Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Jacksonian Democracy--RT Group
Were you convinced by the argument of Altschuler and Blumin that party politics during the Age of Jackson was not nearly as central and all-consuming to the American people as other historians have claimed? Why or why not? (use specific evidence from the essay to support your answer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Altschuler and Blumin’s argument convinced me that the Jacksonian era was not as fully consuming as historians believe. These historians likened a political rally to “Sunday services or even meeting of itinerant preachers...[or a] secular holy day” (266) I do not agree with this point, because at the time, religion was very important to the people. The historians paint a picture of an era where politics was the main thing in a citizen’s life. But as I said, religion played a huge role in everyday life, and I doubt that citizens would substitute religion for politics. Secondly, the authors showed how Jacksonian politics played almost no role in “regular town meetings of local citizens…local elections…religious, benevolent, and reform activities of high-minded women and men. (268) However, many citizens felt that the politics of the time were intruding on their religious beliefs. They asked that “politics be kept out of the religious press” (269) This portrays a very different standard American of the Jacksonian era. The historians portray an American, consumed by politics, eagerly willing to allow politics to allow all aspects of his life. However, Altschuler and Blumin describe an American who is not ready to dive straight into politics and abandon their strictly religious viewpoint on life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(I got a new book, so the pages are different, 287-294)
ReplyDeleteAltschuler and Blumin's essay did not convince me that politics during the Jacksonian Era were not as central as historians argue. The main point of the essay wasn’t really to argue that politics weren't important or consuming in daily lives, but that they were popular because of what the authors saw as "the wrong reasons", like “direction, manipulation and corruption”, (289) which they detailed throughout the paper. It also seems that Altschuler and Blumin were voicing the opinions of the socially elite (themselves included) who disliked the fact that politics were being taken over and “corrupted” (293) by the “genuinely massive activity of the majority of ordinary Americans” (287). Speaking for the upper class, they wanted the political system to be polite and respectable; there was a “heightened pursuit to social respectability [which] coincides with the development of political practices” (291), or, a “privilege that had once been an important part of the aristocratic package” (292), in other words, members of the upper class believed that it was their right to run the show. However, to the displeasure of the aristocrats, politics grew more popular with the average citizen as more and more partisan newspapers were published. Large cities saw the gathering of massive groups of people despite social segregation, and “social elites [found] it more difficult to participate” (291) in what they deemed the rude republic. The authors also pointed out with contempt that presidential nominations often went to military commanders, calling them “disinterested amateurs” (293). Members of the upper class were frustrated that their control over politics was quickly slipping away as many more people got involved in politics, and so resorted to saying that Americans no longer honored the political system. We do, just not in the traditional ways. Americans had a voice during the Jacksonian Age and the republic, and they began using it to their advantage.
While Altschuler and Blumin made the point that the role of party politics may have been slightly over-emphasized by other historians, it is still an extremely important feature of American culture at the time. Never before, and rarely after were politics this important and celebrated by the American public. The authors may be right that the grandeur of the political demonstrations and meetings may have been exaggerated, but their reasoning is a little misleading in my opinion. First, the authors say that only men can hold positions in government and vote, “while both women and men could appear at campaign rallies (267)” and participate in other events, trying to discredit women’s participation, since they were unable to fully participate in political and governmental processes. I believe that this is rather a characterization of how much more important politics were. At the time, women were expected to follow the “Cult of Domesticity,” a set of beliefs that stated that true women should value piety, purity, submission, and domesticity, and that their only roles in society were as mothers, wives, and Christians. By going against this strict standard, women were encouraged to formulate their own opinions, putting effort into participating in the political process, and further legitimizing politics of that era. The statement that “party rallies were better attended than Sunday services (266)” may have been slightly exaggerated, but it still asserts the truly noteworthy historical significance of this political period.
ReplyDeletePolitics may not have had as extreme an effect on people in the 1800s as some historians suggest, but politics certainly still played an influential role in people’s lives. Whether or not the people intentionally sought out politics as a past time, politicians, and especially Jackson, brought it to their attention. Before the age of Jackson, politicians went to appeal to local leaders, not the people, to promote themselves. The people generally voted for whomever their local leaders endorsed, or did not vote at all. Voting based on someone else’s opinion takes very little interest in politics to do. Jackson, however, advertised himself to the people themselves with loud parades and marching bands and community events like picnics. It would be hard to miss such loud and social events, and thus people were pulled into politics unless they specifically resisted it. These tactics seem to have worked. In 1824 “fewer than 27 percent of adult white males had voted,” while in 1828, the year Jackson was elected, “58 percent of adult white males voted.” In 1840, the election following Jackson, a massive “80 percent” voted (Brinkley, 215). More than 53 percent of adult white males started voting in these 16 years. It is unlikely that such a surge of voters was because the voters suddenly realized their local leader was a genius and thus deserved to decide their vote no matter what.
ReplyDeleteOf course, not everyone’s lives circled around politics, as the historians the authors quote at the beginning of the essay seem to suggest. Some people believed there were more important things than politics, such as religion. Some religious men “lamented the decline of moral standards” and tried to stay away from politics as much as possible (Altschuler and Blumin, 268). Blumin and Altschuler also notes that there was a “tension... between political activism and upper- and middle-class respectability,” who likewise believed that politicians were amoral (Altschuler and Blumin, 269). Just because some of these people tried to stay away from politics, does not mean that it did not still influence their conversations and lives, as well as other people’s conversations and lives.
To put it simply, Altschuler and Blumin's argument convinced me. They first start off by attacking previous historians' research approaches. They state, "Historians of the United States, observing closely or from a distance, have been impressed for a very long time with the animating spirit of the 19th century political spectacle" (MP 266). Historians have been so intrigued by Antebellum Politics that they tend to exaggerate their responses and in turn, making their views myopic. The essay then proceeds to outline a couple of factors that would lessen the influence of all-consuming politics on the American people. Before any of the huge rallies could even assemble there has to have been less-popular and energetic nominating conventions. They write, "Prior to these events[political rallies] on the political calendar were the local party caucuses open to all party's adherents, and the delegates who represent them...America's parties functioned as a "lodge democracy""(MP 266). Before any huge election could occur, smaller, more exclusive voting had to happen. Also, the people being nominated weren't necessarily the right candidates. Functioning as a lodge democracy, it was easy for anyone to be nominated if they had connections. Also, the people who were mostly involved in politics were men...and only men. Men held all of the office positions and the right to vote. However, sometimes these men might not want to attend political rallies or join campaign clubs or run for office. As the authors point out, "They could also neglect to do these things-to absent themselves from a convention or rally" (MP 267). The people who were most involved in politics weren't necessarily the most dedicated. Religion also affects the influence of the all-consuming politics. The Age of Jackson was maturing at the same time in America as evangelical Christianity. As one can imagine, there was contention between the word of God and the Word of Government. As a historian in the essay, Mark Y. Hanley, point out, "Ezra Stiles, Franics Wayland...to assure that a transcendent and redemptive Christianity remain uncorrupted by the new American "liberal order"" (MP 269). Basically, the Christians were not going to submit themselves to politics. They weren't going to attend rallies, elections, polls, etc. Christianity was now thriving in America and politics was the enemy. Lastly, the public-school system diminished the effect of Jacksonian politics as well. The 1840 public-school reforms completely reconstructed school curriculum. Students weren't informed of any political history of their own country! There texts merely encompassed the Revolutionary War. "Americans were taught to honor the American republic, but not American politics" (MP 272). The youth of America, the youth of American politics, was being separated from politics.
ReplyDeleteAlshuler and Blumin’s argument somewhat convinced me that politics during the Age of Jackson were as all consuming to the American people as some historians say, but I also realized that the extent of which was over-emphasized by such historians as Jean H. Baker. Baker suggested that “nineteenth century Americans gave closer attention to politics than people today”, but if we investigate further in the article, we see that nineteenth schools “did not introduce their students to public issues or political parties, as twentieth-century courses would do.” Reading these two statements next to each other seems nearly contradictory. Another contradiction in the article is the comparison between religion and politics. Jean H. Baker goes on to say that “elections became holy days” indicating a lineage or relationship between the religion and politics of that time. Richard Cawardine later writes that many religious individual were skeptical of politics and some even “eschewed politics completely.” Religious people were not the only who chose to not participate in partisan politics, many social elites felt uncomfortable going to political events such as voting and saloons. For these reasons, it is hard for me to believe that politics during the age of Jackson were as central as suggested by some historians.
ReplyDelete