted to the needs of the nation. He even goes as far as to say that the problem that we facing the nation at the time were “incidental, local, passing, past.” Lewis, on the other hand, would seriously disagree with my interpretation about a political crisis. He brings up the fact that there was a quasi-war with France, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and rebellions to fuel a sense of crisis. These rivalries that would form rifts in social and business relationships. Some people did not even want a president if their candidate was not elected. People began to be “willing to take unconstitutional steps, if needed, to foil the unconstitutional designs of the Federalists.” Lewis argues that a “disunion or a military takeover or usurpation or a new constitutional convention” would be more profitable to the Republicans than to let the Federalists take over. While it can be said that both groups clearly disliked each other to the point of hatred, how is this idea different from politics of today? While there were major policy disputes leading up to the election of 1800, one cannot say that this constitutes a political crisis. Instead, it was just the result of a new type of politics that arose out of a new type of government.
Ashworth focuses on a different type of crisis that emerged, not out of the two party system, but out of the Republican party itself. Ashworth states that it is hard to say “where the party’s ideological centre of gravity lay.” Republicans embraced democracy, especially in the South, with the idea that their positions would be safe. Slavery created a common identity among whites that depended on slave labor and those poorer whites to the point where they could be made as Republican allies. Because of this fact, the nation may have seen a greater force to the republic becoming more of a democracy. The question of how slavery took a role in the nation and the forming of the Republicans is beyond the point. The fact that the Republicans could not precisely pinpoint where their boundaries lie again does not create a crisis. It creates a question that needs to be addressed. Therefore, one can say that my argument holds up concerning there being no real political crisis to speak about. Without a doubt there were major policy decisions that needed to be addressed between the two parties and within the Republican party, but this does not constitute a crisis. The situation of the 1790s is worth understanding for the better comprehensive of the formation of our government, but to use the term “crisis” to describe it is a bit of an overstatement.
I most definitely agree that that the period is filled with political crises and instability in the national government. Waldstreicher on the other hand I think would beg to differ. He section focused on the nationalism and patriotism that arose after the revolution. His main points were constructed around the celebrations of events that took place and how the people were in awe of the new government and their newfound freedom. I feel like he just took what was already said in the first chapter and went into in farther depth. Reading his section made me feel like everything was good and all the American people were perfectly happy with everything and the people just celebrated after the revolution. He did not focus on the political side or anything of real depth besides celebrating. I think he would have probably been the writer to just talk about all the happiness after the revolution instead of addressing the real issues. After Reading Lewis’s portion of the chapter was really what got me to see that there was definitely a national government crisis-taking place in the 1790’s. He definitely opened my eyes to many things I did not know about how the world of politics in this country was made and built. I feel like he makes it seem like that the majority of the people involved were the wealthy and politicians and did not say very much about the peoples reaction to the constitution and all the happenings. Woody Holton definitely got the point across that the people were not happy with the way things were progressing and I liked that I got both sides of the story from different historians. Learning more about the Burr – Jefferson election was fascinating because I virtually did not know very much about it. The fact that the country was almost disassembled so many times during that election was astounding and I am not very impressed that somehow they made it work. For instance that Virginia and Pennsylvania assembled the militia to go to Washington just incase the Federalists pulled something the Republicans did not like is amazing. The goings on and distrust between the two parties was very interesting because in the end they still managed to get some things accomplished together. The amount of sheer distrust between the people and the parties and the fact that a civil war did not break out 50 years earlier seems like a miracle to me. If there had only been the Articles of Confederation while all of this was happening I am almost positive that would not have been strong enough to hold the country together. I agree with Lewis in his point when he says that the men’s commitment to the Constitution was the sole purpose they were able to learn to compromise and do everything they could to keep the country from politically and governmentally blowing up. Ashworth’s section was also very enjoyable because I like how he focused on the differences in the Republican party and points out that not everyone in the party agreed with each other. He also discussed how slavery in the south influenced the Republican party. I could see from that how the Republican parties decisions and ideas were reflected on southern issues. The importance of slavery in the south at this time was really the glue that kept the Republican Party together. I have thought over and over again about how the historians who disagreed with the point that there was a huge political crisis in the 1790’s would construct their arguments. It is just not possible to know all the information of the political goings on at this time and not believe in a political crisis. These people were on the verge of a second revolution involving each other. I think they would just be ignoring the facts if they said that the divisions in the government at this time were really nothing and it would have worked out eventually either way.
The 1790’s in America were years filled with political scandals and uprisings and this turmoil did not end until the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The 1790’s saw a divide forming on the American political landscape and pitted former colleagues against one another. The two parties that arose out of this divide were known as Federalists and Republicans. These parties formed in part over Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal reforms and pitted him against his former friend James Madison. Numerous, “events at home and abroad deepened this political divide after 1791. “ The French Revolution and quasi war with the French, the Jay Treaty of 1794, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 were just some of the “hot button issues of the age.” After the election of John Adams, “a sense of crisis in the United States that lasted throughout his presidency. “ According to historian James Lewis this upheaval did not end until Jefferson’s election in 1800. Lewis states that both sides believed the other would transform the government for the worse. The heated debate that surrounded the election of 1800 almost turned the country toward civil war and the Republicans feared “disunion, or a military takeover or a usurpation” by the Federalist government. Lewis agrees with my claim that the 1790’s were a period of great political upheaval. John Ashworth does agree that there was great political upheavals in the 1790’s but he cautions historians to examine the divisions inside the two respective parties, and in particular, that slavery played a part in the Republican and Jeffersonian ideology. According to Ashworth, since Republicans gained much of their support from the South slavery helped the south “embrace Republicanism.” As Ashworth states, “the South could embrace democracy in the confident belief that their own positions would be safe.” Ashworth believes that this “Jeffersonian populism” that originated in the south helped shape the Republican Party. He also asserts that this ideology along with “the role of Southern leaders in the Republican party,” helped dominate the platform of the early Republican ideology and platform. David Waldstreicher believes that the 1790’s were not a period of great upheaval but Americans all, to a certain extent believed in republicanism and were adherents to American nationalism. This is evident when he states, “The ‘generality’ of citizens not only comprehend republicanism but show joy on their faces and ‘decency’ in demeanor.” Waldstreicher traces this “nationalism” back to the Revolutionary period by examining independence celebrations and newspaper reports of these parties. He does concede that there were divisions in the 1790’s but although there were partisan divisions they again used these national celebrations but were “absorbed as direct links between the people.” A historian that wanted to craft an argument against my assertion would begin by saying that although there were disagreements the majority of citizens wanted to preserve the union and the democratic ideals that it boasts. The 1790’s were a period of great tension and turmoil. There were numerous scandals and arguments and it was not “capped” until the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.
The political battles of the 1790’s pitted old friends and vast segment of the new nation squarely against each other. The Federalist position, which was most fervently articulate in the chapter by Alexander Hamilton, looked to strengthen the national government first and foremost economically. An important element of Hamilton’s theory that he articulates in the first document in the chapter which I was unable to pick up on in lecture was the directness with which Hamilton countered Republican objections to his financial schemes. There are numerous mentions in this document to Jefferson and his objections to Hamilton’s attempts to consolidate the towering debt into one national pile. In fact, the very next document details a debate between Jefferson and Hamilton over the constitutionality of the new bank which Hamilton viewed as an essential element to his economic plans. From these first two documents it becomes clear just how immensely personal this debate was to the men at the top of the newly created governmental hierarchy. Without any doubt, men like Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson directly associated the political ideologies they detested with faces, often faces of old friends. While some of the proceeding documents illustrate reactions to the public debate over policies on a more grassroots level, such as the poems and songs to certain candidates or issues and the circulars of two Democratic-Republican societies, two of them give the reactions of George Washington to the occurrences of the times. It is quite clear from Washington’s farewell speech that our first president was intensely troubled by the partisan animosity that had swept the nation (and indeed his own cabinet) during his tenure as president. Another document worth special attention in this section is the Kentucky Legislature’s protest to the Federal Government’s implementation of the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is especially noteworthy to point out that the Kentucky Legislature chooses to cite the Tenth Amendment in its protest. This is the same amendment that Jefferson points to numerous times in his debate with Hamilton in document two. The introduction to this chapter mentions that Jefferson himself “approved” the Kentucky Legislature’s protest; this can hardly be a conscience. Moreover, it is thought provoking to think that Hamilton wrote in opposition to a bill of rights in the Federalist Papers, and as soon as he came to power he used all his influence to run rough shot over its passage. The chapter concludes with a series of three scholarly essays. First David Waldstreicher offers a more nuanced interpretation the role of festivals and celebrates, specifically with regard to their close relationship to the print media and contributions to fostering a sense of nationalism, than Clinton Rossiter provided us in chapter one. James Lewis’ essay illustrates just how dramatic the political crisis that plagued this period of United States’ history truly was with his examination of the election of 1800. Lewis is able to show that Republicans had a real fear that the Federalists might actually subvert the Constitution in order to stay in power. Finally, John Ashworth’s brief essay attempts to strengthen the connection between the policies and support for the Jeffersonian Republicans with the slaveholding interests that the majority of the party’s supporters looked to further.
How can we say that there was not a political crisis? The most destructive force in the history of American politics was formed fully during the 1790s: political parties. What so many, including our beloved founders, had feared was coming to fruition. It seemed that there was no avoiding it. There had always been factions of people who agreed or disagreed on certain issues, but before many views overlapped in those groups. Now, a two-party system was forming where men on each side completely and utterly opposed 70-90% of the other side’s views. I think it’s a little funny that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (later Republicans) had so much abhorrence for each other. I guess the system was new and people didn’t have a full concept to deal with others who were diametrically opposed to them. Anyway, to get back to the point in the question: a number of significant events occurred during the 1790s that made for an interesting decade. The seemingly endless French Revolution, the Jay Treaty, the whiskey tax and later rebellion, the animosity towards the French, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were all fairly major events in American history in general. The future direction of the republic was in question. In reference to my claim that there was a political crisis in the 1790s, I’d like to bring in Waldstreicher. He talks about early on in his essay about the huge symbol and subconscious meanings that people give to these celebrations and publication of the events. Waldstreicher focuses mainly on the Revolutionary era in his writing, but you can take his claim a step farther by juxtaposing the type of pride these celebrations stood for in the 1790s. In this time period one reason for the strong opposition on either side could be from the celebrations, toasts, and reprinting of political articles to raise loyalty to people’s political parties. Once people were stuck in these parties, they would believe that the other side is being unpatriotic and is an enemy in the same way that Waldstreicher says happens in the late 1770s and early 1780s. From Lewis’ piece it is evermore clear that the two factions in the country were scared that if the other got in power it would rip the country apart or into war. I feel like that is a pretty good sign that you are in the midst of a political crisis. But hey, wait a minute; didn’t extremists on both sides in this past election feel the same way? Another point: I believe that people in both factions felt a sense of urgency to quickly set up a more uniform stable government since the French Revolution kept continuing to put the Americans to question their own government. I also will put my input into the political events of the 1790s. I firmly believe that the Jeffersonians had a claim that they were the closest in nature to what the Constitutional government called for. I see the Alien and Sedition Acts a major crime of the federal government and it’s a blessing to Americans past and present that that terrible act in 1798 didn’t last very long. One thing that I am a little iffy on is the Jay Treaty. I would feel that it did more good than bad, even though most every Republican in the late 1790s would probably disagree with that. The Jay Treaty eventually helped us grow economically more than we could have without the help of Great Britain’s trade. The whisky tax was also another one of Hamilton’s ideas that could have been better served staying on the drawing boards. Hamilton did raise our economy out of the slums, but his loose constructionist methods as treasury secretary seemed to stir up some pretty God-awful violent responses.
After reading the chapter and essays in “The Political Crises of the 1790s” I would have to agree with the chapter title and say that the decade of the 1790s was filled with extreme political crisis. From the new development of opposing political parties, the Republicans and the Federalists, the new development of foreign relations, the nation’s reaction to the Jay Treaty of 1794 and the XYZ Affair, and the new development of opposing interpretations of the Constitution the decade of the 1790s was surrounded by political crisis and turmoil in almost every aspect of American life. The main cause of this decade of political crisis was most certainly due to the theme of uncertainty: from farmers to political elite, poor to rich, every social group under the new federal form of the government and the Constitution were unsure on how this “experiment” would necessarily work, and if it didn’t work how long would this “experiment” last. This uncertainty and new form of a national government was the major reason why historians look back into the 1790s as a decade of complete political crisis and turmoil. One historian who may disagree with the assumption that the 1790s were a decade of political crisis is David Waldstreicher. In his essay “Public Celebrations, Print Culture, and American Nationalism” Waldstreicher argues that the time leading up the 1790s, more specifically the Revolutionary Era was the emergence of “American nationalism from the conjunction of local celebrations and their reproduction in the press.” He argues that the celebrations and the vast amount of publications that followed after the victory over the British embodied both American mobilization of intellectual thought and this new concept of a “nationalist ideology.” Through the 1770s and 1780s, Waldstreicher argues that the American nationalist ideology developed and furthered. By the 1790s Waldstreicher would argue that the 1790s were not a decade and period of political turmoil and crisis but rather a decade of extending the American nationalist ideology more specifically into the political realm of American life. In my opinion, Waldstreicher would argue that the development of opposing parties the Republicans and the Federalists was not a form of political crisis like many other historians argue, rather Waldstreicher would say the formation of these two opposing parties was a direct response to American nationalist ideology that roots back to the Revolutionary era. Lewis would completely differ with the view of Waldstreicher as shown in his essay “Political Crisis and the ‘Revolution of 1800.” Lewis writes, “The election of 1800 capped a period of intense partisan rivalry in the United States. The Quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the expansion of the army, Fries’ Rebellion, and the countless other developments fueled the sense of crisis in the United States that lasted the entirety of Adams’s presidency.” Lewis here argues that the time of the 1790s, especially Adams’s presidency was a time filled of political turmoil and crisis and there is no way around saying that this time period did not experience any political crisis or turmoil. Only until the election of 1800, Lewis argues, that this “political turmoil” would begin to return to the backburner of America. The development and opposing ideas between the Federalists and the Republicans of how the government should function socially, politically, and economically was clearly the main fuel of the political crisis many historians to believe occurred in the decade after the ratification of the Constitution.
Although the 1790's was a time of great excitement and anxiety, I do not perceive it as a time of crisis. I don't consider mass grass roots support for their country any form of a crisis, in fact, I take that as an opportunity for the government to form unity and cohesion within the American people. In Waldstreicher's essay, he emphasises a great deal of the process that created American Patriotism [something arguably seen only in one country in the world]. The love for country, not government, was spurred on in the 1790's, and I think this was the beginnings of the Patriotism that was eventually completed in the late 1860's. Waldstreicher notes that the American system of celebrating nationalism is very similar to the way that Britons had been doing it for a century: "The mobilization of citizens to celebrate patriotic occasions, with the reprinting of accounts of these events" (78). He goes on to say that these celebrations were not "after thoughts to independence" or "symbolizations of accumulated oedipal anxieties" (78), but rather they were "deliberate responses" to the ideals that were held in the Revolution. Although these celebrations did generate somewhat violent behavior [burning of George III effigies, etc...], they are not nearly enough to be considered crises. It would be overly favorable to sensationalism to uphold the opinion that the events of the 1790's were, in fact, crises. For instance, many would cite the two-party system's formation as a moment of crisis, but if that is a crisis, then the United States has been living in a state of crisis since its Founding and we may need to make a few adjustments so we're not in such bad shape. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the natural" (93). Further more, minuscule riots and rebellions around the country with minimal casualties and property damage would rarely be considered a crisis today. In James E. Lewis Jr.'s essay concerning such dreadful crises in this era, he notes the "Quasi-War with France" as another reason for such chaotic times. Personally, I do not feel that a "quasi-war" actually created a sense of crisis in America during this time. Today, the United States is fighting in two full wars, and yet we would consider our only state of crisis to be in our wallets. Perhaps the only event that can be considered a crisis is the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The statement, "...any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government...shall be punished..." is chilling, but it was not a long-lived piece of legislation and [to the best of my knowledge] it did not cause any form of riots or public upheaval. Although there were many points of contention in the 1790's, I believe it unwarranted to claim it as a "Time of Crisis."
The 1790’s were years filled with political development: an era when the structure of the government was tested , the limits of the constitution were explored, and the sustainability of the republic was bolstered; this was not really crisis. The two disagreeing interests, the Federalists and the Republicans, seemed each to believe that the other was out to ruin the young republic, that crisis was the inevitable outcome if they themselves did not control the government (and most importantly the Executive), but from every bit of evidence that I have encountered in this chapter neither party was actually willing to sacrifice the accomplishments of the revolution.
This was an era without precedence. The constitution was untested in legislation and in court. All that there was to guide politics was the “spirit” of the republic. The disagreement between the Federalists and Republicans may have approached crisis, and in the minds of the men involved crisis may have seemed inevitable, but the politics of the 1790’s did not reach the point of crisis (in my opinion) , and this is because, in their own very different view of the best course of action, the leaders on both sides of the disagreement had America’s best interest at heart.
Reporting on the Public Credit, Alexander Hamilton claimed that the ends of his plan were: “to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice...to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against foreign attack’ to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy.” Hamilton’s plan was, in his mind, the best way to strengthen America. He was not trying to break-down the government; the government was new, and Hamilton wanted to make sure that it would take a shape that could last. Hamilton and Jefferson’s debate over Hamilton’s aggressive (and not strictly constitutional) plans centered (according to our primary reading) on the word “necessary.” Not the makings of a crisis, not in the hands of men who were well aware of the consequences of their decisions. The sedition act and the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions tested the limits of stability. The Principles, Articles, and Regulations of the Democratic Society of Pennsylvania say: “The public good is indeed its sole object.” Both sides of this, admittedly contentious, debate were staunch in their focus on the sustainability of America. I don’t believe that this was simply the rhetoric of today’s politicians, who have to appeal to the populace with their ever political action. I believe that this was the truth, and that this truth is what prevented crisis. (continued)
(continued)David Waldsteicher’s article seems to agree that crisis was not the best way to describe the early republic. His description of the ritualistic celebrations throughout the nation says that American’s avoided dwelling on the uncertainty of their present “by always celebrating the future.”
James E. Lewis’s article would certainly disagree with my assertion, its called “Political Crisis and the ‘Revolution” of 1800. He says, “The quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the expansion of the army, Fries’ Rebellion and countless other developments fueled a sense of crisis in the United States that lasted the entirety of Adam’s presidency.” He points out that “each side believed that the other would destroy the nation if it controlled the executive branch.” In the election of 1800 both sides, in secret intraparty debates, contemplated strategies to usurp the presidency (precisely what Washington warned that parties would lead to).
Well, one side did win that election. The republic did not fall. Compromise won, and it won because these men (on the average) were unwilling to allow America to fail no matter what. Lewis says: “Men of both parties trusted, correctly as it happened, in what Galllatin described as a general ‘love of union and order’ to preseree the constitution.” Lewis calls the era one of crisis but he does not completely portray it as so (by my estimation).
John Ashworth may agree with my argument. His is article about the effect of slavery in the make-up of the Jeffersonian-Republican party questions the uniformity of that group. He portrays Madison as a man who did see the Republic at a point of crisis, “Madison’s republic was in a race against time.” Jefferson, on the other hand, didn’t seem to be afraid of crisis, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storm in the natural.” Ashworth’s article is fascinating (“It was in large part slavery which enabled Americans to embrace republicanism,” “Aristocrats could more safely preach equality in a slave society than a free one”) and it draws attention to the fact that the make-up of America’s democratic republic warrants a much closer examination, that the Republicans might not have been as purely republican as they professed. This does not, in my mind, argue that the era was one of crisis. Like every other aspect of this chapter his article points out the inconsistency of the formative years of the republic, but that inconsistency is to be expected and is probably necessary in a new democracy. Inconsistency is not crisis.
This week’s readings about the political crisis in the 1790s were extremely interesting and vital in understanding the rise of party formations. If you were a partier and loved to celebrate, the late 1780s and early 1790s were for you as our newly formed centralized government was celebrating patriotism. However, being the time right after the constitution was adopted; politicians were split and the formations of different party systems were being born. The Federalist was leaning on one side of the fence while the formation of the republicans was leaning the other way. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist seemed to have one strong subject on their minds, economic capitol. Yes, it was a period of extreme transition but crisis and were we really going to go against the farther of our nation and create partisan? Waldstericher seemed to really center on how American nationalism came as a result to the Revolutionary War. Of course it doesn’t stop there when parties were beginning to form and celebrations to symbolize individuals’ loyalty to a certain party. Now the preference of your party was going to be public knowledge for all of your fellow countrymen to see which created biased thoughts about opposite party formations that have gone on and still exist today. Waldstericher mostly concentrates on the Revolutionary era and from analyzing his essay, I think it is safe to say that he felt like their wasn’t a political crisis, that the party systems came was a result of the Revolutionary War and the nationalism that derived from it. After reading Lewis’s essay, I believe it’s fair to say that he is in complete contradictory to Waldstericher opinion. During Adams time in office, there were extreme events taking place that totally defined what a political crisis is. The Quasi-War (undeclared navy war) with France was enough split the nation apart but going even further with the Alien and Sedition Acts really put the nail on the coffin. John Adams infringed on our nation’s constitutional rights and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were quick to retaliate with the Kentucky Resolution, “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force” This exemplified the political crisis of the 1790s and mostly that of John Adams presidency. He ended the war with France but it was not enough to save him for another election. After reading Ashworth’s essay, it is clear to say that in sense republicanism relied on slaves. The South was supported the Republican Party and without the slaves there would not have been the confidence the south had. During 1790s, there was political crisis from all the events that were happening. However, it does seem avoidable considering this was a time of domestic transition and foreign altercations due to the French Revolution. At the time no one knew if partisans would continue to happen in this newly formed government, obviously political parties still deal with the same issue today but is nowhere near a crisis like those of the 1790s.
I would absolutely agree that this was a time of great turmoil. The country is taking an internal beating as soon as it claims itself free and independent. I think this is obviously apparent with the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson calls it right out as he sees it. He foresees a national bank coming in and taking the country over. Jefferson makes firm argumentative points to conclude that a national bank is unconstitutional and the incorporation of such an institution is not only unnecessary but will only help the few. Hamilton steps right up and fills his argument with tons of fluff about how the national government has the sovereign right to establish such an institution and all the great benefits of such. Reading between the lines it seems that they both know exactly what is going on and they are only willing to deliberate at such a level where it seems they don't.
Waldstreicher points right out that the people were high on the success of their war victory and independence. As a result it was seen that maybe the people were unaware as to what was going on in the deliberations of their government. Did they notice that they were about to be taken hostage by bankers and tax-collectors because of their festivities and veil of masquerade. The art of using rhetoric against the people is an age old game.
When Lewis writes about the revolutionary feelings resonated with Jefferson's presidency win, I feel it only argues more for the point that the people in fact did know what was going on and was trying desperately to stay in tuned with the nature of their revolutionary war win with this presidential win. Hopefully from this presidency they could restore the republic as it should be and not to the fixation of the federalists. After Jefferson wins, the federalists start to panic and plan on what they can do to maintain the powers they have enacted already. Jefferson was afraid they would conspire to make the government into a renewed monarchy of sorts. He knew that those of the federalist side were seeking to not unify the states to have a "solid nation" but more of a an economic state they could benefit from and manage to progress their own well being instead of being the intellectuals they all posed to be and conspired to unify the states to better the world. The Federalists were prepared to take advantage of the people in its incubation stages of government and turn it right into a money making cash cow for the elites. Jefferson did what he could to maintain the ideas expressed in the Declaration and how given the opportunity man would live up to his expectations of a unified state. Jefferson even saw from turmoil that good would come from it, whereas the Federalists only saw fear of what they had accomplished as failing or being overthrown. I think this was definitely a time of turmoil. Maybe not for every individual, but for any individual who participated willingly and unwillingly in this battle of one versus all.
Historians, including many that have been featured in this section of the reading, have called the period of the 1790s a period of great political crises, and even the statesmen who lived in this time called it a period of a second revolution. I would certainly agree that the 1790s were a time of great political crisis, but I would go a step further and say that this time of crisis was nothing new. In fact, it was a similar time of crisis that prompted the formation of the Constitution in the first place. After almost a decade under the Articles of Confederation, the leading statesmen realized that the current system wasn’t working. Because the federal government was given almost no power under the Articles, it had no means of enforcing its own provisions. States felt no connection for one another and thus had no incentive to cooperate, as can be observed most famously in the example of Shay’s Rebellion. Even though many influential politicians knew that something had to be done, they were quite divided on what should be done or how it should be accomplished. In fact, none of them except for James Madison even had in mind the idea to completely scrap the useless Articles of Confederation and start anew, but that’s what ended up happening. So, I think that the statement that the 1790s were a time of political crisis is a bit limited and does not take into account the fact that the years immediately following the war and before the writing of the Constitution were in fact quite chaotic. Even the events of the Philadelphia Convention were a bit chaotic in themselves, as a roomful of politicians with extremely disparate viewpoints struggled to craft a document that would allow the new nation to govern itself while still championing the ideals for which it fought for its independence in the first place. Interestingly, as Waldstreicher writes, in the wartime years the then-colonists already viewed themselves as “united states,” and popular literature, art, and music of the time period perpetuated this belief. In fact, he writes that the colonists’ unity was necessary in order to be able to fight off the British, even after the war was over. However, soon after the war and in the beginning of life under the Articles of Confederation, citizens of the newly minted United States of America began to feel more loyalty toward their local governments than to their national government. States governed differently and were often at odds with each other, particularly on the issue of tariffs and taxation. The most obvious split was between the more industrial New England and the more agrarian South, and these economic differences began to play out in the political arena. As Lewis writes, the formation of defined political parties further cemented the differences between the regions, with the Federalists representing the interests of New England and the Republicans representing the South and some of the Middle Atlantic states. Washington, a Federalist, was the undisputed choice for the first president, but the election of 1796 was certainly not unanimous; in fact, it was quite heated, as was the election of 1800, or as Jefferson called it, the “revolution of 1800.” It did not take long for partisanship to develop, and with the rise of partisanship came the rise of political dissent, to which President Adams responded with the Alien and Sedition Acts. According to Lewis, each party believed that the other would ruin the nation, a sentiment which is not too far removed from the current partisan rhetoric between the modern Republicans and the Democrats. This sudden burst of partisanship and political chaos can certainly be typified as “crisis,” especially for a newly developed nation that just won its independence from the greatest power in the world.
(continued) However, opponents of this explanation might center their argument around a point that Lewis himself makes at the end of his essay, that “for us, it is the things that might have happened but did not, and the solutions that might have been attempted but were not, that seem much more revolutionary.” They might argue that the level of “crisis” during this period is being overstated by virtue of the fact that any new nation will experience the same kind of chaos that comes with any trial-and-error endeavor. In fact, several periods of great change in American history can be said to be “times of crisis,” notably and most obviously the Civil War, the Great Depression, the aftermath of Watergate, all of which were politically polarizing events. However, even the opponents to this theory must admit that this “great experiment,” in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, was just that: an experiment. No nation in the modern world had attempted to do what the early Americans did, and the fact that they came through thos first two critical decades speaks volumes about the Founders’ dedication and competence in spite of the chaos around them.
It is true that the 1790s were a time of political troubles; I would not go as far to say that it was a time of political crisis, as crisis seems too strong of a term. Unrest or uneasiness sounds more appropriate. America remained in its infancy. The political minds tried to figure out how to push their political agenda yet stay within the confines of the newly formed constitution. The first two articles represent Hamiltonian aspects that seemingly used a loose interpretation of the constitution’s elastic clause to further his own goals. From someone like Jefferson who uses a strict interpretation of the constitution, it is understandable that Hamilton’s plans could be seen as unsettling. The song, poem, and political cartoon from this chapter do not seem overly malicious, more like jabs. The two most harmful items described in the section are the Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as the Kentucky Resolutions. Something as demeaning and anti-democratic as the Alien and Sedition Acts clearly show a troubling side of the Federalists, squashing the civil liberties of others to such a degree in a nation that supposedly holds freedom of speech in such high authority. The Kentucky Resolutions represents the Republican’s discontent with the Federalist workings. It created the political ideal of nullification, which haunted America several other times in the future. In terms of historians’ opinions of my argument, Lewis would probably state that I do not take the events to the extreme that they need to be taken. His article emphasizes the outright threat all the political parties saw in the opposing side taking or keeping power. He tends to play out the political leader’s worst fears. Most of what he writes looks like an overreaction on the parts of the party leaders, as none of the most dangerous events came to pass. Lewis himself says it best, stating, “Republican fears clearly exceeded Federalist plans”. Most close elections seem to cause people to think of the worst outcomes if their party loses, such as the recent 2008 election. Many McCain supporters talked about jumping ship and going to Canada if the “socialist” Obama were elected. He was elected, but they remained in America despite their claims. Ashworth focused his argument on the differing opinions within the Republican party itself, so he probably would agree with the crisis theory. If members of the same political party could not agree to specific plans, then the forces of disagreement they had with the Federalists must be fairly potent. His argument appears tenuous as several times through out the article he questions the generalizations that he stated before hand. In Waldstreicher’s piece, he debunks the troubles of the time as “incidental, local, passing, past”. He focuses on the feelings of nationalistic feelings during and after the Revolutionary War rather than the political crisis that the other authors pose. Waldstriecher claims that the citizens were in a fervor over the birth of the new nation, even suggesting that the celebrations “(re)establish and orgainic link between elite and populous”, which seems out of place when everyone else claimed that the Federalists versus Republicans could boil down to aristocracy versus the people.
I think it is easy to make the argument that this era was filled with political crises. It is difficult to imagine how a nation could not be in some sense of turmoil after only a few years prior the entire makeup of the governmental system had been upended. I think it is nearly impossible for our generation to grasp how drastic of a change this had to be for many citizens. The shift from a state focus to a national focus had to have been perplexing to all. Add to this that in the 1790s leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pushed through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, claiming a measure of states’ rights back from the federal government. Prior to this, the very election of John Adams over Jefferson could be labeled a crisis, sense it resulted in the formation of the first political parties. It should also be noted that Shay’s Rebellion was completely ended only three years prior to 1790, so it was fresh in the minds of current politicians. The nation was also just beginning to form its first navy and grand new taxes were being passed by Federalists like Adams who had just gained the increased power to collect by the signing of the Constitution. These events, and many more, can be seen as political crises simply because of the youth of the nation and the sense that the style of governing was still being flexed. I found the most interesting point of disagreement of any of the historians to be from John Ashworth simply because of the scope of his argument. I feel like Ashworth seems to take for granted that the American government had been established and that the “crises” occurring could be focused on a study of the political parties at the time (for the sake of his studies the Democratic-Republicans). Ashworth picks apart the various contradictions he believes he finds in Jefferson’s positions as well as the inaccuracies of the Republican Party. In the context of whether or not Professor Ashworth was eluding to this being a crisis within the party, it seems he would be totally inaccurate, namely because Jefferson won the election of 1800 and 1804. It seems unlikely that a party going through crisis would have such sweeping gains and legislative success. Professor Lewis would have taken my position that the 1790s were filled with political unrest. Lewis seems to blame simply the time and the politics being debated for the unrest within the new nation. Since the nation was new, Lewis also states the fear each party had of the other party taking power of the executive branch. Though Lewis does explicitly state that this was an era of crisis, he also seems to relate some comfort and optimism about the future of the country. This was odd to me, because I feel like he contradicts the seriousness of the word crisis. I found the most interesting facts in Ashworth’s article, mainly because of his frankness concerning some of the hypocrisy the Republican party was showing concerning democratic rights.
I would definitely agree that the 1790s were years that were filled with political crisis. There were two groups with competing ideas. On one side there were people like Hamilton that wanted to interpret the Constitution in a way to expand government, and on the other side there were people like Jefferson that were not fond of expanding government by interpreting the constitution fanciful manner. These two opposing ideas are what Washington warned us about. Washington in his farewell address said, “You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection (p.69).” Washington knew that when people chose sides instead of working together for the common good it would have a profound effect on the evolution of America’s government. There was also a division in foreign policy. There were a number of Americans that were angry because the government was favoring Brittan over France. Many people felt that we should show favor to France over Brittan because they helped us defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, as Holton described, the people in power were not so much worried about loyalty as they were about money. The government decided to favor Britain because America would prosper more economically that way. Jay’s Treaty spawned a new division among the people when America formally sided with the British. Again Washington issued the new government a warning in his farewell address, “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded (p.70).” There was also an early battle relating to the Bill of Rights. The Sedition Acts of 1798 tried to restrict the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. This was yet another division created in the 1790s. The people were very angry that the government was not adhering to the Bill of Rights and making an attempt to infringe upon the peoples’ rights. I think it is to be expected that the 1970s would be a time of turmoil because a new government was just formed. The politicians at that time were just like children that will push their parents’ buttons just to find out how much they can get away with. The politicians wanted to see how much they could infringe upon the rights of Americans and how much they could ignore them when making policies. The Federalist pushed just a little too hard which led to the end of their party and they learned a valuable lesson on what they could get away with. Now all the Federalist had to do was change their name and their platform enough to get back into the mainstream. The 1970s were definitely a time of political turmoil because there were battles being fought between two groups of people on how much the government could expand, how seriously the people took the Bill of Rights, and how the government should conduct foreign policy.
Even though the U.S. Constitution had been ratified by the 1790s, it was still a period of political and economic turbulence in the United States and many questions were left unanswered about the federal government’s role in the new nation. The year 1800, argues James E. Lewis, was the climatic year in which the tensions leading up to the presidential election of Thomas Jefferson culminated. Leading up to this point, political crisis arose and drove the Federalist and the Republican parties farther and farther apart; each side now believed that the other would destroy the Constitutional government and the liberties of the American people. “[…] A revolutionary result seemed possible, even likely, even if the election [of 1800] itself proceeded in an unrevolutionary manner” (Lewis 86). Political tensions stemmed from both foreign and domestic affairs during Washington’s and Adams’ administrations. For example, the resentment over the Jay Treaty concerning trade with England and the wavering support for the French Revolution among Americans placed the United States in a difficult position abroad. On the domestic front, many of Alexander Hamilton’s suggested economic policies caused controversy in Congress and spurred events like the army’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.
To make matters worse, the election of 1800 further threatened the stability of the nation when a Federalist, Aaron Burr, and a Republican, Thomas Jefferson, received the same number of votes from the electors in the race for the presidency. This presented a new problem for Congress to sort out, and the tie between the two men was not broken until a representative from Delaware switched his support from Burr to Jefferson after realizing the seriousness of the situation at hand: “it was admitted on all hands that we must risk the Constitution and a civil war or take Mr. Jefferson” (Lewis 90). This statement alone shows the fragility of the nation in 1800, and Lewis concludes that the divisions between the Federalists and Republicans were actually heavily underplayed in the accounts of members of Congress: “A ‘revolution in form’—whether disunion or a military takeover or usurpation or a new constitutional convention—appeared much more probable to Jefferson and his contemporaries than most accounts would suggest” (Lewis 91).
Though political crises stemming from foreign and domestic policy challenged the strength of the United States during the 1790s, American nationalism, described by David Waldstreicher, may have been the saving grace of the country during these difficult times. Patriotic celebrations became popular after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and served as a type of adhesive between social classes during the American Revolution; members of the elites and the commons were able to unite under the common desire to be free, independent Americans and celebrated their new citizenship and nation together in the public sphere, putting aside their differences (Waldstreicher 78). For example, “Early Fourth of July celebrations were attempts to (re)establish an organic link between elite and populace, ratifying both popular sovereignty and the most tasteful displays of patriotic affiliation” (Waldstreicher 82). The 1790s, however, threatened the unity of America’s ruling class, and American nationalism, which had appeared to be so strong during the revolution, was tested. In the end though, perhaps it was this deeply rooted sense of nationalism that convinced Delaware’s elector to switch his vote from Burr to Jefferson to break the stalemate between the two men and save the country from the possibility of civil war.
The 1790s were undoubtedly turbulent political times. The same interests that clashed at the Constitutional convention continued to fight about the powers of the federal government and how responsive it would be to the people. This is hardly a surpise because there was no precedent to dictate how disputes were to be resolved under the Constitution.
The most significant disputes were sectional, as they would continue to be for much of our nation's history. Political parties were forming and as Ashworth points out constituencies were largely divided by region. The northeast was federalist, and less democratic whle the south supported Republican canidates who were more concerned with agriculture. The mid-Atlantic states served as a swing region. Given the geographic and economic divide it was only natural that controversy would ensue.
Due to the attitudes of the framers towards "escessive democracy" it should not come as a surprise either that there were concerns about the transfer of power after the election of 1800. James Lewis describes the aftermath of the tie between Burr and Jefferson which resulted in tension as the two sides wondered how Congress would address the problem of succession. While it may be true that the federalists leveraged the situation for concessions and perhaps some did indeed consider the possibility of using the deadlock to hold onto power longer in the end the election stood and Jefferson was sworn in. This speaks to the importance placed by both sides on the republic, but the fact that there was suspicion and even plans for revolts by the Republicans clearly indicate a great deal of political turmoil and mistrust.
In the end Lewis speaks of a few men who were willing to make concessions so as to not jeopardize the young republic. This goes back to the idea of patriotism. While Waldstreicher's argument is mainly concerned with the revolutionary period and not the 1790s one can extrapolate from it that there was a general patriotic attitude in the new country. While tensions were high, many citizens both elite and common had a great deal emotionally invested n the success of the new republic. Had their been a power grab with conflict ensuing who knows what the consequences might have been. No one wanted a civil war which could very well have been the result of the Federalists trying to hold onto power after losing an election.
The 1790s were a period of tension and controversy, but in the end the Constitution held up and precedents were set for how future controversies could be resolved. We continue to have regional and partisan differences in American politics, but the 1790s taught us lessons about how to resolve political disputes and over time partisanship has been integrated into our political system without challenging the underlying integrity of the government. Perhaps the durability of the republic is the legacy of the period.
There was no political crisis during the 1790s. Instead we see the origins of our modern day political system with opposing parties; at this time the Federalists and the Republicans. There were many ideological differences between the two groups going back to the constitutional convention days with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were more focused on the economy while the Republicans focused on social progression. This split in opinion is not a political crisis because a crisis is when there is something fundamentally wrong with the political system. Waldstreicher’s essay examines the spread of nationalism through local celebrations, often patriotic, being reprinted through newspapers throughout the country. Waldstreicher would agree with me that there was no political crisis in the 1790s but he would disagree with me on the idea that Americans were split. Waldstreicher believes that widespread nationalism throughout the 1790s brought the American people closer together. Lewis would wholeheartedly disagree with my assessment that there was no political crisis in the 1790s. Lewis cites the Quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Fries’ Rebellion, the expansion of the army, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions as fueling the political crisis. Lewis states that the political parties of the 1790s differed greatly on their opinions of these previously stated developments and debate between and amongst the parties was happening everywhere and each party felt it needed to control the executive branch in order to secure a future for our new nation. I would have to disagree with Lewis that these political factions and their differing viewpoints would be a crisis necessarily because there is always dissention politically. It is the debating and deliberating between two opposing ideologies that make up our entire legislative branch today. Ashworth doesn’t address a crisis between the two political parties but a crisis within the Republican Party itself. Ashworth examines the differing viewpoints within the Republican Party and how this can be seen as a political crisis. I would have to disagree with Ashworth in that there are always going to be differing factions within political parties because you can’t place people ideologically and neatly into two separate parties. Political ideologies range all across the spectrum and this in no way is a political crisis, but merely a splintering within a group. In all my argument that there was no real political crisis during the 1790s holds up. There was surely a lot of deliberation and policymaking during this time but that is to be expected in the formative years of a nation.
The time frame of the 1790’s was indeed a time of political crisis. The country was just beginning to take shape under the Constitution. The political ties with the British Empire threaten to and did split the country apart to an extent. The allying with the British was the main force for the split into different political parties between the Federalists and the Republicans. The political parties were at each other’s throats calling the other party unconstitutional. Also under the administration of John Jay Adams there were multiple problems the quasi war, XYZ affair and Jay’s treaty being a few. Jay’s treaty itself was a catalyst for the quasi war and potential problems with commerce. Under Jay’s treaty, Americans lost their biggest bargaining chip with the non discrimination against British trade ships. Another fumble of the Adams Administration was the Alien and Sedition acts. Those acts were unconstitutional. The acts infringe on the personal rights of the people. This separated the political parties even more at the time. Lewis in the book brings up an excellent point. That through the various acts the federalists would seem to go to great lengths to keep their control of the government. The Election of 1800 could have severly changed the course of the country. Federalists if they had one may have completely consolidated the government into a more monarchal one. The presidential seat may have become one of a life term instead of four year terms. The Republicans were also willing to go to great lengths to keep that from happening. Lewis supplies all of those points. Ashworth also was right to an extent. Slavery seemed to have shaped the form of the Republican Party. The party forming because of slavery was most likely from being banded to gather due to similar interests along with regional association with the slave trade. Ashworth’s agreement with Edmund Morgan does not seem entirely accurate. They supply that slavery created a “”sense of common identity” that change the relationship between the elites and masses”. Identity might be a strong word to use in the context. Also the equality statement for the poor would most likely be equal among slave states and non slave states. All of these actions lead to the crisis that can be seen during this time period. People who did not believe in this crisis would most likely site Madison that a two party system is necessary and that no political instability exists. The parties just had different views on the direction of the government. The people would also like at the quote supplied by Jefferson that is at the end of Lewis’ essay. Jefferson says that the Election of 1800 was a not point about to break down. A convention would have been called to settle the differences and emplace new ones. However, people who would supply those facts would be missing the bigger picture. They do not indict the acts that were taken during the Adams administration. No good justice can be given to that time. True the trade from the Caribbean was necessary under Jay’s treaty but not at the cost that it was given.
I would have to agree with the assessment that the 1790s were years of political crisis and the essays presented in the book serve as examples to this assertion. The disunion of the Republican party leading up to the election of 1800 helps us mark the level of confusion the nation was facing at the time. Lewis terms this election of 1800 as “as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form” (p.85). Fears over an unconstitutional grab at power by the Federalists greatly distressed the Republicans, who were sure to make great gains in the upcoming election. Federalists feared Thomas Jefferson would “fritter away federal power, stir up class resentments, and engage in a war with Great Britain after making alliances with the French”. Republicans, on the other hand, feared a continuation of Federalist control of government would lead to “further consolidation of the nation, a monarchial government, and a return to British subjugation” (p.86). Each side regarded the other as unfit to rule the nation and its people and they would fight tooth and nail for the upcoming election.
The Republican party, even though it was expected to make tremendous gains in the upcoming election, was very much fragmented and the result was an uncoordinated front of opposition to the Federalists. John Ashworth’s essay asserts that the Republican base of strength lay in the South of the nation and the leaders there, because of the strong economic homogeneity of the south “could embrace democracy in the confident belief that their own position would be safe” (p.93). Along with Ashworth’s claim of the South benefiting from a strong sense of economic homogeneity, another characteristic of that helped republicanism and therefore the Republican party was the institution of slavery. Edmund Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, argued that the institution of slavery as it existed in the nation helped foster a “sense of common identity” between the whites, the masses, and the elites. Slavery therefore, he argues, helped propel states like Virginia and perhaps the entire nation towards republicanism. Historians who disagree with the assertion that the United States during the 1790s was a volatile place politically would have to base their claims on something other than the individual parties and their distrust of one another’s political convictions. If six-days and thirty-six ballots to confirm our third president were not enough to point to some form of political crisis, opponents of this would have to point to some other defining moment or explanation for the situation in the 1790s. Those historians would probably argue the core divisions in politics were not a result of the tensions between party rhetoric, but rather the problems of the 1790s were in direct result to other circumstances. They could argue events like the Quasi-War with the French, the degrading state of the economy, and the sharp divisions clearly evident between the slave-holding South and the free North created some type of disconnect between people, politics, and the idea of republicanism. These occurrences could be seen as hindering the correct political association necessary to good governing because they broke and eroded the normal chains that bound together the various self-interested states, elites, and common people. If events and circumstances such as these were shown to be a common occurrence during the Early Republic, historians opposed to the allegation of our nation being critically unstable politically during the 1970s could have some grounds to contend the issue.
The 1790’s seemed to be a time of upheaval, when there was a definite paradigm shift for many of the nation’s political minds. This is of course after a time period of great consolidation of power in the federal government, as the articles of confederation failed, and national politics began to supplant the political power that had been previously held by the states. With a Federalist in office, in John Adams, it seems as though this time period would have been an easy transition from the reforms of the 1780’s; and yet many politicians began to change their opinions. They went from demanding a strong central government to protect their interests, both physical and financial, to calling for a return to stately political prominence. One might ask how such a radical shift could take place, almost over night, and in looking at the readings there are several arguments. However, I think to look into that political climate, without first viewing race simply would not make since. Therefore, I tend to agree with Ashworth. As the South would identify with the Jeffersonian model of the agrarian farmer and the need for Slave labor to support their agricultural society, the rumblings of the early Abolitionists and industrialists (I think the two have to be intertwined) to the North would create the first cracks of what would be the enormous schism between the North and South-a theme running ultimately to the civil war and beyond.
After doing this week’s readings it’s hard not to agree that the 1790’s were a time of turmoil filled with political crises. When doing the reading’s it wasn’t until I started reading about the late 90’s that I would fully agree with the times being filled with crises. In the beginning of the 1790’s you saw a lot of turmoil as parties were trying to gain power. The mood turned as in the eighties it was a time of great celebration as media began to grow people were reading more and more about celebrations concerning America’s new found freedom and riots/parties celebrating the death of George the third and the British authority over the new America. As the people took to the streets to celebrate their new country an internal split was building individual parties wanted power. As Appleby states the Republican party was building its party on the principle of hope. Other parties had their own ways of trying to gain power. Many of these early parties were on the fence about many of the same topics it was hard to tell what they really stood for, therein lies one key problem even the Republican party which wanted to show hope didn’t fully stand for just this my favorite quote from this week’s reading was about Madison and his republic. “Madison’s republic was in a race against time”. Madison believed that the United States was going to develop just like Britain did in to a population of landless poor at best America could only prevent this in his eyes and not stop it completely. During the early stages of the newly found America John Adams would become president but due to the turmoil of the late 1790’s his re-election campaign would fail. There were some huge problems that arose during his presidency; one was based off the other. His huge problem he faced was with France and the Quasi-War which would lead to the Alien Sedition Acts being made. The quasi war was a undeclared war between American and French forces the war only lasted about two years from 1798-1800. Although the war was undeclared it scared the Americans a great deal. As Lewis states in the reading “ Both Federalists and Republicans expressed doubts that there would even be an election in the two or three years before the electors finally cast their votes in December of 1800. You can hardly say the 1790’s were years without great political turmoil if two major parties were unsure there would even be an election because of a possible upcoming war with France. In the end however things always seem worse as you go through them. It was a scary time for the country during this time with the war against France possibly looming. During this time is when Adams enacts the Alien and Sedition Acts which pretty much gave the president authority to deport any resident alien he wanted to, as well as extending the duration of residence required for them to become full citizens to 14 years. Adams would end the undeclared war with the France but sadly news of this did not reach the people in time to save his re-election. After the readings I felt like the times were filled with political turmoil, but I did not see eye to eye with everything I read. I felt like the authors were very dramatic and may have over analyzed certain things to make the times see more uncertain and unstable than they really were. The authors based these theories on several quotes of the time, and took several of the quotes out of context I felt.
ReplyDeleteAfter completing the readings I tend to agree that the 1790’s were filled with political crises, but in my view they mostly resemble growing pains more than outright political crises. Debates over national finance, security and taxes took center stage, issues that dominate American discourse today. The nascent factions in American politics that debated the Constitution were coalescing into political parties vying for power, and it was the struggle between the two with no precedent to guide their competition that seems to have made the decade so contentious. Their philosophies of the Federalists and the former Anti-Federalists spilled over into the major policy battles like national credit and tax policy, which judging by Jefferson’s protest was a clash over the reach of the Constitution more than the merits of a central bank or any single tax.
ReplyDeleteThis split over issues such as public credit and the national bank aroused Republican fears that Federalists sought to recreate America in Britain’s image, and these fears were heightened by the Jay Treaty with its favoritism towards Britain. Further centralization of power in the Federal government and seemingly closer relations with Great Britain over revolutionary France only confirmed Republican fears about Federalist intentions. The crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion did nothing to allay those fears either. The move in my view was entirely understandable; the weak Articles had to virtually beg state militias to maintain order, and affirming the government’s ability to enforce laws would be necessary to instilling confidence in the government. We know today where such precedent would lead, but Republicans and their revolutionary experience saw an alarming example of centralized power being used to oppress citizens. The Alien and Sedition Acts which essentially outlawed dissent against Federalist policies increased the animosity between the two as well.
The argument that the decade was full of political crises was given added weight when through the analysis of the “what-ifs” provided in Waldstreicher’s article. Issues similar to those discussed occur even today (Patriot Act, TARP, tax increase fears), but without an established order through which to deliberate and decide on them potentially disastrous contingencies were postulated by the then minority Republicans. This was especially true for the election of 1800, really the watershed moment for the proposed peaceful transfer of power embodied (vaguely) In the constitution. With Washington stepping down, what would happen if the Federalists or Republicans won? Both parties saw the potential for duplicity and disaster from their opponent and contemplated extralegal methods to prevent such a perceived catastrophe; the key point to remember when analyzing these crises however is that both factions made their plans contingent on the other side circumventing protocol. Initially plans were made in the event that elections may not occur, viewed as likely by both sides due to suspicion of the other.
These suspicions exploded with the tie in the voting for the Presidency, specifically because the procedure to break a tie was not laid out in the Constitution. Mutual suspicion on both sides had the potential to make the stalemate a crisis but neither side aimed to seize power unfairly and none came to fruition. This event cemented the end of a decade of great uncertainty spawned by the novelty of the Constitution. Would it work? Could it work? Could the other side be trusted to answer these questions in the affirmative? Despite the surrounding controversies and fears both sides held, the transfer was conducted peacefully.
In sum, while it’s fair to say the 1790’s were filled with political controversy, it’s important to remember that the novelty and importance of being the first were really more potent factors in the tension that the gravity of the issues facing the nation. Those same issues still endure in political discourse today.
Following my readings this week I would agree to the statement that the 1790s were indeed a period of political crises. It is important to note that the decade preceding the 90s was one of great celebrations and a common sense of patriotism. David Waldstreicher notes in his that newspapers and media perpetuated this sense of patriotism by telling of extraordinary parties and gleeful public celebrations. My favorite quote from the reading is from a gentleman from Massachusetts who exclaims, “Plato thanked heavens he was born in the age of Socrates: I give thanks that I was born an American.” All across the country citizens were pumped full of American nationalism and the feeling of triumph over those bastards across the big lake. “New Yorkers tore down the statue of George III and hacked it to pieces and in other places the monarch’s picture and royal arms were ceremoniously burned,” states Waldstreicher. The country was in a Dionysian state of euphoria, however like most good times, a hangover is sure to follow. Questions began to arise from the public on how the debts and war bond issues would be resolved. Some wanted a national government to control this, while others feared the power that might ensue from establishing such a system, after all they had just defeated an oppressive power. From these questions political parties gave birth, to the dismay of the framers.
ReplyDeleteThe election of 1800 encapsulated a period of great political turmoil. America, under John Adams had been in a Quasi-War with France for two years, resulting in utter French defeat. It was time for a change in the executive and the country was split between Thomas Jefferson, the agrarian Republican, and Aaron Burr, the Federalist. The two had the country divided like oil and water. Jefferson preached that America should be an agriculture economy with self -sustaining yeoman farmers, and contain a less intrusive central government. Burr on the other hand, like most Federalists, wanted a strong central government and the creation of an economic empire in America. The schism was so deep that Alexander Hamilton proclaimed if the Republicans lost, “Virginia would resort to the employment of physical force.” There were also talks of secession in states such as South Carolina. Jefferson, as James E. Lewis points out in his article, feared the Federalists would prevent an election all together and thus the presidency would fall to the president pro tempore of the senate, then the Speaker of the House, both of whom were Federalists. There was so much shady activity going on that it was difficult for each party and their followers to trust the other, it was not that the other party simply had contrasting ideas, in their minds they were the ‘enemies of liberty.’ Thus when Jefferson was elected to the presidency in 1800 it was dubbed the “Revolution of 1800.” Jefferson, as quoted by John Ashworth, proclaimed that Republicans cherished the people, while Federalists feared or despised them; the Jeffersonian faithful were hopeful about the future, the Republicans were not. As you can imagine these powerful statements reverberated throughout the country and further deepened the trench lying between the two parties. Thus it is difficult to say, although some do, that the 1790s were not a time of political crisis.
Those who claim the decade of 1790 not to be a political crisis draw from the fact that America was simply experiencing “growing pains.” This was unprecedented territory for the new countrymen and every step they took was in uncharted territory, they were “in a wilderness without a footstep to guide us.” Of course there will be political turmoil when formulating the ideas of a new country, everyone had a different opinion, but it was turmoil nonetheless and cannot be justified as “growing pains.”
The 1790s ushered in an era where clashes would emerge as a result of the farmers feeling that their democracy was being taken from them. Likewise, the wealthy elites in the country thought that there should be less democracy in their hands. Factions began to emerge between the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Republicans led by Madison and Jefferson. These two parties were split in the manner that the Republicans tended to want to progress socially, while the Federalists were interested in progressing economically. This analysis is not to say that there was a political crisis, because the word “crisis” implies that there is something fundamentally wrong needing to be fixed. Instead, what one finds is simply the beginnings of the modern day political system that, one can argue, simply protects the interests of the people that it represents.
ReplyDeleteWaldstreicher focuses his interpretation of the Revolutionary era with an analysis of Americans nationalism that came out of local celebrations and the press. These celebrations and rituals that were continually reprinted gave rise to a nationalists ideology that encompassed the nation. Whether this be in the form of parades, funerals, or birthdays, celebrations were used to promote national sentiments among the people. Historians such as Waldstreicher would disagree with my interpretation of factions splitting the populace due to the fact such historians believe that most Americans were under the same mindset, that of some kind of American nationalism. Yet, such as I do, he fails to see any real political crisis of the 1790s. He states that most citizens comprehend republicanism and are united virtuously devoted to the needs of the nation. He even goes as far as to say that the problem that we facing the nation at the time were “incidental, local, passing, past.”
Lewis, on the other hand, would seriously disagree with my interpretation about a political crisis. He brings up the fact that there was a quasi-war with France, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and rebellions to fuel a sense of crisis. These rivalries that would form rifts in social and business relationships. Some people did not even want a president if their candidate was not elected. People began to be “willing to take unconstitutional steps, if needed, to foil the unconstitutional designs of the Federalists.” Lewis argues that a “disunion or a military takeover or usurpation or a new constitutional convention” would be more profitable to the Republicans than to let the Federalists take over. While it can be said that both groups clearly disliked each other to the point of hatred, how is this idea different from politics of today? While there were major policy disputes leading up to the election of 1800, one cannot say that this constitutes a political crisis. Instead, it was just the result of a new type of politics that arose out of a new type of government.
Ashworth focuses on a different type of crisis that emerged, not out of the two party system, but out of the Republican party itself. Ashworth states that it is hard to say “where the party’s ideological centre of gravity lay.” Republicans embraced democracy, especially in the South, with the idea that their positions would be safe. Slavery created a common identity among whites that depended on slave labor and those poorer whites to the point where they could be made as Republican allies. Because of this fact, the nation may have seen a greater force to the republic becoming more of a democracy. The question of how slavery took a role in the nation and the forming of the Republicans is beyond the point. The fact that the Republicans could not precisely pinpoint where their boundaries lie again does not create a crisis. It creates a question that needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, one can say that my argument holds up concerning there being no real political crisis to speak about. Without a doubt there were major policy decisions that needed to be addressed between the two parties and within the Republican party, but this does not constitute a crisis. The situation of the 1790s is worth understanding for the better comprehensive of the formation of our government, but to use the term “crisis” to describe it is a bit of an overstatement.
I most definitely agree that that the period is filled with political crises and instability in the national government. Waldstreicher on the other hand I think would beg to differ. He section focused on the nationalism and patriotism that arose after the revolution. His main points were constructed around the celebrations of events that took place and how the people were in awe of the new government and their newfound freedom. I feel like he just took what was already said in the first chapter and went into in farther depth. Reading his section made me feel like everything was good and all the American people were perfectly happy with everything and the people just celebrated after the revolution. He did not focus on the political side or anything of real depth besides celebrating. I think he would have probably been the writer to just talk about all the happiness after the revolution instead of addressing the real issues. After Reading Lewis’s portion of the chapter was really what got me to see that there was definitely a national government crisis-taking place in the 1790’s. He definitely opened my eyes to many things I did not know about how the world of politics in this country was made and built. I feel like he makes it seem like that the majority of the people involved were the wealthy and politicians and did not say very much about the peoples reaction to the constitution and all the happenings. Woody Holton definitely got the point across that the people were not happy with the way things were progressing and I liked that I got both sides of the story from different historians. Learning more about the Burr – Jefferson election was fascinating because I virtually did not know very much about it. The fact that the country was almost disassembled so many times during that election was astounding and I am not very impressed that somehow they made it work. For instance that Virginia and Pennsylvania assembled the militia to go to Washington just incase the Federalists pulled something the Republicans did not like is amazing. The goings on and distrust between the two parties was very interesting because in the end they still managed to get some things accomplished together. The amount of sheer distrust between the people and the parties and the fact that a civil war did not break out 50 years earlier seems like a miracle to me. If there had only been the Articles of Confederation while all of this was happening I am almost positive that would not have been strong enough to hold the country together. I agree with Lewis in his point when he says that the men’s commitment to the Constitution was the sole purpose they were able to learn to compromise and do everything they could to keep the country from politically and governmentally blowing up. Ashworth’s section was also very enjoyable because I like how he focused on the differences in the Republican party and points out that not everyone in the party agreed with each other. He also discussed how slavery in the south influenced the Republican party. I could see from that how the Republican parties decisions and ideas were reflected on southern issues. The importance of slavery in the south at this time was really the glue that kept the Republican Party together. I have thought over and over again about how the historians who disagreed with the point that there was a huge political crisis in the 1790’s would construct their arguments. It is just not possible to know all the information of the political goings on at this time and not believe in a political crisis. These people were on the verge of a second revolution involving each other. I think they would just be ignoring the facts if they said that the divisions in the government at this time were really nothing and it would have worked out eventually either way.
ReplyDeleteThe 1790’s in America were years filled with political scandals and uprisings and this turmoil did not end until the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The 1790’s saw a divide forming on the American political landscape and pitted former colleagues against one another. The two parties that arose out of this divide were known as Federalists and Republicans. These parties formed in part over Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal reforms and pitted him against his former friend James Madison. Numerous, “events at home and abroad deepened this political divide after 1791. “ The French Revolution and quasi war with the French, the Jay Treaty of 1794, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 were just some of the “hot button issues of the age.” After the election of John Adams, “a sense of crisis in the United States that lasted throughout his presidency. “ According to historian James Lewis this upheaval did not end until Jefferson’s election in 1800. Lewis states that both sides believed the other would transform the government for the worse. The heated debate that surrounded the election of 1800 almost turned the country toward civil war and the Republicans feared “disunion, or a military takeover or a usurpation” by the Federalist government. Lewis agrees with my claim that the 1790’s were a period of great political upheaval.
ReplyDeleteJohn Ashworth does agree that there was great political upheavals in the 1790’s but he cautions historians to examine the divisions inside the two respective parties, and in particular, that slavery played a part in the Republican and Jeffersonian ideology. According to Ashworth, since Republicans gained much of their support from the South slavery helped the south “embrace Republicanism.” As Ashworth states, “the South could embrace democracy in the confident belief that their own positions would be safe.” Ashworth believes that this “Jeffersonian populism” that originated in the south helped shape the Republican Party. He also asserts that this ideology along with “the role of Southern leaders in the Republican party,” helped dominate the platform of the early Republican ideology and platform.
David Waldstreicher believes that the 1790’s were not a period of great upheaval but Americans all, to a certain extent believed in republicanism and were adherents to American nationalism. This is evident when he states, “The ‘generality’ of citizens not only comprehend republicanism but show joy on their faces and ‘decency’ in demeanor.” Waldstreicher traces this “nationalism” back to the Revolutionary period by examining independence celebrations and newspaper reports of these parties. He does concede that there were divisions in the 1790’s but although there were partisan divisions they again used these national celebrations but were “absorbed as direct links between the people.” A historian that wanted to craft an argument against my assertion would begin by saying that although there were disagreements the majority of citizens wanted to preserve the union and the democratic ideals that it boasts.
The 1790’s were a period of great tension and turmoil. There were numerous scandals and arguments and it was not “capped” until the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.
The political battles of the 1790’s pitted old friends and vast segment of the new nation squarely against each other. The Federalist position, which was most fervently articulate in the chapter by Alexander Hamilton, looked to strengthen the national government first and foremost economically. An important element of Hamilton’s theory that he articulates in the first document in the chapter which I was unable to pick up on in lecture was the directness with which Hamilton countered Republican objections to his financial schemes. There are numerous mentions in this document to Jefferson and his objections to Hamilton’s attempts to consolidate the towering debt into one national pile. In fact, the very next document details a debate between Jefferson and Hamilton over the constitutionality of the new bank which Hamilton viewed as an essential element to his economic plans. From these first two documents it becomes clear just how immensely personal this debate was to the men at the top of the newly created governmental hierarchy. Without any doubt, men like Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson directly associated the political ideologies they detested with faces, often faces of old friends.
ReplyDeleteWhile some of the proceeding documents illustrate reactions to the public debate over policies on a more grassroots level, such as the poems and songs to certain candidates or issues and the circulars of two Democratic-Republican societies, two of them give the reactions of George Washington to the occurrences of the times. It is quite clear from Washington’s farewell speech that our first president was intensely troubled by the partisan animosity that had swept the nation (and indeed his own cabinet) during his tenure as president. Another document worth special attention in this section is the Kentucky Legislature’s protest to the Federal Government’s implementation of the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is especially noteworthy to point out that the Kentucky Legislature chooses to cite the Tenth Amendment in its protest. This is the same amendment that Jefferson points to numerous times in his debate with Hamilton in document two. The introduction to this chapter mentions that Jefferson himself “approved” the Kentucky Legislature’s protest; this can hardly be a conscience. Moreover, it is thought provoking to think that Hamilton wrote in opposition to a bill of rights in the Federalist Papers, and as soon as he came to power he used all his influence to run rough shot over its passage.
The chapter concludes with a series of three scholarly essays. First David Waldstreicher offers a more nuanced interpretation the role of festivals and celebrates, specifically with regard to their close relationship to the print media and contributions to fostering a sense of nationalism, than Clinton Rossiter provided us in chapter one. James Lewis’ essay illustrates just how dramatic the political crisis that plagued this period of United States’ history truly was with his examination of the election of 1800. Lewis is able to show that Republicans had a real fear that the Federalists might actually subvert the Constitution in order to stay in power. Finally, John Ashworth’s brief essay attempts to strengthen the connection between the policies and support for the Jeffersonian Republicans with the slaveholding interests that the majority of the party’s supporters looked to further.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow can we say that there was not a political crisis? The most destructive force in the history of American politics was formed fully during the 1790s: political parties. What so many, including our beloved founders, had feared was coming to fruition. It seemed that there was no avoiding it. There had always been factions of people who agreed or disagreed on certain issues, but before many views overlapped in those groups. Now, a two-party system was forming where men on each side completely and utterly opposed 70-90% of the other side’s views. I think it’s a little funny that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (later Republicans) had so much abhorrence for each other. I guess the system was new and people didn’t have a full concept to deal with others who were diametrically opposed to them. Anyway, to get back to the point in the question: a number of significant events occurred during the 1790s that made for an interesting decade. The seemingly endless French Revolution, the Jay Treaty, the whiskey tax and later rebellion, the animosity towards the French, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were all fairly major events in American history in general. The future direction of the republic was in question. In reference to my claim that there was a political crisis in the 1790s, I’d like to bring in Waldstreicher. He talks about early on in his essay about the huge symbol and subconscious meanings that people give to these celebrations and publication of the events. Waldstreicher focuses mainly on the Revolutionary era in his writing, but you can take his claim a step farther by juxtaposing the type of pride these celebrations stood for in the 1790s. In this time period one reason for the strong opposition on either side could be from the celebrations, toasts, and reprinting of political articles to raise loyalty to people’s political parties. Once people were stuck in these parties, they would believe that the other side is being unpatriotic and is an enemy in the same way that Waldstreicher says happens in the late 1770s and early 1780s. From Lewis’ piece it is evermore clear that the two factions in the country were scared that if the other got in power it would rip the country apart or into war. I feel like that is a pretty good sign that you are in the midst of a political crisis. But hey, wait a minute; didn’t extremists on both sides in this past election feel the same way? Another point: I believe that people in both factions felt a sense of urgency to quickly set up a more uniform stable government since the French Revolution kept continuing to put the Americans to question their own government. I also will put my input into the political events of the 1790s. I firmly believe that the Jeffersonians had a claim that they were the closest in nature to what the Constitutional government called for. I see the Alien and Sedition Acts a major crime of the federal government and it’s a blessing to Americans past and present that that terrible act in 1798 didn’t last very long. One thing that I am a little iffy on is the Jay Treaty. I would feel that it did more good than bad, even though most every Republican in the late 1790s would probably disagree with that. The Jay Treaty eventually helped us grow economically more than we could have without the help of Great Britain’s trade. The whisky tax was also another one of Hamilton’s ideas that could have been better served staying on the drawing boards. Hamilton did raise our economy out of the slums, but his loose constructionist methods as treasury secretary seemed to stir up some pretty God-awful violent responses.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter and essays in “The Political Crises of the 1790s” I would have to agree with the chapter title and say that the decade of the 1790s was filled with extreme political crisis. From the new development of opposing political parties, the Republicans and the Federalists, the new development of foreign relations, the nation’s reaction to the Jay Treaty of 1794 and the XYZ Affair, and the new development of opposing interpretations of the Constitution the decade of the 1790s was surrounded by political crisis and turmoil in almost every aspect of American life. The main cause of this decade of political crisis was most certainly due to the theme of uncertainty: from farmers to political elite, poor to rich, every social group under the new federal form of the government and the Constitution were unsure on how this “experiment” would necessarily work, and if it didn’t work how long would this “experiment” last. This uncertainty and new form of a national government was the major reason why historians look back into the 1790s as a decade of complete political crisis and turmoil.
ReplyDeleteOne historian who may disagree with the assumption that the 1790s were a decade of political crisis is David Waldstreicher. In his essay “Public Celebrations, Print Culture, and American Nationalism” Waldstreicher argues that the time leading up the 1790s, more specifically the Revolutionary Era was the emergence of “American nationalism from the conjunction of local celebrations and their reproduction in the press.” He argues that the celebrations and the vast amount of publications that followed after the victory over the British embodied both American mobilization of intellectual thought and this new concept of a “nationalist ideology.” Through the 1770s and 1780s, Waldstreicher argues that the American nationalist ideology developed and furthered. By the 1790s Waldstreicher would argue that the 1790s were not a decade and period of political turmoil and crisis but rather a decade of extending the American nationalist ideology more specifically into the political realm of American life. In my opinion, Waldstreicher would argue that the development of opposing parties the Republicans and the Federalists was not a form of political crisis like many other historians argue, rather Waldstreicher would say the formation of these two opposing parties was a direct response to American nationalist ideology that roots back to the Revolutionary era.
Lewis would completely differ with the view of Waldstreicher as shown in his essay “Political Crisis and the ‘Revolution of 1800.” Lewis writes, “The election of 1800 capped a period of intense partisan rivalry in the United States. The Quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the expansion of the army, Fries’ Rebellion, and the countless other developments fueled the sense of crisis in the United States that lasted the entirety of Adams’s presidency.” Lewis here argues that the time of the 1790s, especially Adams’s presidency was a time filled of political turmoil and crisis and there is no way around saying that this time period did not experience any political crisis or turmoil. Only until the election of 1800, Lewis argues, that this “political turmoil” would begin to return to the backburner of America. The development and opposing ideas between the Federalists and the Republicans of how the government should function socially, politically, and economically was clearly the main fuel of the political crisis many historians to believe occurred in the decade after the ratification of the Constitution.
Although the 1790's was a time of great excitement and anxiety, I do not perceive it as a time of crisis. I don't consider mass grass roots support for their country any form of a crisis, in fact, I take that as an opportunity for the government to form unity and cohesion within the American people. In Waldstreicher's essay, he emphasises a great deal of the process that created American Patriotism [something arguably seen only in one country in the world]. The love for country, not government, was spurred on in the 1790's, and I think this was the beginnings of the Patriotism that was eventually completed in the late 1860's.
ReplyDeleteWaldstreicher notes that the American system of celebrating nationalism is very similar to the way that Britons had been doing it for a century: "The mobilization of citizens to celebrate patriotic occasions, with the reprinting of accounts of these events" (78). He goes on to say that these celebrations were not "after thoughts to independence" or "symbolizations of accumulated oedipal anxieties" (78), but rather they were "deliberate responses" to the ideals that were held in the Revolution.
Although these celebrations did generate somewhat violent behavior [burning of George III effigies, etc...], they are not nearly enough to be considered crises. It would be overly favorable to sensationalism to uphold the opinion that the events of the 1790's were, in fact, crises. For instance, many would cite the two-party system's formation as a moment of crisis, but if that is a crisis, then the United States has been living in a state of crisis since its Founding and we may need to make a few adjustments so we're not in such bad shape. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the natural" (93). Further more, minuscule riots and rebellions around the country with minimal casualties and property damage would rarely be considered a crisis today. In James E. Lewis Jr.'s essay concerning such dreadful crises in this era, he notes the "Quasi-War with France" as another reason for such chaotic times. Personally, I do not feel that a "quasi-war" actually created a sense of crisis in America during this time. Today, the United States is fighting in two full wars, and yet we would consider our only state of crisis to be in our wallets.
Perhaps the only event that can be considered a crisis is the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The statement, "...any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government...shall be punished..." is chilling, but it was not a long-lived piece of legislation and [to the best of my knowledge] it did not cause any form of riots or public upheaval. Although there were many points of contention in the 1790's, I believe it unwarranted to claim it as a "Time of Crisis."
The 1790’s were years filled with political development: an era when the structure of the government was tested , the limits of the constitution were explored, and the sustainability of the republic was bolstered; this was not really crisis. The two disagreeing interests, the Federalists and the Republicans, seemed each to believe that the other was out to ruin the young republic, that crisis was the inevitable outcome if they themselves did not control the government (and most importantly the Executive), but from every bit of evidence that I have encountered in this chapter neither party was actually willing to sacrifice the accomplishments of the revolution.
ReplyDeleteThis was an era without precedence. The constitution was untested in legislation and in court. All that there was to guide politics was the “spirit” of the republic. The disagreement between the Federalists and Republicans may have approached crisis, and in the minds of the men involved crisis may have seemed inevitable, but the politics of the 1790’s did not reach the point of crisis (in my opinion) , and this is because, in their own very different view of the best course of action, the leaders on both sides of the disagreement had America’s best interest at heart.
Reporting on the Public Credit, Alexander Hamilton claimed that the ends of his plan were: “to promote the increasing respectability of the American name; to answer the calls of justice...to cement more closely the union of the states; to add to their security against foreign attack’ to establish public order on the basis of an upright and liberal policy.” Hamilton’s plan was, in his mind, the best way to strengthen America. He was not trying to break-down the government; the government was new, and Hamilton wanted to make sure that it would take a shape that could last. Hamilton and Jefferson’s debate over Hamilton’s aggressive (and not strictly constitutional) plans centered (according to our primary reading) on the word “necessary.” Not the makings of a crisis, not in the hands of men who were well aware of the consequences of their decisions. The sedition act and the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions tested the limits of stability. The Principles, Articles, and Regulations of the Democratic Society of Pennsylvania say: “The public good is indeed its sole object.” Both sides of this, admittedly contentious, debate were staunch in their focus on the sustainability of America. I don’t believe that this was simply the rhetoric of today’s politicians, who have to appeal to the populace with their ever political action. I believe that this was the truth, and that this truth is what prevented crisis. (continued)
(continued)David Waldsteicher’s article seems to agree that crisis was not the best way to describe the early republic. His description of the ritualistic celebrations throughout the nation says that American’s avoided dwelling on the uncertainty of their present “by always celebrating the future.”
ReplyDeleteJames E. Lewis’s article would certainly disagree with my assertion, its called “Political Crisis and the ‘Revolution” of 1800. He says, “The quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the expansion of the army, Fries’ Rebellion and countless other developments fueled a sense of crisis in the United States that lasted the entirety of Adam’s presidency.” He points out that “each side believed that the other would destroy the nation if it controlled the executive branch.” In the election of 1800 both sides, in secret intraparty debates, contemplated strategies to usurp the presidency (precisely what Washington warned that parties would lead to).
Well, one side did win that election. The republic did not fall. Compromise won, and it won because these men (on the average) were unwilling to allow America to fail no matter what. Lewis says: “Men of both parties trusted, correctly as it happened, in what Galllatin described as a general ‘love of union and order’ to preseree the constitution.” Lewis calls the era one of crisis but he does not completely portray it as so (by my estimation).
John Ashworth may agree with my argument. His is article about the effect of slavery in the make-up of the Jeffersonian-Republican party questions the uniformity of that group. He portrays Madison as a man who did see the Republic at a point of crisis, “Madison’s republic was in a race against time.” Jefferson, on the other hand, didn’t seem to be afraid of crisis, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storm in the natural.” Ashworth’s article is fascinating (“It was in large part slavery which enabled Americans to embrace republicanism,” “Aristocrats could more safely preach equality in a slave society than a free one”) and it draws attention to the fact that the make-up of America’s democratic republic warrants a much closer examination, that the Republicans might not have been as purely republican as they professed. This does not, in my mind, argue that the era was one of crisis. Like every other aspect of this chapter his article points out the inconsistency of the formative years of the republic, but that inconsistency is to be expected and is probably necessary in a new democracy. Inconsistency is not crisis.
This week’s readings about the political crisis in the 1790s were extremely interesting and vital in understanding the rise of party formations. If you were a partier and loved to celebrate, the late 1780s and early 1790s were for you as our newly formed centralized government was celebrating patriotism. However, being the time right after the constitution was adopted; politicians were split and the formations of different party systems were being born. The Federalist was leaning on one side of the fence while the formation of the republicans was leaning the other way. Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist seemed to have one strong subject on their minds, economic capitol. Yes, it was a period of extreme transition but crisis and were we really going to go against the farther of our nation and create partisan?
ReplyDeleteWaldstericher seemed to really center on how American nationalism came as a result to the Revolutionary War. Of course it doesn’t stop there when parties were beginning to form and celebrations to symbolize individuals’ loyalty to a certain party. Now the preference of your party was going to be public knowledge for all of your fellow countrymen to see which created biased thoughts about opposite party formations that have gone on and still exist today. Waldstericher mostly concentrates on the Revolutionary era and from analyzing his essay, I think it is safe to say that he felt like their wasn’t a political crisis, that the party systems came was a result of the Revolutionary War and the nationalism that derived from it.
After reading Lewis’s essay, I believe it’s fair to say that he is in complete contradictory to Waldstericher opinion. During Adams time in office, there were extreme events taking place that totally defined what a political crisis is. The Quasi-War (undeclared navy war) with France was enough split the nation apart but going even further with the Alien and Sedition Acts really put the nail on the coffin. John Adams infringed on our nation’s constitutional rights and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were quick to retaliate with the Kentucky Resolution, “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force” This exemplified the political crisis of the 1790s and mostly that of John Adams presidency. He ended the war with France but it was not enough to save him for another election.
After reading Ashworth’s essay, it is clear to say that in sense republicanism relied on slaves. The South was supported the Republican Party and without the slaves there would not have been the confidence the south had. During 1790s, there was political crisis from all the events that were happening. However, it does seem avoidable considering this was a time of domestic transition and foreign altercations due to the French Revolution. At the time no one knew if partisans would continue to happen in this newly formed government, obviously political parties still deal with the same issue today but is nowhere near a crisis like those of the 1790s.
I would absolutely agree that this was a time of great turmoil. The country is taking an internal beating as soon as it claims itself free and independent. I think this is obviously apparent with the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson calls it right out as he sees it. He foresees a national bank coming in and taking the country over. Jefferson makes firm argumentative points to conclude that a national bank is unconstitutional and the incorporation of such an institution is not only unnecessary but will only help the few. Hamilton steps right up and fills his argument with tons of fluff about how the national government has the sovereign right to establish such an institution and all the great benefits of such. Reading between the lines it seems that they both know exactly what is going on and they are only willing to deliberate at such a level where it seems they don't.
ReplyDeleteWaldstreicher points right out that the people were high on the success of their war victory and independence. As a result it was seen that maybe the people were unaware as to what was going on in the deliberations of their government. Did they notice that they were about to be taken hostage by bankers and tax-collectors because of their festivities and veil of masquerade. The art of using rhetoric against the people is an age old game.
When Lewis writes about the revolutionary feelings resonated with Jefferson's presidency win, I feel it only argues more for the point that the people in fact did know what was going on and was trying desperately to stay in tuned with the nature of their revolutionary war win with this presidential win. Hopefully from this presidency they could restore the republic as it should be and not to the fixation of the federalists. After Jefferson wins, the federalists start to panic and plan on what they can do to maintain the powers they have enacted already. Jefferson was afraid they would conspire to make the government into a renewed monarchy of sorts. He knew that those of the federalist side were seeking to not unify the states to have a "solid nation" but more of a an economic state they could benefit from and manage to progress their own well being instead of being the intellectuals they all posed to be and conspired to unify the states to better the world. The Federalists were prepared to take advantage of the people in its incubation stages of government and turn it right into a money making cash cow for the elites. Jefferson did what he could to maintain the ideas expressed in the Declaration and how given the opportunity man would live up to his expectations of a unified state. Jefferson even saw from turmoil that good would come from it, whereas the Federalists only saw fear of what they had accomplished as failing or being overthrown. I think this was definitely a time of turmoil. Maybe not for every individual, but for any individual who participated willingly and unwillingly in this battle of one versus all.
Historians, including many that have been featured in this section of the reading, have called the period of the 1790s a period of great political crises, and even the statesmen who lived in this time called it a period of a second revolution. I would certainly agree that the 1790s were a time of great political crisis, but I would go a step further and say that this time of crisis was nothing new. In fact, it was a similar time of crisis that prompted the formation of the Constitution in the first place. After almost a decade under the Articles of Confederation, the leading statesmen realized that the current system wasn’t working. Because the federal government was given almost no power under the Articles, it had no means of enforcing its own provisions. States felt no connection for one another and thus had no incentive to cooperate, as can be observed most famously in the example of Shay’s Rebellion. Even though many influential politicians knew that something had to be done, they were quite divided on what should be done or how it should be accomplished. In fact, none of them except for James Madison even had in mind the idea to completely scrap the useless Articles of Confederation and start anew, but that’s what ended up happening. So, I think that the statement that the 1790s were a time of political crisis is a bit limited and does not take into account the fact that the years immediately following the war and before the writing of the Constitution were in fact quite chaotic. Even the events of the Philadelphia Convention were a bit chaotic in themselves, as a roomful of politicians with extremely disparate viewpoints struggled to craft a document that would allow the new nation to govern itself while still championing the ideals for which it fought for its independence in the first place. Interestingly, as Waldstreicher writes, in the wartime years the then-colonists already viewed themselves as “united states,” and popular literature, art, and music of the time period perpetuated this belief. In fact, he writes that the colonists’ unity was necessary in order to be able to fight off the British, even after the war was over. However, soon after the war and in the beginning of life under the Articles of Confederation, citizens of the newly minted United States of America began to feel more loyalty toward their local governments than to their national government. States governed differently and were often at odds with each other, particularly on the issue of tariffs and taxation. The most obvious split was between the more industrial New England and the more agrarian South, and these economic differences began to play out in the political arena. As Lewis writes, the formation of defined political parties further cemented the differences between the regions, with the Federalists representing the interests of New England and the Republicans representing the South and some of the Middle Atlantic states. Washington, a Federalist, was the undisputed choice for the first president, but the election of 1796 was certainly not unanimous; in fact, it was quite heated, as was the election of 1800, or as Jefferson called it, the “revolution of 1800.” It did not take long for partisanship to develop, and with the rise of partisanship came the rise of political dissent, to which President Adams responded with the Alien and Sedition Acts. According to Lewis, each party believed that the other would ruin the nation, a sentiment which is not too far removed from the current partisan rhetoric between the modern Republicans and the Democrats. This sudden burst of partisanship and political chaos can certainly be typified as “crisis,” especially for a newly developed nation that just won its independence from the greatest power in the world.
ReplyDelete(continued)
ReplyDeleteHowever, opponents of this explanation might center their argument around a point that Lewis himself makes at the end of his essay, that “for us, it is the things that might have happened but did not, and the solutions that might have been attempted but were not, that seem much more revolutionary.” They might argue that the level of “crisis” during this period is being overstated by virtue of the fact that any new nation will experience the same kind of chaos that comes with any trial-and-error endeavor. In fact, several periods of great change in American history can be said to be “times of crisis,” notably and most obviously the Civil War, the Great Depression, the aftermath of Watergate, all of which were politically polarizing events. However, even the opponents to this theory must admit that this “great experiment,” in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, was just that: an experiment. No nation in the modern world had attempted to do what the early Americans did, and the fact that they came through thos first two critical decades speaks volumes about the Founders’ dedication and competence in spite of the chaos around them.
It is true that the 1790s were a time of political troubles; I would not go as far to say that it was a time of political crisis, as crisis seems too strong of a term. Unrest or uneasiness sounds more appropriate. America remained in its infancy. The political minds tried to figure out how to push their political agenda yet stay within the confines of the newly formed constitution. The first two articles represent Hamiltonian aspects that seemingly used a loose interpretation of the constitution’s elastic clause to further his own goals. From someone like Jefferson who uses a strict interpretation of the constitution, it is understandable that Hamilton’s plans could be seen as unsettling. The song, poem, and political cartoon from this chapter do not seem overly malicious, more like jabs. The two most harmful items described in the section are the Alien and Sedition Acts, as well as the Kentucky Resolutions. Something as demeaning and anti-democratic as the Alien and Sedition Acts clearly show a troubling side of the Federalists, squashing the civil liberties of others to such a degree in a nation that supposedly holds freedom of speech in such high authority. The Kentucky Resolutions represents the Republican’s discontent with the Federalist workings. It created the political ideal of nullification, which haunted America several other times in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of historians’ opinions of my argument, Lewis would probably state that I do not take the events to the extreme that they need to be taken. His article emphasizes the outright threat all the political parties saw in the opposing side taking or keeping power. He tends to play out the political leader’s worst fears. Most of what he writes looks like an overreaction on the parts of the party leaders, as none of the most dangerous events came to pass. Lewis himself says it best, stating, “Republican fears clearly exceeded Federalist plans”. Most close elections seem to cause people to think of the worst outcomes if their party loses, such as the recent 2008 election. Many McCain supporters talked about jumping ship and going to Canada if the “socialist” Obama were elected. He was elected, but they remained in America despite their claims.
Ashworth focused his argument on the differing opinions within the Republican party itself, so he probably would agree with the crisis theory. If members of the same political party could not agree to specific plans, then the forces of disagreement they had with the Federalists must be fairly potent. His argument appears tenuous as several times through out the article he questions the generalizations that he stated before hand.
In Waldstreicher’s piece, he debunks the troubles of the time as “incidental, local, passing, past”. He focuses on the feelings of nationalistic feelings during and after the Revolutionary War rather than the political crisis that the other authors pose. Waldstriecher claims that the citizens were in a fervor over the birth of the new nation, even suggesting that the celebrations “(re)establish and orgainic link between elite and populous”, which seems out of place when everyone else claimed that the Federalists versus Republicans could boil down to aristocracy versus the people.
I think it is easy to make the argument that this era was filled with political crises. It is difficult to imagine how a nation could not be in some sense of turmoil after only a few years prior the entire makeup of the governmental system had been upended. I think it is nearly impossible for our generation to grasp how drastic of a change this had to be for many citizens. The shift from a state focus to a national focus had to have been perplexing to all. Add to this that in the 1790s leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pushed through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, claiming a measure of states’ rights back from the federal government. Prior to this, the very election of John Adams over Jefferson could be labeled a crisis, sense it resulted in the formation of the first political parties. It should also be noted that Shay’s Rebellion was completely ended only three years prior to 1790, so it was fresh in the minds of current politicians. The nation was also just beginning to form its first navy and grand new taxes were being passed by Federalists like Adams who had just gained the increased power to collect by the signing of the Constitution. These events, and many more, can be seen as political crises simply because of the youth of the nation and the sense that the style of governing was still being flexed. I found the most interesting point of disagreement of any of the historians to be from John Ashworth simply because of the scope of his argument. I feel like Ashworth seems to take for granted that the American government had been established and that the “crises” occurring could be focused on a study of the political parties at the time (for the sake of his studies the Democratic-Republicans). Ashworth picks apart the various contradictions he believes he finds in Jefferson’s positions as well as the inaccuracies of the Republican Party. In the context of whether or not Professor Ashworth was eluding to this being a crisis within the party, it seems he would be totally inaccurate, namely because Jefferson won the election of 1800 and 1804. It seems unlikely that a party going through crisis would have such sweeping gains and legislative success. Professor Lewis would have taken my position that the 1790s were filled with political unrest. Lewis seems to blame simply the time and the politics being debated for the unrest within the new nation. Since the nation was new, Lewis also states the fear each party had of the other party taking power of the executive branch. Though Lewis does explicitly state that this was an era of crisis, he also seems to relate some comfort and optimism about the future of the country. This was odd to me, because I feel like he contradicts the seriousness of the word crisis. I found the most interesting facts in Ashworth’s article, mainly because of his frankness concerning some of the hypocrisy the Republican party was showing concerning democratic rights.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely agree that the 1790s were years that were filled with political crisis. There were two groups with competing ideas. On one side there were people like Hamilton that wanted to interpret the Constitution in a way to expand government, and on the other side there were people like Jefferson that were not fond of expanding government by interpreting the constitution fanciful manner. These two opposing ideas are what Washington warned us about. Washington in his farewell address said, “You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection (p.69).” Washington knew that when people chose sides instead of working together for the common good it would have a profound effect on the evolution of America’s government.
ReplyDeleteThere was also a division in foreign policy. There were a number of Americans that were angry because the government was favoring Brittan over France. Many people felt that we should show favor to France over Brittan because they helped us defeat the British during the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, as Holton described, the people in power were not so much worried about loyalty as they were about money. The government decided to favor Britain because America would prosper more economically that way. Jay’s Treaty spawned a new division among the people when America formally sided with the British. Again Washington issued the new government a warning in his farewell address, “nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded (p.70).”
There was also an early battle relating to the Bill of Rights. The Sedition Acts of 1798 tried to restrict the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. This was yet another division created in the 1790s. The people were very angry that the government was not adhering to the Bill of Rights and making an attempt to infringe upon the peoples’ rights.
I think it is to be expected that the 1970s would be a time of turmoil because a new government was just formed. The politicians at that time were just like children that will push their parents’ buttons just to find out how much they can get away with. The politicians wanted to see how much they could infringe upon the rights of Americans and how much they could ignore them when making policies. The Federalist pushed just a little too hard which led to the end of their party and they learned a valuable lesson on what they could get away with. Now all the Federalist had to do was change their name and their platform enough to get back into the mainstream.
The 1970s were definitely a time of political turmoil because there were battles being fought between two groups of people on how much the government could expand, how seriously the people took the Bill of Rights, and how the government should conduct foreign policy.
Even though the U.S. Constitution had been ratified by the 1790s, it was still a period of political and economic turbulence in the United States and many questions were left unanswered about the federal government’s role in the new nation. The year 1800, argues James E. Lewis, was the climatic year in which the tensions leading up to the presidential election of Thomas Jefferson culminated. Leading up to this point, political crisis arose and drove the Federalist and the Republican parties farther and farther apart; each side now believed that the other would destroy the Constitutional government and the liberties of the American people. “[…] A revolutionary result seemed possible, even likely, even if the election [of 1800] itself proceeded in an unrevolutionary manner” (Lewis 86). Political tensions stemmed from both foreign and domestic affairs during Washington’s and Adams’ administrations. For example, the resentment over the Jay Treaty concerning trade with England and the wavering support for the French Revolution among Americans placed the United States in a difficult position abroad. On the domestic front, many of Alexander Hamilton’s suggested economic policies caused controversy in Congress and spurred events like the army’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteTo make matters worse, the election of 1800 further threatened the stability of the nation when a Federalist, Aaron Burr, and a Republican, Thomas Jefferson, received the same number of votes from the electors in the race for the presidency. This presented a new problem for Congress to sort out, and the tie between the two men was not broken until a representative from Delaware switched his support from Burr to Jefferson after realizing the seriousness of the situation at hand: “it was admitted on all hands that we must risk the Constitution and a civil war or take Mr. Jefferson” (Lewis 90). This statement alone shows the fragility of the nation in 1800, and Lewis concludes that the divisions between the Federalists and Republicans were actually heavily underplayed in the accounts of members of Congress: “A ‘revolution in form’—whether disunion or a military takeover or usurpation or a new constitutional convention—appeared much more probable to Jefferson and his contemporaries than most accounts would suggest” (Lewis 91).
Though political crises stemming from foreign and domestic policy challenged the strength of the United States during the 1790s, American nationalism, described by David Waldstreicher, may have been the saving grace of the country during these difficult times. Patriotic celebrations became popular after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and served as a type of adhesive between social classes during the American Revolution; members of the elites and the commons were able to unite under the common desire to be free, independent Americans and celebrated their new citizenship and nation together in the public sphere, putting aside their differences (Waldstreicher 78). For example, “Early Fourth of July celebrations were attempts to (re)establish an organic link between elite and populace, ratifying both popular sovereignty and the most tasteful displays of patriotic affiliation” (Waldstreicher 82). The 1790s, however, threatened the unity of America’s ruling class, and American nationalism, which had appeared to be so strong during the revolution, was tested. In the end though, perhaps it was this deeply rooted sense of nationalism that convinced Delaware’s elector to switch his vote from Burr to Jefferson to break the stalemate between the two men and save the country from the possibility of civil war.
The 1790s were undoubtedly turbulent political times. The same interests that clashed at the Constitutional convention continued to fight about the powers of the federal government and how responsive it would be to the people. This is hardly a surpise because there was no precedent to dictate how disputes were to be resolved under the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe most significant disputes were sectional, as they would continue to be for much of our nation's history. Political parties were forming and as Ashworth points out constituencies were largely divided by region. The northeast was federalist, and less democratic whle the south supported Republican canidates who were more concerned with agriculture. The mid-Atlantic states served as a swing region. Given the geographic and economic divide it was only natural that controversy would ensue.
Due to the attitudes of the framers towards "escessive democracy" it should not come as a surprise either that there were concerns about the transfer of power after the election of 1800. James Lewis describes the aftermath of the tie between Burr and Jefferson which resulted in tension as the two sides wondered how Congress would address the problem of succession. While it may be true that the federalists leveraged the situation for concessions and perhaps some did indeed consider the possibility of using the deadlock to hold onto power longer in the end the election stood and Jefferson was sworn in. This speaks to the importance placed by both sides on the republic, but the fact that there was suspicion and even plans for revolts by the Republicans clearly indicate a great deal of political turmoil and mistrust.
In the end Lewis speaks of a few men who were willing to make concessions so as to not jeopardize the young republic. This goes back to the idea of patriotism. While Waldstreicher's argument is mainly concerned with the revolutionary period and not the 1790s one can extrapolate from it that there was a general patriotic attitude in the new country. While tensions were high, many citizens both elite and common had a great deal emotionally invested n the success of the new republic. Had their been a power grab with conflict ensuing who knows what the consequences might have been. No one wanted a civil war which could very well have been the result of the Federalists trying to hold onto power after losing an election.
The 1790s were a period of tension and controversy, but in the end the Constitution held up and precedents were set for how future controversies could be resolved. We continue to have regional and partisan differences in American politics, but the 1790s taught us lessons about how to resolve political disputes and over time partisanship has been integrated into our political system without challenging the underlying integrity of the government. Perhaps the durability of the republic is the legacy of the period.
There was no political crisis during the 1790s. Instead we see the origins of our modern day political system with opposing parties; at this time the Federalists and the Republicans. There were many ideological differences between the two groups going back to the constitutional convention days with the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists were more focused on the economy while the Republicans focused on social progression. This split in opinion is not a political crisis because a crisis is when there is something fundamentally wrong with the political system. Waldstreicher’s essay examines the spread of nationalism through local celebrations, often patriotic, being reprinted through newspapers throughout the country. Waldstreicher would agree with me that there was no political crisis in the 1790s but he would disagree with me on the idea that Americans were split. Waldstreicher believes that widespread nationalism throughout the 1790s brought the American people closer together. Lewis would wholeheartedly disagree with my assessment that there was no political crisis in the 1790s. Lewis cites the Quasi-War with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Fries’ Rebellion, the expansion of the army, and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions as fueling the political crisis. Lewis states that the political parties of the 1790s differed greatly on their opinions of these previously stated developments and debate between and amongst the parties was happening everywhere and each party felt it needed to control the executive branch in order to secure a future for our new nation. I would have to disagree with Lewis that these political factions and their differing viewpoints would be a crisis necessarily because there is always dissention politically. It is the debating and deliberating between two opposing ideologies that make up our entire legislative branch today. Ashworth doesn’t address a crisis between the two political parties but a crisis within the Republican Party itself. Ashworth examines the differing viewpoints within the Republican Party and how this can be seen as a political crisis. I would have to disagree with Ashworth in that there are always going to be differing factions within political parties because you can’t place people ideologically and neatly into two separate parties. Political ideologies range all across the spectrum and this in no way is a political crisis, but merely a splintering within a group. In all my argument that there was no real political crisis during the 1790s holds up. There was surely a lot of deliberation and policymaking during this time but that is to be expected in the formative years of a nation.
ReplyDeleteThe time frame of the 1790’s was indeed a time of political crisis. The country was just beginning to take shape under the Constitution. The political ties with the British Empire threaten to and did split the country apart to an extent. The allying with the British was the main force for the split into different political parties between the Federalists and the Republicans. The political parties were at each other’s throats calling the other party unconstitutional. Also under the administration of John Jay Adams there were multiple problems the quasi war, XYZ affair and Jay’s treaty being a few. Jay’s treaty itself was a catalyst for the quasi war and potential problems with commerce. Under Jay’s treaty, Americans lost their biggest bargaining chip with the non discrimination against British trade ships. Another fumble of the Adams Administration was the Alien and Sedition acts. Those acts were unconstitutional. The acts infringe on the personal rights of the people. This separated the political parties even more at the time. Lewis in the book brings up an excellent point. That through the various acts the federalists would seem to go to great lengths to keep their control of the government. The Election of 1800 could have severly changed the course of the country. Federalists if they had one may have completely consolidated the government into a more monarchal one. The presidential seat may have become one of a life term instead of four year terms. The Republicans were also willing to go to great lengths to keep that from happening. Lewis supplies all of those points. Ashworth also was right to an extent. Slavery seemed to have shaped the form of the Republican Party. The party forming because of slavery was most likely from being banded to gather due to similar interests along with regional association with the slave trade. Ashworth’s agreement with Edmund Morgan does not seem entirely accurate. They supply that slavery created a “”sense of common identity” that change the relationship between the elites and masses”. Identity might be a strong word to use in the context. Also the equality statement for the poor would most likely be equal among slave states and non slave states. All of these actions lead to the crisis that can be seen during this time period. People who did not believe in this crisis would most likely site Madison that a two party system is necessary and that no political instability exists. The parties just had different views on the direction of the government. The people would also like at the quote supplied by Jefferson that is at the end of Lewis’ essay. Jefferson says that the Election of 1800 was a not point about to break down. A convention would have been called to settle the differences and emplace new ones. However, people who would supply those facts would be missing the bigger picture. They do not indict the acts that were taken during the Adams administration. No good justice can be given to that time. True the trade from the Caribbean was necessary under Jay’s treaty but not at the cost that it was given.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with the assessment that the 1790s were years of political crisis and the essays presented in the book serve as examples to this assertion. The disunion of the Republican party leading up to the election of 1800 helps us mark the level of confusion the nation was facing at the time. Lewis terms this election of 1800 as “as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form” (p.85). Fears over an unconstitutional grab at power by the Federalists greatly distressed the Republicans, who were sure to make great gains in the upcoming election. Federalists feared Thomas Jefferson would “fritter away federal power, stir up class resentments, and engage in a war with Great Britain after making alliances with the French”. Republicans, on the other hand, feared a continuation of Federalist control of government would lead to “further consolidation of the nation, a monarchial government, and a return to British subjugation” (p.86). Each side regarded the other as unfit to rule the nation and its people and they would fight tooth and nail for the upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican party, even though it was expected to make tremendous gains in the upcoming election, was very much fragmented and the result was an uncoordinated front of opposition to the Federalists. John Ashworth’s essay asserts that the Republican base of strength lay in the South of the nation and the leaders there, because of the strong economic homogeneity of the south “could embrace democracy in the confident belief that their own position would be safe” (p.93). Along with Ashworth’s claim of the South benefiting from a strong sense of economic homogeneity, another characteristic of that helped republicanism and therefore the Republican party was the institution of slavery. Edmund Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, argued that the institution of slavery as it existed in the nation helped foster a “sense of common identity” between the whites, the masses, and the elites. Slavery therefore, he argues, helped propel states like Virginia and perhaps the entire nation towards republicanism.
ReplyDeleteHistorians who disagree with the assertion that the United States during the 1790s was a volatile place politically would have to base their claims on something other than the individual parties and their distrust of one another’s political convictions. If six-days and thirty-six ballots to confirm our third president were not enough to point to some form of political crisis, opponents of this would have to point to some other defining moment or explanation for the situation in the 1790s. Those historians would probably argue the core divisions in politics were not a result of the tensions between party rhetoric, but rather the problems of the 1790s were in direct result to other circumstances. They could argue events like the Quasi-War with the French, the degrading state of the economy, and the sharp divisions clearly evident between the slave-holding South and the free North created some type of disconnect between people, politics, and the idea of republicanism. These occurrences could be seen as hindering the correct political association necessary to good governing because they broke and eroded the normal chains that bound together the various self-interested states, elites, and common people. If events and circumstances such as these were shown to be a common occurrence during the Early Republic, historians opposed to the allegation of our nation being critically unstable politically during the 1970s could have some grounds to contend the issue.
The 1790’s seemed to be a time of upheaval, when there was a definite paradigm shift for many of the nation’s political minds. This is of course after a time period of great consolidation of power in the federal government, as the articles of confederation failed, and national politics began to supplant the political power that had been previously held by the states. With a Federalist in office, in John Adams, it seems as though this time period would have been an easy transition from the reforms of the 1780’s; and yet many politicians began to change their opinions. They went from demanding a strong central government to protect their interests, both physical and financial, to calling for a return to stately political prominence. One might ask how such a radical shift could take place, almost over night, and in looking at the readings there are several arguments. However, I think to look into that political climate, without first viewing race simply would not make since. Therefore, I tend to agree with Ashworth. As the South would identify with the Jeffersonian model of the agrarian farmer and the need for Slave labor to support their agricultural society, the rumblings of the early Abolitionists and industrialists (I think the two have to be intertwined) to the North would create the first cracks of what would be the enormous schism between the North and South-a theme running ultimately to the civil war and beyond.
ReplyDelete