DOCSLIB.ORG

The Second American Party System Using Your Knowledge of Information Read in the Textbook, And/Or Review Book, and the Documents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Second American Party System Using Your Knowledge of Information Read in the Textbook, And/Or Review Book, and the Documents The Second American Party System Using your knowledge of information read in the textbook, and/or review book, and the documents attached prepare a synopsis of the Second Party System. As a group you have thirty minutes to analyze the material and present the story of the Second Party System to your classmates while paying attention to some of the questions below. Please do not limit yourselves to just those questions as they are meant to get you started. Remember your classmates will not have the documents so you must be clear in addressing each of them in your presentation. You will have no more than five to six minutes to present your in-depth findings. Questions to ponder: Why did the country develop a second party system at this time? Did we need a second political party? Was it a reaction to anything? How did the second party develop? Who joined and why? What was their political ideal? You may present any manner or style you choose, preferably not standing up and talking...that’s boring, right? Make sure to include details and reference to the information contained in the attached packet. The Democratic Party By Michael F. Holt, Ph.D. The Democratic Party was the first of these two competitors to form. Combining disparate foes of John Quincy Adams's presidential administration (1825-1829), it coalesced around Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in 1828. As President Jackson alienated some of his initial supporters who would join the opposition to him, but his actions cemented the loyalty of far more of his initial voters as well as many others. Jackson won reelection in 1832, his Vice President and chosen successor Martin Van Buren would be elected in 1836, and his Tennessee lieutenant James K. Polk would win the presidency in 1844. Particularly strong in the Deep South and newer western states as well as Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Maine, the Democratic party was committed to the strong exertion of executive power vis-a-vis Congress and state legislatures, states' rights, Indian removal, the sale of federal land in the West at low prices, and territorial expansion. It strongly opposed positive governmental intervention into the economy in the form of charters for banks and other corporations, the sale of state bonds, subsidies for internal improvements like road and canal construction, and protective tariffs because it believed that such actions created privilege for the wealthy at the expense of others' equal rights. As a result, almost everywhere in the nation its strongest bases of voter support were in areas still outside the nexis of the market economy and among those in urban areas who believed they had been victimized by the market economy. Democrats were also far more hospitable to Catholics and immigrants than were their political rivals just as they were far more hostile to abolitionists and the rights of blacks than those rivals. The National Republican Party By Michael F. Holt, Ph.D. Between Jackson's election in 1828 and the formation of the Whig party in early 1834, Jackson's political foes were divided among three or four groups. Most important was the National Republican party. Supporters of the Adams administration took this name after Adams's defeat in the election of 1828. Led by Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John M. Clayton of Delaware, and Samuel Southard of New Jersey, the National Republican party was almost non-existent west of Ohio and south of Maryland and Kentucky, save for Louisiana whose sugar planters wanted protective tariffs. In sharp distinction to the Jacksonian Democrats, National Republicans were committed to using the national government to promote economic and social development. In particular, they were adherents of Henry Clay's "American System" which called for Congress to charter a national bank to supply the nation with a uniform and ample currency, pass a protective tariff to foster the development of manufacturing, and subsidize internal improvement projects to facilitate trade among different regions of the country. National Republicans also unanimously opposed Democrats' Indian Removal Act of 1830, which called for moving tribes from southeastern states west of the Mississippi River, and that opposition contributed to their unpopularity in much of the South. In 1832 National Republicans ran Henry Clay for president against Jackson, and to provide Clay with what they expected to be a winning issue, they encouraged Nicholas Biddle to seek a new charter for the Bank of the United States that year. This tactic not only provoked Jackson's famous veto of the new charter which rallied Democrats to his support. It also tarnished National Republicans as eastern elitists who championed a a privileged institution that Jackson had successfully labeled as a monster. Unable to rally all of Jackson's foes. Clay won only 49 electoral votes compared to Jackson's 219. Clearly uncompetitive, the National Republicans would shortly be subsumed by the new Whig party. The Antimasonic Party By Michael F. Holt, Ph.D. One reason Clay could not rally all of Jackson's opponents in 1832 was that in much of the Northeast a different anti-Democratic party, the Antimasonic party, also existed. Started in 1826 to protest the official cover-up of the suspected murder of a defecting Mason in western New York, Antimasonry developed into the nation's first powerful populistic third party. Protesting that Freemasonry was a dangerous, unrepublican, and all-powerful secret society that privileged its members legally, politically, and economically over all non- members by controlling state and local governments, Antimasons called on voters to restore true self-government by driving Masons from elected office and having new governments pass state laws declaring the fraternity to be illegal. The movement spread like wild-fire, for Antimasons seemed to provide a plausible explanation why government seemed unresponsive to popular demands—namely that Masons controlled it and used it exclusively to benefit other Masons. Though Antimasons cooperated with the Adams men in 1828, by 1830 they had displaced National Republicans as Democrats' primary opponent in New York and Pennsylvania. And in New England, where National Republicans controlled most state governments, Antimasons openly opposed them. Nor would they support Clay, himself a Mason, in 1832; instead they ran their own presidential candidate, William Wirt. Founded upon the fundamental proposition that no man or group of men was above the law, Antimasons would respond to Whigs' cry that Jackson had flouted the law and the Constitution. By the late 1830s, with a few exceptions in New England who became Democrats, almost all of them would join the Whig party, giving it an egalitarian, populistic patina to counter the elitist stigma of National Republicans. The Whig Party By Michael F. Holt, Ph.D. The Whig party would combine National Republicans and Antimasons as well as two different groups of southern anti-Jackson men who had refused to support Clay in 1832 because they considered National Republicans' nationalistic economic program an unconstitutional violation of states' rights. One was South Carolina's Nullifiers who shortly after Jackson's reelection in 1832 declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void in their state. Their chief spokesman in Congress, Senator John C. Calhoun, who was Jackson's Vice President during his first term, would help form the Whig party in the winter of 1833-34, but he and most South Carolina Nullifiers would rejoin the Democratic party in 1837. The second group, however, would remain Whigs. These were one-time Democrats who considered South Carolina's attempts to nullify a federal statute nonsensical but who also bridled at the strong nationalistic stance Jackson took in his December 1832 proclamation against nullification and his call on Congress for a "Force Bill" to suppress it. By mid-1833 these men referred to themselves as Independent States Rights men to express their political distance from Nullifiers, Jacksonians, and National Republicans alike. What brought these disparate anti-Jackson men together in the Whig party in 1834 was their common anger at Jackson's executive order of September 1833 removing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States. Since the Bank's charter of 1816, which ran until 1836, called for federal money to be deposited in the BUS, Jackson's action struck these men as illegal, unconstitutional, and high-handed executive tyranny. Thus Whigs initially rallied against executive tyranny and Jackson's monarchical pretensions. That was what the very name "Whig," which Revolutionary patriots had also used to signify their opposition to King George III, was meant to convey, and throughout their twenty-year history, the Whig party would rail against executive actions by both presidents and governors that threatened the autonomy and power of Congress and state legislatures. But Whigs would also embrace the National Republicans' American System after the Panic of 1837 and advocate the positive economic legislation in states that Democrats opposed: the chartering of banks and other corporations; the liberal circulation of paper-money banknotes; and subsidization of internal improvement projects that required the issue of state bonds. Where Democrats favored territorial expansion in the 1840s, Whigs would oppose it. Where Democrats pushed for the reduction of prices for federal lands in the West, Whigs wanted to keep the prices high and to distribute the revenue from federal land sales to state governments. Where the Democratic electorate was strongest in areas still outside the commercial, monetized market economy, Whigs throughout the nation were strongest in those areas and among those groups already in the market sector or who aspired to enter it. That aspiration is clearly what attracted Abraham Lincoln to the Whig party and kept him a devoted Whig until the party's final death throes in 1856.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860
    PRESERVING THE WHITE MAN’S REPUBLIC: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN CONSERVATISM, 1847-1860 Joshua A. Lynn A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2015 Approved by: Harry L. Watson William L. Barney Laura F. Edwards Joseph T. Glatthaar Michael Lienesch © 2015 Joshua A. Lynn ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joshua A. Lynn: Preserving the White Man’s Republic: The Democratic Party and the Transformation of American Conservatism, 1847-1860 (Under the direction of Harry L. Watson) In the late 1840s and 1850s, the American Democratic party redefined itself as “conservative.” Yet Democrats’ preexisting dedication to majoritarian democracy, liberal individualism, and white supremacy had not changed. Democrats believed that “fanatical” reformers, who opposed slavery and advanced the rights of African Americans and women, imperiled the white man’s republic they had crafted in the early 1800s. There were no more abstract notions of freedom to boundlessly unfold; there was only the existing liberty of white men to conserve. Democrats therefore recast democracy, previously a progressive means to expand rights, as a way for local majorities to police racial and gender boundaries. In the process, they reinvigorated American conservatism by placing it on a foundation of majoritarian democracy. Empowering white men to democratically govern all other Americans, Democrats contended, would preserve their prerogatives. With the policy of “popular sovereignty,” for instance, Democrats left slavery’s expansion to territorial settlers’ democratic decision-making.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Jackson
    THE JACKSONIAN ERA DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS: THE SECOND PARTY SYSTEM THE “ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS” • James Monroe (1817-1825) was the last Founder to serve as President • Federalist party had been discredited after War of 1812 • Monroe unopposed for reelection in 1820 • Foreign policy triumphs: • Adams-Onís Treaty (1819) settled boundary with Mexico & added Florida • Monroe Doctrine warned Europeans against further colonization in Americas James Monroe, By Gilbert Stuart THE ELECTION OF 1824 & THE SPLIT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY • “Era of Good Feelings” collapsed under weight of sectional & economic differences • New generation of politicians • Election of 1824 saw Republican party split into factions • Andrew Jackson received plurality of popular & electoral vote • House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams to be president • Henry Clay became Secretary of State – accused of “corrupt bargain” • John Quincy Adams’ Inaugural Address called in vain for return to unity THE NATIONAL REPUBLICANS (WHIGS) • The leaders: • Henry Clay • John Quincy Adams • Daniel Webster • The followers: • Middle class Henry Clay • Educated • Evangelical • Native-born • Market-oriented John Quincy Adams WHIG ISSUES • Conscience Whigs – abolition, temperance, women’s rights, etc. • Cotton Whigs – internal improvements & protective tariffs to foster economic growth (the “American System”) THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICANS (DEMOCRATS) • The leaders: • Martin Van Buren • Andrew Jackson • John C. Calhoun • The followers: Martin Van Buren • Northern working class & Southern planter aristocracy • Not well-educated • Confessional churches • Immigrants • Locally-oriented John C. Calhoun DEMOCRATIC ISSUES • Limited power for federal government & states’ rights • Opposition to “corrupt” alliance between government & business • Individual freedom from coercion “KING ANDREW” & THE “MONSTER BANK” • Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Second Party System and the Rise of the Republican Party
    The Demise Of The Second Party System And The Rise Of The Republican Party Antonio Lovato The Whig Party • 1834-1854 • Led by Henry Clay • A group organized in their opposiHon to Andrew JacKson • They supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency. • Had 2 presidents: William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor; both died in office. – John Tyler succeeded Harrison but was expelled from the party and was a firm democrat – Millard Fillmore became president aer Taylor and was the last Whig to hold office The Whig Party ConHnued • JacKson’s victories in 1828 and 1832 destroyed the Naonal Republican Party and allowed for the Whig party to grow. • In 1836 they ran three presidenHal candidates (Daniel Webster, Hugh L. White, and William Henry Harrison) to appeal to the East, South, and West • They pracHcally captured Congress and the White House in 1840 and were poised to become the naon’s dominant party. The Demise of the Whig Party • By the late 1840’s the Whig party began to unravel due to the dispute of slavery. • Millard Fillmore’s enforcement of the fugiHve slave law won the support of the southern Whigs but had alienated anHslavery Whigs. • The Party was destroyed primarily by the quesHon of whether to expand slavery and because Fillmore wasn’t reelected in 1852 the party nominated General Winfield Scoc. • Scoc won favor because he had support from the North and some support from the South in the ElecHon of 1852. • On ElecHon Day, the power of the Whigs significantly decreased due to the fact that they had elected no governors and no president, leaving only control of Tennessee and KentucKy.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer a Thesis
    Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts in Interdisciplinary Studies University of Washington 2013 Committee: Charles Williams Michael Allen Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Interdisciplinary Arts and Science ©Copyright 2013 Sean Panzer University of Washington Abstract Comparative Analysis of Successful Third Parties Sean Panzer Assistant Professor Dr. Charles Williams Interdisciplinary Arts and Science This thesis explores how the Republican Party (US) and the Labour Party (UK) were successful in becoming the rare examples of third parties that displaced a major party to become one of the major parties in a two-party system. In exploring this question the thesis first examines the political science ‘rules of the game’ that make it extremely difficult for third parties, followed by a historical/sociological comparative analysis of case studies of the Republican and Labour Parties to determine if there are similarities in their rise to power. The comparative analysis shows that under extreme conditions, a fundamental sociological and demographic change may occur which supports the addressing of issues that the major parties will be unable to adequately incorporate for fear of upsetting their core base supporters. It is under this context that a third party could ultimately be successful in rising to major party status. i Table of Contents Introduction …………………………………………………………………..…….... 1 Chapter I: Political Science Perspectives of Limitations on Third Parties ....….…… 7 Chapter II: Republican Party ……….……………………………………..……….… 30 Chapter III: Labour Party (UK) …………………………………………...…………. 63 Chapter IV: Conclusion …………………………………………………..…..………. 95 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………. 102 1 Introduction As electoral results continued to roll in for the contentious 2000 presidential election, one of the presidential candidates took the opportunity to reflect upon the close nature of the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Apush Review Packet
    APUSH REVIEW PACKET The Exam: • The exam is 3 hours and 5 minutes in length and consists of two sections. In section I, students answer 80 multiple choice questions in 55 minutes. In section II, students are given 15 minutes to plan and 45 minutes to write an essay on the document-based question (DBQ), and 70 minutes to answer two essay questions. Suggested time to be spent on each of the essay questions is 5 minutes planning and 30 minutes writing. Scoring: • The DBQ & two FRE are scored on a scale of 1-9 – Basis of a thesis, argument, and supporting evidence (including documents for DBQ) • The M/C counts for 50%, the Essays 50% – DBQ counts for 22.5%, FRE 27.5% ea. • 180 possible points – [# correct] x 1.125 = _________ MC – # out of 9 x 4.50 = ________ DBQ – # out of 9 x 2.750 = _______ FRE 1 – # out of 9 x 2.750 = _______ FRE 2 DBQ: • Requires you to answer by using documentary evidence AND your outside knowledge • READ QUESTION • BRAINSTORM!! • READ DOCUMENTS – Not statements of FACTS; descriptions, interpretations or opinions; READ THE SOURCE! • WRITE YOUR ESSAY Writing an Essay: • Thesis Paragraph – Addresses the QUESTION!! – Contains Thesis (what is YOUR theme) – Organizational Categories (set up your following paragraphs) • Supporting Paragraphs – Topic sentence – Specific factual information – Interpretive commentary – Documentation (DBQ)* – Clincher sentence • Conclusion – Supports, sums up Level of Questions Level One: questions are the facts of history. They can be answered from the text or other resources Level Two: questions require students to make inferences as to how and why the factual information has an impact in the historical context in which it occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Election of 1860: “A Campaign Fraught with Consequences”
    Published on Reviews in History (https://reviews.history.ac.uk) The Election of 1860: “A Campaign Fraught with Consequences” Review Number: 2250 Publish date: Thursday, 7 June, 2018 Author: Michael F. Holt ISBN: 978-0700624874 Date of Publication: 2017 Price: £12.70 Pages: 272pp. Publisher: University Press of Kansas Publisher url: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-2487-4.html Place of Publication: Lawrence, KS Reviewer: Aaron Astor To call the Presidential Election of 1860 a ‘campaign fraught with consequences of the most momentous import’ as New York Republicans did at their state convention in April 1860, is to make a rhetorical molehill out of a mountain. The immediate result of Abraham Lincoln’s election to the Presidency that year was the secession of seven Deep South states followed by a Civil War that produced more than 750,000 deaths and the destruction of chattel slavery. And yet, this ‘momentous’ election is still shrouded in the fog of hindsight. Historians often treat the campaign’s inner details, rhetorical flourishes, issue matrices and electioneering strategies as mere precursors to the secession crisis and war that followed. Four candidates contested the Presidential election of 1860, each representing a distinct political party (or party faction), platform, and organization. Though the victorious Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln garnered under 40 per cent of the national popular vote, it secured a majority in the Electoral College based on the votes of the free states alone. The Democratic Party split between two wings – Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Vice President John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky – nominally because of unbridgeable divisions over a Congressional slave code but really a culmination of Southern distrust of Stephen Douglas and his tepid commitment to prioritize the protection of slavery.
    [Show full text]
  • NA Boyer Ch 14.V2
    CHAPTER 14 From Compromise to Secession, 1850–1861 n early July 1859 a man calling himself Isaac Smith and claiming to be a cat- Itle dealer rented a dilapidated farmhouse some seven miles from Harpers Ferry in northern Virginia’s Blue Ridge mountains. Neighbors soon noticed that others had joined “Smith,” including two young women, and perhaps they observed a wagon loaded with fifteen boxes pull up to the farm one day. But nothing seemed out of the ordinary. True, the men stayed out of sight, but the women chatted amiably with neighbors, and “Smith” referred to the contents of the boxes merely as “hardware.” But in reality, everything was out of the ordinary. “Smith” was John Brown, a brooding abolitionist with a price on his head for the massacre of white southerners in Kansas in 1856 and with a conviction that God had ordained him “to purge this land with blood” of the evil of slavery. One of the women was his daughter, the other his daughter-in-law. The boxes con- tained rifles and revolvers, with which Brown and his recruits— white ideal- ists (including three of Brown’s sons), free blacks, and fugitive slaves— planned to raid Harpers Ferry, the site of a federal arsenal and armory, as a prelude to igniting a slave insurrection throughout the South. CHAPTER OUTLINE In some respects, Brown was a marginal figure in the abolitionist move- ment. Unlike better-known abolitionists, he had written no stirring tracts The Compromise of 1850 against slavery. But in Kansas, where civil war between free-staters and The Collapse of the Second Party System, 1853–1856 The Crisis of the Union, 1857–1860 The Collapse of the Union, 1860–1861 407 408 CHAPTER 14 From Compromise to Secession, 1850–1861 slave-staters had broken out in the mid-1850s, Brown opinion increasingly shifted toward sympathy for Brown.
    [Show full text]
  • Sources of Party System Final
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES EUI Working Papers SPS 2011/01 DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Sources of Party System Institutionalization in New Democracies: Lessons from East Central Europe Fernando Casal Bértoa EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE , FLORENCE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES Sources of Party System Institutionalization in New Democracies: Lessons from East Central Europe FERNANDO CASAL BÉRTOA EUI W orking Paper SPS 2011/01 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1725-6755 © 2011 Fernando Casal Bértoa Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract Building on Casal Bértoa and Mair´s (2010) work on the institutionalization of post-communist party systems and as a response to their uneasiness with the failure of the party politics literature to determine what causes party system institutionalization in the first place, this paper addresses the following question: what are the sources of party system institutionalization in post-communist East Central Europe? In particular, what is it that explains the institutionalization of the Hungarian and Czech party systems in clear contrast to those of Slovakia and Poland, which are considered weak and under-institutionalized, respectively? Keywords Party system institutionalization; East Central Europe; parliamentary fragmentation; type of regime; cleavage Acknowledgments I am very grateful to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • 1829 *I861 Appropriations, Banking, and the Tariff
    1829 *I861 Appropriations, Banking, and the Tariff The Committee of Ways and Means nence in the decades immediately preceding e period 1829-1861, the committee’s chairman came to be regarded as the d the tariff. The c ver the nation’s the creation of policy, probably to a larger extent than any other ee during the antebellum era. “The great body of ndrew Jackson’s election to the Presidency marked the culmination legislatzon was referred A of a period of social, economic, and political change that began to the committee of ways with the American Revolution and intensified after the War of 1812. One of the most significant of these changes was the introduction of and means, whzch then democratic reforms in order to broaden the political base, such as the had charge of all extension of the vote to all adult white males. The Virginia dynasty appropnatzons and of all ended with the presidential election of 1824. From the disaffection fax laws, and whose surrounding the election and Presidency of John Quincy Adams, a chazrman was recognzzed new and vigorous party system began to coalesce at the state level. as leader of the House, The second American party system developed incrementally be- practzcally controllang the tween 1824 and 1840. The principal stimulants to the development of the new parties were the presidential elections. By 1840, two parties order of zts buszness. ” of truly national scope competed for control of ofices on the munici- (John Sherman, 1895) pal, state, and federal level. The founders of these new parties were not all aristocratic gentlemen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of the Know-Nothing Party in Louisiana" (2015)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2015 A Glorious Assemblage: The Rise of the Know- Nothing Party in Louisiana Ryan M. Hall Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Hall, Ryan M., "A Glorious Assemblage: The Rise of the Know-Nothing Party in Louisiana" (2015). LSU Master's Theses. 1252. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/1252 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A GLORIOUS ASSEMBLAGE: THE RISE OF THE KNOW-NOTHING PARTY IN LOUISIANA A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in The Department of History by Ryan M. Hall B.A., Saint Xavier University, 2009 May 2015 Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iii Introduction……...…………………………………………………...…………………………...1 Chapter 1: New Orleans……….…………………………………………………………………17 Chapter 2: Sugar Parishes………...………………………………………………..…………….44 Chapter 3: North Louisiana and the Florida Parishes…………………….……………………...67 Aftermath and Conclusion…………..…………….……………………………………………..89 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..92 Vita...………………...…………………………………………………………………………..96 ii Abstract Between 1853 and 1856, the nativist and anti-Catholic Know-Nothing party became a powerful political force in Louisiana despite the state‘s unique religious and political makeup. This thesis studies the rise of the party in three regions of the state: New Orleans, the Sugar Parishes, and North Louisiana and the Florida Parishes to show that the party gained popularity in the state differently in different regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacksonian Era .Pdf
    US HISTORY HST202 Clark Notes on the JACKSONIAN ERA, 1828-1840: 1. Andrew Jackson’s election to the presidency may not have signaled the rise of the common man in American politics, but it did launch the modern Democratic Party. Once Jackson’s opponents coalesced into the Whig Party, the second party system quickly established itself. A self-proclaimed follower of Jeffersonian ideas, Jackson did much to undo the powers of the central government. The Bank War is a crucial case in point, as is his refusal to enforce the Supreme Court decision in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. On the other hand, Jackson’s handling of the Nullification crisis strengthened the central government. His Whig opponents were similarly consistent in their party platforms and inconsistent in their actions. 2. Jackson’s election did not result from a great outpouring of new voters. That came in 1840 when another military hero, the Whig candidate William Henry Harrison, won a great popular victory. However, the 1828 election was the first to bring the triumph of a man with little experience in government and few ideas about policy. Jackson can be described as the first modern politician. His expertise in organizing a political party and running a campaign were matched by his amateurism in governing. His predecessors had all been men of vast experience in national affairs. Each had been clearly identified in the public mind as advocates of particular policies. But Jackson owed his prominence to a few spectacular military exploits. Aside from a few years in the Senate, he had had no contact with the practical problems of running a government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disruption of the Philadelphia Whigocracy: Joseph R
    The Disruption of the Philadelphia Whigocracy: Joseph R. Chandler, Anti-Catholicism, and the Congressional Election oj 1854 HE TRADITIONAL PERCEPTION of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the key event in the political divisions of 1854 and the Tsubsequent collapse of the Whig party has been further mod- ified by recent articles on party realignment in antebellum Pennsyl- vania. Of particular importance in this connection is a study by William E. Gienapp that presents convincing evidence that linked moral and religious issues (temperance and anti-Catholicism, in par- ticular) had substantially greater influence on the outcome of the elections of 1854 than did opposition to the Nebraska measure.1 While the appeal of such issues would detach large numbers of voters from both major parties (and in combination with the Nebraska question produce the Democratic debacle of 1854), it was the Whigs—with their history of advocacy of moral reforms and flirtations with nativ- Research for this article was supported by the Board on Faculty Research of Saint Joseph's University. 1 The traditional view to which historians have reacted for more than a generation evolved from the work of Allan Nevins and Roy F. Nichols. It holds, in summary, that the political realignment of the 1850s resulted from the inability of the so-called second party system, the national Democratic and Whig parties of the Jacksonian era, to contain the issue of slavery extension, and that Know Nothingism represented an effort by battered Whig and conservative leaders to divert attention from the destructive issue of slavery by exploiting popular hostility to immigrants and Catholics.
    [Show full text]