Remember how I said that 1796 was the beginning of two party politics in the United States? Well, it was, but only the first beginning. You see, after 1800, the Federalists, always little more than a minority party primarily centered around the elites of New England, started to wane in importance. Sure, they ran candidates for the Presidency up through the 1816 election, and a few held on even longer in Congress and the Supreme Court. However the party's power had diminished as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe each served two terms. By 1820, James Monroe ran virtually unopposed for his reelection, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams. It was the "Era of Good Feeling", and it appeared that our partisan divide had been eliminated.
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.
Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832
The source for this post is the Wikipedia article on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
How we got here: A history of partisan politics in America
For about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties.
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
My 2008 Presidential Endorsement: Catch the Blue State Fever!
For the Democrats, I'm keeping this one fairly short, and without quite the vitriol present on the GOP side. For one, I'm saving myself for the big brawl tonight on MSNBC. For another, I actually can find some candidates to respect on the Democratic side. Barring the return of zombie Lincoln and the withdrawal of all Democratic candidates (save for Gravel), my 2008 general election endorsement will likely be a Dem.
In order from last to first.
#8: Mike Gravel
Sure, its fun when the crazies are let in the building. And his righteous indignation is a site to behold. However, crazy != good candidate, so I cannot give him too much support. Keep in mind, however, that I would still vote for him over every GOP candidate, save for possibly Ron Paul.
#6 (tie): Joe Biden and Chris Dodd
They seem like decent enough fellows, and have actually done pretty well in the debates. However, they aren't really that different than the front-runners, and don't have much of a shot. If I weren't such a political geek, I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They'll be much better as leaders in Congress.
#5: Hillary Clinton
Yeah, she is the front-runner. And yeah, she'll probably end up with the nomination. However, although I have shed some of my ignorance from the 90s, I still have hard feelings towards the Clintons. Fair or not, she strikes me as incredibly cold and calculating, and willing to drop her convictions at any moment for the convenient position. Also, I can't support a candidate who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A true leader would have stood up to Bush at that moment, and done their best to keep us out of this war, rather than roll over like a coward.
#4: Dennis Kucinich
Unlike half of the field, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He stands his ground, and certainly seems to have plenty of conviction and a sense of responsibility. Also, he has a hot (for a hippie) young wife. But he is the most liberal candidate in the field, and has no shot at winning the nomination. Maybe he would win if he was running for President of The Shire.
#3: John Edwards
Despite the $400 haircuts and giant houses, he does seem to care about eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, this isn't 1968, and he isn't Robert Kennedy. Of course, considering how 1968 ended for Mr. Kennedy, maybe Mr. Edwards would be glad about that. Like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, he is disqualified because of a vote for the Iraq Resolution. At least he has shown some regret about the decision, unlike a certain front-runner from New York.
#2: Bill Richardson
An experienced diplomat, with a real moderate streak (yet good on several liberal issues), and a proven track record? How did he get in this horse-race? Although a little stiff in the debates, he clearly knows his stuff, and is an excellent candidate. He really should be a bigger contender, but the glare of the top three kind of keeps him in the shadows. If it were any other year, the endorsement would be his.
#1: Barack Obama
Sometimes the race for the Presidency is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who may legitimately change the course of the country. Obama seems like he might be this candidate. He is unabashedly liberal, but in a way that will at least foster some respect and statesmanship on the other side of the aisle. His speeches seem to be from a different time, when eloquence and ideas mattered.
Obama represents optimism, a trait sorely lacking in most of the Democratic party. He represents fresh ideas, and a possible return of honor and respect to our government. Yes, he might be inexperienced, but that is why you bring in an experienced Secretary of State and Vice-President (preferably one who isn't a Sith lord, like our current Veep).
Hmm....Obama/Richardson '08. I think I like the sound of that.
In the end, the Democratic field is much easier to digest than the pills in the GOP race. Before the field started to appear, and the Republicans showed themselves for what they are, I was a strong supporter of ABH (anybody but Hillary) . However, with the turds on the right (or in the case of Romney, canine diarrhea), I might reluctantly support her candidacy if she were the nominee. Obama on the back side of the ticket would most certainly help.
In order from last to first.
#8: Mike Gravel
Sure, its fun when the crazies are let in the building. And his righteous indignation is a site to behold. However, crazy != good candidate, so I cannot give him too much support. Keep in mind, however, that I would still vote for him over every GOP candidate, save for possibly Ron Paul.
#6 (tie): Joe Biden and Chris Dodd
They seem like decent enough fellows, and have actually done pretty well in the debates. However, they aren't really that different than the front-runners, and don't have much of a shot. If I weren't such a political geek, I probably wouldn't be able to tell them apart. They'll be much better as leaders in Congress.
#5: Hillary Clinton
Yeah, she is the front-runner. And yeah, she'll probably end up with the nomination. However, although I have shed some of my ignorance from the 90s, I still have hard feelings towards the Clintons. Fair or not, she strikes me as incredibly cold and calculating, and willing to drop her convictions at any moment for the convenient position. Also, I can't support a candidate who voted for the Iraq War Resolution. A true leader would have stood up to Bush at that moment, and done their best to keep us out of this war, rather than roll over like a coward.
#4: Dennis Kucinich
Unlike half of the field, he voted against the Iraq War Resolution. He stands his ground, and certainly seems to have plenty of conviction and a sense of responsibility. Also, he has a hot (for a hippie) young wife. But he is the most liberal candidate in the field, and has no shot at winning the nomination. Maybe he would win if he was running for President of The Shire.
#3: John Edwards
Despite the $400 haircuts and giant houses, he does seem to care about eradicating poverty. Unfortunately, this isn't 1968, and he isn't Robert Kennedy. Of course, considering how 1968 ended for Mr. Kennedy, maybe Mr. Edwards would be glad about that. Like Clinton, Dodd, and Biden, he is disqualified because of a vote for the Iraq Resolution. At least he has shown some regret about the decision, unlike a certain front-runner from New York.
#2: Bill Richardson
An experienced diplomat, with a real moderate streak (yet good on several liberal issues), and a proven track record? How did he get in this horse-race? Although a little stiff in the debates, he clearly knows his stuff, and is an excellent candidate. He really should be a bigger contender, but the glare of the top three kind of keeps him in the shadows. If it were any other year, the endorsement would be his.
#1: Barack Obama
Sometimes the race for the Presidency is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Once in a while, however, a candidate comes along who may legitimately change the course of the country. Obama seems like he might be this candidate. He is unabashedly liberal, but in a way that will at least foster some respect and statesmanship on the other side of the aisle. His speeches seem to be from a different time, when eloquence and ideas mattered.
Obama represents optimism, a trait sorely lacking in most of the Democratic party. He represents fresh ideas, and a possible return of honor and respect to our government. Yes, he might be inexperienced, but that is why you bring in an experienced Secretary of State and Vice-President (preferably one who isn't a Sith lord, like our current Veep).
Hmm....Obama/Richardson '08. I think I like the sound of that.
In the end, the Democratic field is much easier to digest than the pills in the GOP race. Before the field started to appear, and the Republicans showed themselves for what they are, I was a strong supporter of ABH (anybody but Hillary) . However, with the turds on the right (or in the case of Romney, canine diarrhea), I might reluctantly support her candidacy if she were the nominee. Obama on the back side of the ticket would most certainly help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)