Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Jacksonian Democracy--JM Group
How would you describe Ryan’s attitude toward Jackson and the expansion of democracy during the 1830s and 1840s? Do you think that she overstates or understates the expansion of democracy, or do you think that she has struck a nice balance in her assessment of this era? (Use examples from the essay to support your answer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although Ryan accredits Jackson's convivial gatherings and campaigning with uniting large crowds of people which ultimately created a public sphere, she also seems to insist that these gatherings catalyzed the growth of democracy rather than creating it. Jackson's meetings helped spread enthusiasm across America and allowed average citizens to get involved with politics. After Jackson's elections, public gatherings continued, but instead of rallying for Jackson they were collaborating and taking part in politics. Ryan writes, "Public meetings were part cause and part effect of a major campaign to dissolve bonds of deference that wove through republican institutions and to build democratic procedures" (259). Public meetings involved numerous types of citizens in politics, thus creating new factions and allowing true democracy. As communication grew, so did the types of meetings. Ryan describes the effect of these meeting: "The ward assemblies, nominating conventions, and elections were transfer points in a relay of authority, a direct passing of a baton of power unto another representation of the people" (262). While Ryan makes it clear that Jackson did not set up these meetings, his exuberant campaigning style helped create a public sphere which in tern spread democracy everywhere. Ryan paints Jackson in a positive light, but she does not exaggerate the extent of democracy during his era. She makes it clear that while the public sphere was an open place, assemblies were exclusive, and she describes them as, "pristinely white and decisively male..."(263) She also mentions the urban riots, which are negative but show that even the hunger for democracy spread to the African American community and contrary to previous times, African Americans were also able to speak out. Ryan's analysis of Jackson's era shows that democracy grew greatly in somewhat of domino effect way with Jackson being the person who pushed the first domino.
ReplyDeleteWhile Liberty and Power focused on the economic and social changes in American society that caused this democratization of American politics, this portrays it more as a pure grassroots movement of the American public. Her overall portrayal of this movement towards democracy is positive, but she does not gloss over the less-glamourous realities of this period in time. She does emphasize at points that American society was still fundamentally un-egalitarian, stating that democracy-expanding laws "made a pointed exception for those of African descent" (259) She may overstate the extent of the expanision of democracy but I believe she captures the beliefs of the people during that period of time, relating to their attitudes towards politics and the issues of the day.
ReplyDeleteRyan's approbation of Jackson and the expansion of democracy is evident by her glorifying of the public meetings. Ryan describes the public meetings as the cause of the antebellum political fervor, and socio-political advancements. Ryan commends the public meetings for vitalizing a "spirit of democracy" in the American people, and attributes the meetings for the "mobilization of equal rights", by enabling a "landless white man (263)" to become mayor. While Ryan presents her praising outlook with some interrupted negative views, such as that of James Brooks, Ryan's overstatement of the expansion of democracy overshadows these counterpoints. While James Brook's quote definitely shows his opposing view of the meetings, the impertinence of the comparison of men to barnyard animals invalidates his statement. Had Ryan chosen a less harsh, but instead more thoughtful critique of the meetings, the assessment of the era would be more balanced.
ReplyDeleteRyan focuses on the public's role in the overall spread of democracy in the 1830-1840s. Ryan talks of the "frenetic formation of voluntary associations" and how "sovereign citizens came together for expressly political reasons... [acting] on their interdependency and [agreeing] implicitly to work together". (259) Her enthusiastic attitude towards Jackson's campaign is shown through her words, "Public meetings were part cause and part effect of a major campaign to dissolve the bonds of deference that wove through republican institutions." (259) She goes on to argue that these meetings "were the most caustic solvents of the barrier between electors and office holders." (260) In conclusion, I don't believe that Ryan has a balanced assessment of the era, as there is not enough negative evidence to support an alternate view.
ReplyDeleteI would say Ryan's attitude toward Jackson and the expansion of democracy is, for the most part, a bit too positive. She seems to be a tad on the over-enthusiastic side of her description and assessments of the attitudes of the era. For example, at the end of her essay, Ryan says that "Only the difference of gender seemed a categorical bar to full rights of citizenship," when she had just previously discussed the racial barriers for black Americans when it came to voting and citizens' rights (264). She also seems to have an inappropriately positive and casual attitude about rioting: "In fact a riot was not so much a breakdown of democratic process as its conduct by another means"(265). She essentially is denying the reality of the situation: turmoil.
ReplyDelete