The United States was officially declared independent by the 2nd Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This independence became a settled fact after the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783) by the United Kingdom and the United States. However, our current governmental system was not yet in place during either of these times.
For the first 13 years of the United States of America, the government was under the Articles of Confederacy. It created an incredibly weak central government, reserving most powers to the 13 states that were a part of it. The national government had no ability to raise funds directly, and most important matters could be vetoed by a single state. To say it didn't really work is an understatement.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Monday, December 4, 2017
Politics in the United States of America: An Introduction
There are very few times in American history that have been as divided as we are now. Red states or blue states, liberals or conservatives, authoritarians or libertarians, there seems at time to almost be two nations within one, two systems of politics and "realities". How did we get here, and how do we get out? Or can we even get out of it at this point?
These are all questions I hope to answer as I write on this blog. Look, I know blogs are old fashioned, at least relative to other forms of "content" on today's Internet. But this is a much better format to get these thoughts out then polluting up people's timeline on Facebook, or creating a god-awful /500 tweet thread on Twitter that would chase away the few remaining followers. A big reason for doing this is to regularly write, to get rid of some of those thoughts swimming in my head and dragging me down. It's a way to explore our past, present, and future, while also blowing off steam about the terrible crisis we are fast approaching.
I hope you reading this will get some use out of this, and welcome discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not denying any bias, but instead am honest that my approach is most definitely from a standpoint that sits on the left of the political spectrum. I welcome disagreement and arguments from you who are not, but stale talking points will likely be ignored, and nonsense will be answered with absurdity. Particularly when dealing with historical facts, I feel confident that the information I'm sharing reflects what happened as best as can be told, but if I'm clearly pulling from some apocrypha (and there's plenty of that in our "known" American history to go around) please let me know.
These posts will have a fairly linear trajectory, and will comprise three parts. Part One will be a series of posts detailing how we got here. For the first thirty-five years of the Constitutional United States of America (1789-1824) there won't be separate posts for the two main parties, but once things get going with the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, posts will be split between different phases of the Democratic party, and its two main opponents. Third parties will be explored as well, although only within the context of the eras discussed for the other two parties. While worthy of their own exploration, third parties really only play a small role in our current situation.
Part Two will discuss the situation we currently face. This includes the global situation, and the United States current role in it. It also includes the Federal government, and the governments of our states. Finally, it includes the obstacles and threats facing the Democratic Party (and to an extent, the almost insurmountable task before Republicans who are sick of the current state of their party have before them) as we look towards the 2018 midterms, an election that is arguably one of the most crucial elections in our nation's history.
Part Three will go beyond 2018. I'll be looking at 2020, yes, but more in a bigger picture sense of how to truly move past this awful situation we currently are in. In addition, I'll also discuss how we can prevent this dangerous situation from happening again.
The next post will be kicking off part one with the establishment of the Constitution, the election of Washington, and the beginning of our partisan political system.
These are all questions I hope to answer as I write on this blog. Look, I know blogs are old fashioned, at least relative to other forms of "content" on today's Internet. But this is a much better format to get these thoughts out then polluting up people's timeline on Facebook, or creating a god-awful /500 tweet thread on Twitter that would chase away the few remaining followers. A big reason for doing this is to regularly write, to get rid of some of those thoughts swimming in my head and dragging me down. It's a way to explore our past, present, and future, while also blowing off steam about the terrible crisis we are fast approaching.
I hope you reading this will get some use out of this, and welcome discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not denying any bias, but instead am honest that my approach is most definitely from a standpoint that sits on the left of the political spectrum. I welcome disagreement and arguments from you who are not, but stale talking points will likely be ignored, and nonsense will be answered with absurdity. Particularly when dealing with historical facts, I feel confident that the information I'm sharing reflects what happened as best as can be told, but if I'm clearly pulling from some apocrypha (and there's plenty of that in our "known" American history to go around) please let me know.
These posts will have a fairly linear trajectory, and will comprise three parts. Part One will be a series of posts detailing how we got here. For the first thirty-five years of the Constitutional United States of America (1789-1824) there won't be separate posts for the two main parties, but once things get going with the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, posts will be split between different phases of the Democratic party, and its two main opponents. Third parties will be explored as well, although only within the context of the eras discussed for the other two parties. While worthy of their own exploration, third parties really only play a small role in our current situation.
Part Two will discuss the situation we currently face. This includes the global situation, and the United States current role in it. It also includes the Federal government, and the governments of our states. Finally, it includes the obstacles and threats facing the Democratic Party (and to an extent, the almost insurmountable task before Republicans who are sick of the current state of their party have before them) as we look towards the 2018 midterms, an election that is arguably one of the most crucial elections in our nation's history.
Part Three will go beyond 2018. I'll be looking at 2020, yes, but more in a bigger picture sense of how to truly move past this awful situation we currently are in. In addition, I'll also discuss how we can prevent this dangerous situation from happening again.
The next post will be kicking off part one with the establishment of the Constitution, the election of Washington, and the beginning of our partisan political system.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Where I Pivot away from the Primaries, and Towards the General Election
Putting it out there right now: Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic party for the 2016 Presidential race.
Look, I know the Sanders camp is still beating the drums and saying it's still feasible for them to win. "Wait 'til New York, Bernie's a native."
"California, folks, that's the place you oughta be. Bernie will win there."
"Don't forget Montana and Idaho. Bernie will do great there!"
Nope. Uh-unh. And true, but those states have like six delegates. It's not enough. The math is just not there. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a) Just not ready to face the facts or b) is willfully lying in the pursuit of their own interests. If you're the latter, well, you won't be convinced by me because you're lying. But if you're the former, perhaps you can be convinced.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
How we got here, Part 2: 1824
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.
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.
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
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Sausage Works: Health Care Bills pass the House
The Health Care bill, first passed by the Senate in December, has been passed by the House 219-212. That bill then goes to President Obama. In addition, they've passed the Reconciliation package on to the Senate, with 217 votes currently.
I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.
I'll have more to say on this subject later. All I have to say right now is history has once been made, this time historic law. The fight that began with TR and the Progressive movement of the early 20th century has won a major victory. Whether or not the Senate drops the ball on the reconciliation package, health care reform is heading to the White House. It's history, and not a damn Republican has signed on to it.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Of Gettysburg
One hundred and forty-six years ago today the bloody middle day of the battle of Gettysburg took place. Although it wasn't the day of the most famous event of the battle (Pickett's Charge), many important events took place on this day. Whether it was the charge of the 20th Maine, the sacrifice of the 2nd Minnesota, or the desperate overnight fighting around Culps HIll, it was a close struggle. Utlimately, however, the Union held its line, setting up the famous and unsucessful charge on July 3. Four and a half months later Abraham Lincoln would give his famous Address at the newly dedicated cemetery.
If you can only visit one National Battlefield, I would recommend Gettysburg. Few other battlefields give you as good of a sense of the ground, of what each army was fighting for. Several states have monuments, some of which are absolutely amazing and pieces of history by themselves. It is simply amazing to stand atop Little Round Top and wonder at the sheer strength of will it took the soldiers of the Confederacy to charge that steep hill, or the soldiers of the Union to hold it.
The Civil War was then, and still is, the great tragedy of the United States. The Battle of Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg on July 4, were effective turning points in the great conflict. At that point, the Union may still have lost the war, but it became almost impossible for the Confederacy to win. In the fields and forests outside of that small Pennsylvania town, the fate of our nation was quite possibly decided. Walking on that hallowed ground today, the peace and serenity contrasts greatly with the cacaphonous hell that was the battlefield that terrible July day.
If you can only visit one National Battlefield, I would recommend Gettysburg. Few other battlefields give you as good of a sense of the ground, of what each army was fighting for. Several states have monuments, some of which are absolutely amazing and pieces of history by themselves. It is simply amazing to stand atop Little Round Top and wonder at the sheer strength of will it took the soldiers of the Confederacy to charge that steep hill, or the soldiers of the Union to hold it.
The Civil War was then, and still is, the great tragedy of the United States. The Battle of Gettysburg, combined with the surrender of Vicksburg on July 4, were effective turning points in the great conflict. At that point, the Union may still have lost the war, but it became almost impossible for the Confederacy to win. In the fields and forests outside of that small Pennsylvania town, the fate of our nation was quite possibly decided. Walking on that hallowed ground today, the peace and serenity contrasts greatly with the cacaphonous hell that was the battlefield that terrible July day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)