Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Issues in the new Jim Crow
A thesis statement on the jacksonian era
Reconstruction period apush
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Issues in the new Jim Crow
In the reading of Chapters three through six in the book Why Parties Matter: Political Competition and Democracy in the American South by John H Aldrich and John D Griffin, the authors focus on explaining the political competition and major political parties in the American south through four different time periods. The four time periods are the Jacksonian Era, the Post-Reconstruction Era, the Jim Crow South and the Southern Republicanism. Each chapter began with a historical background and context that painted a picture of major events that were impacting and shaping the major political party or parties within the country. The background and context was not only greatly appreciated as a historical refresher, but was one of the strong points of the chapters, in my opinion. The historical setting and impacts were important keys in explaining how the south kept a single party for much of its history. They then analyze the presence and actions of the party in the south at the time. They looked at things like party organization, elected officials and competition in the areas. The overall findings of the four chapters is that the South until recently has been dominated by one party. There was little to no competition between parties. In the first era the Whigs were …show more content…
The chapter’s biggest point is in tracking differences between past eras and the rise of Republicanism to show the changes. For example, they use party organization during the Jim Crow era to compare and show how party organization grew tremendously with the rise of the Republican party. They also show how party attitudes and beliefs converged to have two major political parties with little to no factioning. In previous chapters they showed how Democrats in the south's, while claiming the name of Democrats, were ideologically very different from Northern
In closing, this book informs us on how the Republicans went crazy and Democrats became useless, and how it’s become a problem. The books unfolds the faults of the Republicans and Democrats “behind the scenes”, and made me more aware of the parties today.
Holt takes a closer look into the American political systems which was categorized as the Democratic and Whig party. These two-party divorce from partisan to create sectionalism
...en the result of slavery. The last major point where sectionalism was seen was in the Election of 1824 because people were only voting for people in their sectional region, rather than who they thought was he best candidate. In addition, all the candidates, Jackson, Adams, Clay, and Crawford were all from the same party, Republican, which contributed to the already growing sectionalism. (Doc I)
A Democratic Party long ruled by moderates and conservatives succeeded in stunting what seemed like the natural growth of a successful Republican Party until the 1990s. Since then, various forces have contributed to the growth of the Republicans, and in the end, to an altering of the core membership of each party. Most recently, the state has seen the development of a dominant Republican Party that doesn't yet hold quite the dominion the Democrats enjoyed through most of the twentieth century. The Republican Party has certainly benefited from the defection of former Democrats, the arrival of Republicans and independents from out of state, and organizational difficulties in the Democratic Party. Thus, Republican officials dominate state government, and Democrats find themselves reduced, for the present, to the status of an embattled minority party seeking to recreate themselves among their voting and financial constituencies. This is showing that the newfound Republican dominance can be the beginning of a new strong party system, or if we are in a state of transition in which the terms of political competition are still in change. If it is a new party system, I don’t think it will be very durable or last too long for that matter. Now, it seems that Republican dominance of state government will
In the 1790s, soon after the ratification of the Constitution, political parties were nonexistent in the USA because President Washington feared they would drive the country apart. However, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, with their rivalling mental models, could not help but spark the division of the United States into the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties. These parties, the Democratic-Republican wanting a small, local government system and the Federalist wanting a strong, powerful government system, turned citizens against one another and eventually led to the inimical Democratic and Republican parties of today. Hence, the formation of the original political parties in the United States is very significant. Political
...ong the various sections of the United States increased. The country, similarly to the democratic party, shattered along sectional lines due to the individual interests of the sections. The south, above all, was bonded in an effort to preserve and spread slavery through the usage of popular sovereignty. New England was bonded together with the conviction that slavery was immoral and that the spread of slavery should be hindered. The west was bonded together over a mutual appreciation of democratic principles such as popular sovereignty as well as an understanding that slavery was undesirable within their own states because it would add additional competition. As the nation turned upon itself there was no other alternative but war which would ultimately pit one section of the nation against the other in a battle of slavery, moral conviction, and personal liberties.
The presidential elections of 1860 was one of the nation’s most memorable one. The north and the south sections of country had a completely different vision of how they envision their home land. What made this worst was that their view was completely opposite of each other. The north, mostly republican supporters, want America to be free; free of slaves and free from bondages. While on the other hand, the south supporters, mostly democratic states, wanted slavery in the country, because this is what they earned their daily living and profit from.
The breakdown of the second party system was also a reason for the outbreak of the Civil War. In the early 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated, the second party system collapsed and the Republican Party emerged to challenge the Democrats. Southern Revisionists have argued that the collapse of the Union had been preceded by the collapse of the 2nd party system and that the Whig disappeared only to re-emerge as the new Republican party in 1854 supported by nativist Know-Nothing votes. They have also argued that politicians created this tension on purpose to advance their careers, but by doing so they made the 2nd party system collapse. However recent historians, such as Hugh Tulloch, contradict this view by arguing that there is no one single
Beck, Paul Allen and Hershey, Marjorie Randon. Party Politics in America. 9th Ed. Longman, New York, NY. 2001.
There is much debate in the United States regarding whether there is polarization between our two dominant political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states, a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. What is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization.
The period of The Creation of Parties began in the year of 1789. This time period was around the time when the Constitution was up for ratification. People who were for the the Constitution and a strong central government were call the Federalists. On the opposing side, there were the Anti-Federalists or the Republicans/ Democratic-Republicans. This party was strongly against the Constitution because they fear that it gave too much power to the central government which may possibly lead to tyranny. The Republicans mainly represented the farmers and many of the farmers feared that the central government would increase manufacturing and decrease their agriculture business. Due to that reason, they prefer strong
The presidential election of 1864 was one of the most significant in American history. It took place in Union states during a bloody civil war, with no precedent for voting in a divided nation, and with seemingly ample justification for postponement. The vigorous yet methodical procedure of the 1864 election, with comparatively little corruption and minor viciousness, became an excellent illustration and vindication of the democratic process itself. Furthermore, it was an election in which voters cast ballots to decide on fundamental problems regarding the course of the war, the government, and American society. This campaign asked some of the most vital questions to be considered since the creation of the nation. Should the institution of slavery be expanded, continued, or abolished? Should a war that was to forever change American life be continued or was it time to make a compromise with the south and end it? And who should take the place of the unpopular President Lincoln who seemed doomed to defeat?
The North and the South had been sectionalized for years on many issues, yet the majority of the congressmen had still come together when necessary for the good of the Nation, up until 1854. After Lincoln won the election in 1860, the nation was divided by sectionalism. Due to the Nation being divided and the Southerners being paranoid about the slaves being freed, I believe both issues were causes that led to the Civil War. Works Cited Brands, H. W.. American Stories: A History of the United States. New York: Routledge, 1998 2nd ed.
Both sides desired a republican form of government. Each wanted a political system that would “protect the equality and liberty of the individuals from aristocratic privilege and…tyrannical power.” (404) However, the north and south differed greatly in “their perceptions of what most threatened its survival.” (404) The secession by the south was an attempt to reestablish republicanism, as they no longer found a voice in the national stage. Prior to the 1850s, this conflict had been channeled through the national political system. The collapse of the two-party system gave way to “political reorganization and realignment,” wrote Holt. The voters of the Democrats shifted their influence toward state and local elections, where they felt their concerns would be addressed. This was not exclusively an economically determined factor. It displayed the exercise of agency by individual states. Holt pointed out, “[T]he emergence of a new two-party framework in the South varied from state to state according to the conditions in them.” (406) The “Deep South” was repulsed by the “old political process,” most Southerners trusted their state to be the safeguards of republicanism. (404) They saw the presidential election of Abraham Lincoln, a member of the “the anti-Southern Republican party,” as something the old system could not
Wattenberg, Martin P. (1986). The decline of American political parties 1952-1984. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.