|
|
OneMansView
, September 21, 2009
(view all comments by OneMansView)
Show: Public Reviews | Private Reviews
Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America
by Harry L. Watson
Edition: Paperback
Price: $13.50
Availability: In Stock
53 used & new from $5.31
The interpretations of "republicanism", September 21, 2009
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book is a very insightful examination of the political thinking and alignments of the Jacksonian era - the two-plus decades after the Monroe presidency through the Polk years. The author's analysis draws upon the 18th century concept of republicanism, a somewhat nebulous notion with wide-ranging interpretations and implications. The different political factions of the era all claimed to be "republicans," yet their different understandings were such that by 1836 two well-defined political parties - the Whigs and the Democrats - had emerged based on those differences. Though the Southern system of enslavement loomed large throughout this period, the reactions to the commercial advances of the period, the Market Revolution in the author's words, proved to be most contentious as it intersected with republicanism.
Republicanism is a creed that has no tolerance for monarchy, dictatorship, nobility, aristocrats, and the like. It posits equal, free, independent, and virtuous self-governing citizens as the basis of the political community. The Jeffersonian ideal of such a person was the small, mostly self-subsisting, farmer. Liberty, above all, was emphasized but was compromised if a person was not independent, or, in other words, dependent on others for his well-being. In addition, a central tenet of republicanism was that a "common good" existed. Society with its various elements constituted a harmonious whole with no need for factions or political parties to represent "interests." Perhaps a cherished ideal, especially among Jacksonians, such an ideal social state has never existed in America. Dating from the founding, the landed gentry and commercial elites were more powerful socially and politically and certainly formed alliances. Of course, it was simply assumed that equality applied only to white men.
Most small farmers were drawn into the world of banks, currency, and credit as some of their production was directed to the marketplace. But the US financial system throughout the 19th century was unstable, subject to speculation and panics with those at the end of the credit chain being squeezed the most. Despite the obvious impact of these financial injuries, many contended that America needed to advance commercially for the overall strength of the nation. At a minimum, the manufacturing base had to be protected through tariffs, the development of transportation infrastructure was required to facilitate the movement of goods, and a robust banking and credit system was needed with paper money flowing through the economic system. This was Henry Clay's American System and was a core principle of the Whig party. Though such a system implies greater interdependence, it was claimed that individual prosperity, and thereby independence, would be enhanced.
Drawing upon his own financial setbacks due to speculative overextension, Andrew Jackson adhered to ideals of agrarian simplicity with virtually no place for a strong financial sector. He contended that issuing charters for banks and corporations and favoring the financial interests of one element of society versus another created a powerful elitist element, in direct violation of the equal liberty tenets of republicanism. In perhaps the most significant undertaking of the Jackson presidency, the Jacksonians waged a controversial war against the United States Bank of Philadelphia, headed by Nicholas Biddle and the sole depository of federal funds, throughout his presidency. His veto of the USB rechartering, his transfer of federal funds to "pet" state banks, and his insistence of specie payment for federal lands had the unintended consequence of creating financial instability in the absence of the restraining money management policies of the USB, the ramifications of which were fully realized in the panics of 1837 and 1839 after he left office.
Jackson's veto of the USB rechartering was only one instance of his assertion of presidential power. Jackson's presidential activism was derived not only from his supreme self-confidence and personal magnetism, but was also based on his contention that he was the most legitimate representative of the will of the people, having been elected nation-wide, and therefore by definition was entitled to act with few restraints. Upon assuming office, he took the unprecedented action of rooting out a significant percentage of entrenched bureaucrats and replaced them with supporters, with party strengthening implications for the fledgling Democratic Party. Toward the end of his first term he completely replaced his cabinet. All of these actions by Jackson were roundly denounced by the opposition as being an example of the exercise of tyrannical authority.
Jackson's era is often seen as the age of democracy. Without subjecting that notion to withering analysis there is no doubt that he favored the many, the ordinary man, over the few, with the caveat that he included only white men. Completely consistent with that view is Jackson's obsession with relocating Indians and expanding the nation's boundaries. He wanted cheap land for those wishing to establish independence, as well as the extension of the Southern plantation system. Clay and his supporters advocated high land prices to gain revenue for internal improvements and were at best lukewarm supporters of expansion, worried that social harmony would be compromised, not to mention their dislike for the Southerner's nefarious institution and the ignoring of numerous Indian treaties guaranteeing their lands.
There is no doubt that the Whigs emphasized the virtuous citizen more so than the Jacksonians. Not only did they call for infrastructure improvement, but they were concerned with individual improvement and social reform. Many of the evangelicals of the period came to be in the Whig party with calls for temperance. They tended to be nativist with a dislike for Roman-Catholic Germans and Irish and their use of alcohol. The Whigs did see society as being ordered based on merit, though they were not anti-democratic. But virtuous citizens had obligations to act for the betterment and reinforcement of society. Any exercise of authority was to be reasonable and in accordance with institutional rules. The Whigs particularly objected to concealed or arbitrary authority as represented by the Masons or Jackson in his various policies.
The author argues that the political alignments of the Whigs and Democrats came to be very stable and accepted by the late 1830s, despite earlier republican warnings against parties. They were hardly doctrinal, accepting those with a variety of concerns. The parties took the attention off of sectional issues as party discipline exerted overriding control. But as the author says, that stability did not last as the lurking issue of the Southern economic system exploded in the mid-1850s.
The book is very informative and concisely written. The summary above barely scratches the surface. It definitely provides clarification to the Age of Jackson, as an age of democracy. The author captures the nuances of the republican thinking that placed someone in one camp or the other. It is interesting to compare the party alignments of today with those that first appeared in the time of Jackson, as well as the authority asserted by Jackson compared with modern presidents.
|