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)
After reading this section, I found that I was mostly convinced with Altschuler and Blumin’s argument about the centrality of party politics during the Age of Jackson. Throughout Antebellum Politics as Political Manipulation, the authors devote focus to the delineation between many historians’ view of politics as the “all consuming” focus of life during the Age of Jackson, and their own view of politics as prevalent, but not the omnipresent entity in the life of the average Jacksonian American. I first felt that perhaps politics truly were everywhere as I read through page 266, coming across phrases from multiple historians, including Michael E. McGerr, which described political parties as “a natural lens to view the world.” The testimony of these historians initially convinced me of virtually the opposite of what the authors were arguing. What seemed to change my mind though was when I read the phrase, “There were, to be sure, important elements of public life in American communities that the political parties often could not and did not reach…” As I continued reading I realized just how many other aspects of life were virtually unaffected by party politics, ranging from “town meetings” to religious elections. This gave me the sense that while party politics were certainly a prevalent aspect of Jacksonian America, the politically devoid factions of daily life in the U.S, as well as the presence of “…areas where public institution were not, or not yet, well established,” (268) prevented them from being the "all consuming" factor that some believe them to be.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Altschuler and Blumin essay I am convinced of their augment that party politics were not as central and all-consuming to the American people as other historians have claimed. The first piece of information that made be believe their augment was that many parts of America life remained untouched by party politics. Such parts as "town meetings, local elections, religious benevolent and reform activities of high-minded women and men" (268). If party politics had been all-consuming of American life why then had they avoided these key parts of daily life? The second piece of information that made be believe their argument was the formation of the rude republic (269). The rude republic "prided itself on its challenge to deference and its disdain for the formalities of polite address" (269). This made many of the elite shy away from party politics thus weakening the party. After reading about theses two factors it was clear in my mind that Altschuler and Blumin were correct in their argument.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments provided by Altschuler and Blumin thoroughly convinced me that politics of the Jacksonian era were not nearly as central or all-consuming to the people as historians tend to portray. Much like modern day politics in relation to the everyman, Altschuler and Blumin cite that for every reason to become entrenched in political debate and life, there is an equally compelling reason not to. "...they could also neglect to do these things-to absent themselves from a convention or rally, to read a book rather than a political newspaper, to discuss the weather rather than politics"(267). One of the more compelling arguments I thought was the argument that religion and politics were at odds, despite the attempts of the politicians to reach the people through piety. It is true that the politics of that time and anytime are fraught with backroom negotiations and corruption, and that disregard for morals would conflict with the ideals of many religions, turning off its most devout members. Unfortunately, being a devout Christian back during the Jacksonian period was becoming more popular, and thus "...some religious men eschewed politics entirely: 'I am myself a candidate, but it is for eternal life'" became the common response for these men (268). These two striking points thoroughly convince me that the views of Altschuler and Blumin were correct.
ReplyDeleteI was partially convinced by the arguments of Altschuler and Blumin that party politics during the Jackson Age were not nearly as central or all-consuming to the people as historians claim. I was partially convinced because during the beginning of the essay historians like Jean H. Baker said, "There is considerable evidence that nineteenth-century Americans gave closer attention to politics than is the case today... party rallies were better attended than Sunday services or even meetings of itinerant preachers" (266). However, when I started reading more I saw that politics were not as central or all-consuming as I thought; for example, how could politics be all-consuming if people would "read a book rather than a political newspaper, to discuss the weather rather than politics" (267)? I realized that politics was not as central for people as the historians claimed when I read "[Historians] have not stressed sufficiently the power of religious sensibilities to subordinate politics to what many believed were more important activities and preoccupations" (268). Religion was more central and all-consuming than party politics because more and more Americans were becoming Christians. So in the end I found out that there was no way politics was nearly as central as historians claimed.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, the arguments offered by Altschuler and Blumin convinced me that party politics during the Jacksonian era were not as central and all-consuming to the American people as other historians had claimed. For example, the writers described party politics as having a nominal impact on "town meetings, local elections, religious, benevolent, and reform activities" (268). Furthermore, Altschuler and Blumin asserted that the tension within the social hierarchy diminished the role of party politics. The authors contended "a primacy of self and family that confined politics to a lower order of personal commitment than is generally recognized" (271). I was not, however, convinced by Altschuler's and Blumin's attempt to use religion as an example of political parties playing a less significant role in society. The argument would have been helped by any statistical evidence to prove their claim. In summary, I agree with the arguments presented by Altschuler and Blumin.
ReplyDeleteI agree Altshuler and Blumin’s argument that politics did not invade the every waking moment of the American common man. Logically speaking, it makes sense. Religion was incredibly important to most everyone at the time, so it is understandable that politics did not particularly cross into its domain. “…Evangelicals and other Protestants continued to insist throughout the antebellum era, and later, that politics be kept out of the pulpit and the religious press” (269). This, in and of itself, means that a fair amount of time on a regular basis was devoted to something other than politics, and it may well have caused a few of the more devout to stay away from politics even after worship. Meanwhile, many elites, the people who had the most money and influence, did their best to stay out of politics because of the “degradation of character and sacrifice of principle” (269) required to hold office, and how dishonorable and undignified politics were viewed to be. This meant that most elite’s money and thought did not head towards the political arena very often either. As little interest as the elite had in politics, so too was true of the town and country folk- because they lived outside the city, they were removed from the heart of the matter. They were more concerned with their own lives and lives of their family, than they were of how to run a country. These points connect logically to convince me that Altschuler and Blumin are correct about the perseverance of politics in American culture at the time.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced in Altschuler and Blumin's argument that partisan politics was as central or all-consuming as other historians often suggest. They note the fact that communities still had many places "that the political parties often could not and did not reach," (268) including town meetings, local elections and so forth. In these places, political influence was "personal rather than partisan". Furthermore, the growing Evangelical movement could have suppressed some party-politics from growing among the common man. For example, historian Richard Carwardine notes that Evangelicals "lamented the decline of moral standards" (268) that was occurring in regards to politics, and "some religious men eschewed politics entirely" (268). Because Evangelicals made up a large portion of American society, this virtuous, anti-Partisan movement must have reached many Americans, and if it did not convince, at least it exposed them to the corruption Evangelicals saw in the government. At the same time, even wealthy or upper class Americans were not excited to participate in partisan politics. One Philadelphian elite complained about the "degradation of character & sacrifice of principle" (269) required to run for public office. While many well-off members of society contributed to forming and spreading this new corrupt republic, many others did not approve and were "compelled to adjust." (270) These three points make it obvious that partisanship was not as popular and widespread throughout America as some historians have made it seem. Historian Michael E. McGerr may have been correct in equation the political party to "a natural lens through which to view the world," (266) however, this lens was used by the politicians and not the average American. Politicians viewed each problem and situation in a partisan way, whereas, according to Altschuler and Blumin, many Americans remained untainted of the corrupt ways of partisan government.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Altschuler and Blumin's assertions in the section, I am convinced that party politics in Jacksonian America was "central" and "all-consuming" to an extent, but not to the exaggerated degree that historians imply. Although in reading the section it says that Americans attended party rallies more than Sunday services (266). There is also mention of the large displays of party loyalty and how it shaped party-members "view of the world"(269). However, I feel that though it was important to Americans, it was not their primary focus. The section even mentions that historians failed to compare political fervor to the many activities that constitute a society (269), showing that any claim to party politics being "all-consuming" was not duly proven. American citizens carried on an array of other activities including town meetings, religious duties, vigilante committees, etc (268), showing that Americans were too preoccupied with other tasks to focus solely on politics. even large scale celebrations maintained an identity separate from the political realm (268). The biggest point is that religion dictated many American's actions and the moral decadence that politics involved caused some religious people to avoid it (268). In addition Americans were too busy trying to climb the "social ladder" to be concerned with the "disreputable" world of politics" (269). In conclusion, although party politics was taken very seriously by a great deal of Americans, there were even more Americans who just went on with the activities of everyday life and avoided the corruption pertinent, in their opinion, to politics.
ReplyDelete