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
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
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
The first political parties in America began to form at the end of the 18th century. "The conflict that took shape in the 1790s between the Federalists and the Antifederalists exercised a profound impact on American history." The two primary influences, Thomas Jefferson a...
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.
...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.
...d. The Whig and Democratic parties developed as national parties, they advocated throughout the nation, regardless of the regional and sessional differences between the supporters. Due to the economic changes, it affected many of the territories in the United States. For example, the North and the Great Lakes economy, and the East-West economy was growing as well, which strengthened relations with Border States and the North. Unlike the North, the South struggled the workers and the poverty-stricken farmers felt excluded from the new exchanges that were being made by the Democrats. Both Parties battled each other over economical issues, both of the parties had supporters throughout the entire country and stayed devoted to the idea of a unified nation. Since the parties shared interest leaders from the North and South to work together and work through sectional issues.
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
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 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?
Wattenberg, Martin P. (1986). The decline of American political parties 1952-1984. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
...0s and 1840s Democrats and Whigs built the most completely national twoparty system that Americans have ever hadboth parties relied on support from all sections of the country, and both were evenly matched in most states. Within that system, politicians knew that arguments between the North and South must be avoided. Such arguments would, first of all, split the Whig and Democratic parties in which politicians were making their careers. Second, and more dangerous, the breakdown of the national twoparty system could realign the parties along NorthSouth lines and focus national politics on the differences between the North and South. Political leaders feared that such a breakdown could lead ultimately to disunion and perhaps civil war. Most historians agree that the national party system's eventual breakdown was a crucial cause of the American Civil War (1861-1865).