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 argued that party politics were not as central during the Age of Jackson as they were perceived to be. I agree with their conclusion based on their analysis of religion's impact on political parties. One of their arguments is that as suffrage became more universally extended in America, so too did the growth of Christianity. On page 268, they say, "...they [political historians] have not recognized the degree to which politics and religion could be placed by some in an adversarial relation." In other words, it was very common in this period of time for religion to clash with politics, so much so that one potentially had to choose to practice one, and reject the other. Carwardine (page 268) demonstrates that evangelicals believed politics to be morally corrupt and go against the teachings of Christianity. If it was true that the growth of religion paralleled the growth of political parties, then it also follows that an increasingly large number of evangelicals rejected political parties. Although Altschuler and Blumin later explain that a group of conservative Christians still believed that political parties were neccessary to further the goals of Christianity, (for example, to continue the battle against alcohol and slavery [page 268] ), they conclude that religious men still grappled with the inherent conflict between Religion and politics, and many chose to neglect political parties as a whole. This is supported on page 269, where it is written that "...evangelicals and other Protestants continued to insist throughout the antebellum era...that politics be kept out of the pulput and the religious press..." (269).
ReplyDeleteAltschuler and Blumin argue that party politics during the Age of Jackson were not as all-consuming as other historians have portrayed them to be. I disagree with this argument. I disagree because I think that the evidence these authors have provided show that party politics were actually a big part of the public culture and life. Even if American citizens were not necessarily activists within a party they were still learning about politics and the various views and workings of the political parties. For example take the religion evidence that the authors provide. Here the authors discuss in depth about how religion and politics do not coincide and many people had to make a choice between the two (268). However because people had to make this choice and because so many religious people spoke out about the conflict between religion and politics it can be shown that politics and political parties were a substantial part of life. Furthermore the man that the authors of this essay cite even goes on to say at the end of the paragraph, "Religion and politics became parts of an "organic seamless whole" (268). Also because people were voting and because there was a lot of discussion and debate about politics and the beliefs of political parties it can be shown that party politics were a substantial part of life during the Age of Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with Altshuler and Blumin’s analysis of the importance of the American political party system during the Age of Jackson. Although they show some evidence as to why the party system was not all consuming, overwhelmingly they demonstrate through examples, how powerful the party system actually was, and these points are more convincing. Focusing on religion and the public view of politics as unsavory, Altshuler and Blumin hope to construct on argument that bolster their claim but their supporting material would suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteA quote from Jean H. Baker o page 266 is an example of the power of party politics, “… [P]arty rallies were better attended than Sunday services or even meetings of itinerant preachers…”. Continue on page 266, an unnamed nonpartisan editor gives the reader a first hand perspective as to the might of party politics, saying, “Politics seem to enter into everything”. The authors continue by stating that the most important factor to consider was not party politics but religion, noting the trend of Americans of the period to flock to evangelical Christianity. Yet this statement runs in contradiction to the above noted quotation that highlighted the position of the church as running second to political rallies. The authors hope to strengthen their position by quoting Richard Cawardine but Cawardine believed that Catholicism did not stand a chance against the powerful force that was American popular culture. To Cawardine, American culture and party politics were one and the same and in quoting Cawardine, Altshuler and Blumin are contradicting their own position, putting party politics in a central position.
The second argument presented by Altshuler and Blumin is based on the emergence of both the cultural desire to become refined and respectable, and the employment of less than honorable party tactics. The clash of these conflicting practices was best illustrated by the widening gap of the social classes - the social elite found it harder to engage in politics with the hollering, slanderous middle and lower classes. Although this may be true, one must remember that the elite made up a very small tier of American society. So even if the elite minority were to withdraw from party politics, the impact would be minimal. The majority, the middle and lower classes, remained fully engaged in the unseemly world of party politics. And while the higher-class citizens were not comfortable participating with the lower classes, one could not become involved in politics and avoid the political party system since it appealed to and manipulated the majority. On page 271 the author writes, “ No significant candidacies were mounted by such paragons of republicanism outside the party’s structures and campaign machinery. Those who loathed the party and its professional politicians, therefore, had to reconcile some significantly discordant elements of the candidacy of any latter-day George Washington”. This quote explains that the only way for a person to become a viable candidate was to be nominated by one of the two parties whether the candidate approved of party politics or not. The fact that the party system had so much power that there was no other way to entered into politics is strong evidence of how dominating the system and how central it was to the culture that developed it.
I was thoroughly convinced by Altschuler and Blumin's argument about the impact of party politics during the Age of Jackson. In a way this argument reaffirmed points made by Harry L. Watson in our summer reading book, Liberty and Power.
ReplyDeleteTo think about the impact of political parties during the Jacksonian era and before is to consider the concurrent world of Evangelical Christianity in the United States. On page 268 Altschuler and Blumin refer to this world as a "parallel development" when speaking about the politics of the era, and emphasize its importance. On page 45 in Liberty and Power, Watson writes, "History seemed to teach that the Greek and Roman had fallen when their citizens lost their sense of virtue." Later on the same page he writes about the American people, "They accordingly looked upon virtue as the moral cement of republican society and sought to preserve it at all costs." All sources seem to point to the conclusion that Americans during the Jacksonian era felt that their liberty was in constant mortal peril, and that virtue was perhaps the only means to preserve it. Therefore we can conceive the tremendous importance of Christianity in their lives.
As Altschuler and Blumin quote in their essay, some historians went so far as to suggest that political parties were a lens through which Americans during the Jacksonian era would perceive the world. But again, I am much more convinced by Altschuler and Blumin's argument. During and before the War of 1812, the threats to liberty were of a concrete, external nature (The nation of Great Britain to be precise). But after the war, these threats became much more abstract and internal. Broad words like "corruption" must have circulated as the new enemies of liberty, and for this reason so many flocked to the "parallel development" of Christianity for guidance. And although these worlds of politics and religion ran parallel, they were largely incompatible.
On page 271, Altschuler and Blumin write about liberalism as "... an apolitical way of life." Two allusions pop into my head as I read this line. At first I think of George Washington and the Order of Cincinnatus. As the story of Cincinnatus goes, he was a modest farmer who lived in the countryside by Rome. When an invading army threatened Rome, he was called upon to serve as the Provisional Dictator of the Empire. He accepted this charge and defeated Rome's enemies. When the enemy was defeated he could have seized a permanent hold on the empire as a Dictator, but instead he chose to return to his cottage in the countryside and work as a farmer. Cincinnatus embodies the true American, and for this reason multiple founding fathers founded the Order of Cincinnatus, including George Washington, who it can be argued was not unlike Cincinnatus. I believe this sort of heroism embodies liberalism as an apolitical way of life and explains why the Americans of the Jacksonian Era were distanced from political parties.
The second thought, which comes to mind after reading the Altschuler and Blumin quote are the first words of the great American novel, Moby Dick, written by Herman Melville and published in 1851. "Call me Ishmael" Melville wrote. I would like to think that the narrator of these words is the American Nation herself. Ishmael, of course, is the descendant of Abraham and therefore Adam in the Bible. I believe Melville's words represent the vast influences of Christianity on Jacksonian America, which also affirms Altschuler and Blumin's argument.
Altschuler and Blumin’s argument that the Jacksonian Era was not as central and dominant in society as historians have claimed is not entirely convincing though it does bring up a couple good points. However, the argument pertaining to religion’s effect on politics is completely irrelevant. I do not believe that politics contains, as Richard Carwardine laments, “maddened, wine-heated politicians” who are a “reckless waste in useless trappings” (268). In fact, I believe that it is one’s duty, not only as a citizen but also as a moral person, to take advantage of political rights. By becoming more involved in politics one improves the entire society, a completely virtuous act that does not conflict with religion. Therefore, the argument that religion and politics are at odds does not persuade me that politics in the Jacksonian era was less prominent than historians believe.
ReplyDeleteWhile I disagree with the religious argument, the idea that the social implications may have actually prevented people from engaging in political activities is a legitimate concern. The “coarseness of the new American politics” (269) sets the tone for the political world, something that may have put off privileged or respectable people. Unlike religion, social pressure can be much more effective in shaping people’s decisions when it comes to politics. In addition, I also agree that the Jacksonian Era brought about a new age of thinking, one that typically promoted states’ rights (while still preserving the Union) and a focus on small-town family life. The emphasis on the family unit rather than the entire country may have caused a lot of people to become indifferent about politics or simply not participate as much. In 1824 only about 27% of adult white males voted and in 1828 it was still only 58% (The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People by Alan Brinkley, 218). Therefore, the political scene was not as widespread as historians may have portrayed. All in all, I agree with the idea that the social implications of participating in politics may have caused people to stray but I disagree with the idea that religion had any influence on the matter. While Altschuler and Blumin’s argument is not completely flawed, I do not necessarily agree with all of the points.
I was not entirely convinced by the argument presented by Altschuler and Blumin that claims that party politics were not as all-consuming to the american people as other historians have claimed. The supporting statements made by the two authors did not seem nearly as concrete as the countering argument. For example, the essay clearly states on page 266 that "historians... have been impressed for a very long time with the animating spirit of the nineteenth-century political spectacle." the suggests a deep public involvement in political affairs such as electing a party. throughout the essay, Altschuler and Blumin put a strong emphasis on the impact of religion in the Jacksonian era american's life. On page 268 the authors mention that they believe religion was one of "several reasons for positing a more complex and conflicted relationship to political affairs among Americans..." This implies that religion was more important to the American people than the political process of supporting a party and, as a result of this, religion became a reason for political practice to not be 'all-consuming'. However, this contradicts a prior statement on page 266 in which John Baker is quoted as saying "Party rallies were better attended than Sunday services or even meetings of itinerant preachers." This contradiction takes away the credibility of a significant portion of the authors collective argument and, therefore, makes it considerably less convincing.
ReplyDeleteBy Joel Battsek !
Altschuler and Blumin argued that party politics during the Jacksonian era were less central and all consuming than other historians had previously thought. They primarily substantiate this claim through the argument that politics became ill mannered, unethical and corrupt and how this development created a unsavory public view and eventually lead to less activists and less public involvement. Altshuler and Blumin stated that politics became a, “rude republic – a political nation …. that prided itself on its challenge to deference and its disdain for the formalities of polite address” (269. Furthermore this attitude within politics took shape with, “Blatant officeseeking and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, the cultivation of political loyalty” (269), in a time where a movement of middle-class respectability was being grounded into a variety of new social groups. Obviously a conflict then arises where the public is forced to discontinue all involvement and ties to the newly thought of rude republic in order to preserve and maintain their social respectability and standing. As a result, much of public became inactive within the party due to their inclination to protect their social appearance. Altschuler and Blumin assure us that not all elites and upper middle-class members retreated into, “deeper shades of private life,” abandoning politics and a greater sense of moral and public obligation. However those who stayed active were, “compelled to adjust to new and uncomfortably disreputable associations and activities” (270). Finally the retreat of many members of the elite and middle class lead to politics falling into the hands of lower class members. As a result, foreign visitors observed a, “disconnectedness” between the people and politics. European visitors observed that this, “privatism…. translated in many instances into a primacy of self and family that confined politics to a lower order of personal commitment than is generally recognized” (271). Altshuler and Blumin were correct that through politics becoming an unsavory practice during a time where respectability was sweeping the nation, party politics became less central and much less all consuming.
ReplyDelete