1 Democrats and Whigs Quiz

PDF page 571: When Andrew Jackson ran for president in 1828, the campaign served not just as a vehicle to promote his election but as a vehicle for creating a lasting political coalition committed to the state’s rights philosophy that had guided the Old Republicans in the Jeffersonian era. For supporters like Martin Van Buren, the creation of a national party would help keep political

PDF page 572: issues on the forefront of the common voter’s mind in the years between national elections. Furthermore, it would ensure that Jackson’s vision outlasted his own presidency. While during the campaign and in his first inaugural address Jackson promised to reform the national government, his statements had been somewhat vague. Therefore, partisan newspapers, especially the Washington Globe, helped define and spread the Democrats’ message using Jackson’s actions during the nullification crisis and the bank war as a guide. Historian Sean Wilentz observes that Democratic thought brought together three interrelated themes. One, they supported a “robust nationalism on constitutional issues” while also exercising some “restraint on federal support for economic development.” Two, they distrusted the wealthy and the powerful, especially those people who possessed undue economic power. Three, they believed in the power of the people or that the will of the

PDF page 572: issues on the forefront of the common voter’s mind in the years between national elections. Furthermore, it would ensure that Jackson’s vision outlasted his own presidency. While during the campaign and in his first inaugural address Jackson promised to reform the national government, his statements had been somewhat vague. Therefore, partisan newspapers, especially the Washington Globe, helped define and spread the Democrats’ message using Jackson’s actions during the nullification crisis and the bank war as a guide. Historian Sean Wilentz observes that Democratic thought brought together three interrelated themes. One, they supported a “robust nationalism on constitutional issues” while also exercising some “restraint on federal support for economic development.” Two, they distrusted the wealthy and the powerful, especially those people who possessed undue economic power. Three, they believed in the power of the people or that the will of the

PDF page 572: majority reigned supreme. In essence, the Democrats wanted the freedom to pursue individual interests with as little government interference as possible. The opposition party took longer to develop in the early 1830s because Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and others struggled to find an effective means to arrest Jackson’s growing support. According to historian Michael Holt, these men had the difficult task of “uniting the opponents of the majority and broadening that coalition until it was competitive.” Initially, they thought they could wait Jackson out; they assumed incorrectly that once the people realized Jackson wanted to dismantle the American System his coalition would fall apart. As Jackson’s popularity grew, Clay and Webster looked for a way to bring all of the president’s opponents into one party. However, such an effort proved quite difficult. The question of the tariff affected their ability to appeal to southern voters. Meanwhile, the emergence of the anti- Masons (who tended to distrust all political leaders) made it difficult to

PDF page 572: majority reigned supreme. In essence, the Democrats wanted the freedom to pursue individual interests with as little government interference as possible. The opposition party took longer to develop in the early 1830s because Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and others struggled to find an effective means to arrest Jackson’s growing support. According to historian Michael Holt, these men had the difficult task of “uniting the opponents of the majority and broadening that coalition until it was competitive.” Initially, they thought they could wait Jackson out; they assumed incorrectly that once the people realized Jackson wanted to dismantle the American System his coalition would fall apart. As Jackson’s popularity grew, Clay and Webster looked for a way to bring all of the president’s opponents into one party. However, such an effort proved quite difficult. The question of the tariff affected their ability to appeal to southern voters. Meanwhile, the emergence of the anti- Masons (who tended to distrust all political leaders) made it difficult to

PDF page 572: appeal to northern voters. Clay and Webster hoped to use the question of the bank to build up an opposition party going into the election of 1832. However, that effort failed when Jackson vetoed the re-charter bill and won a resounding reelection. Although Clay lost the election, he did not give up his effort to oppose Jackson. When Jackson moved to destroy the bank, Clay led a successful effort to censure the president in 1834, which helped lay the groundwork for a legitimate opposition party. The Whig Party finally found common ground in their opposition to Jackson—“King Andrew the First,” as he had been labeled during 1832. The party took its name from a group of British politicians who had sought to defend their liberties from a powerhungry king, and whose writings had done much to inspire the American

PDF page 572: Revolution. Whig thought centered on defending liberty against power.

PDF page 573: Moreover, the party supported the maintenance of the economic and judicial nationalism seen in the Era of Good Feelings. The two parties clearly differed on the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. The Democrats believed in a strong central government as evidenced by Jackson’s position during the nullification crisis, but one that left most decisions to the states. When it came to the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution, they believed in strict construction. The Maysville Road veto in 1830 demonstrated the party’s view on limiting the role of the government. Jackson saw the bill, which provided federal funding to build a road entirely in Kentucky, as beyond the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. The Whigs, on the other hand, saw a larger role for the federal government, especially when it came to economic development. In their view, funding for projects like the Maysville Road did not exceed the powers delineated to the federal government in the Constitution. Such funding would benefit the entire

PDF page 573: Moreover, the party supported the maintenance of the economic and judicial nationalism seen in the Era of Good Feelings. The two parties clearly differed on the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. The Democrats believed in a strong central government as evidenced by Jackson’s position during the nullification crisis, but one that left most decisions to the states. When it came to the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution, they believed in strict construction. The Maysville Road veto in 1830 demonstrated the party’s view on limiting the role of the government. Jackson saw the bill, which provided federal funding to build a road entirely in Kentucky, as beyond the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. The Whigs, on the other hand, saw a larger role for the federal government, especially when it came to economic development. In their view, funding for projects like the Maysville Road did not exceed the powers delineated to the federal government in the Constitution. Such funding would benefit the entire

PDF page 573: nation, making it a necessary and proper exercise of federal power. For both parties, questions about territorial expansion complicated their ability to build national coalitions. The Democrats tended to favor territorial expansion, especially in terms of acquiring territory from Mexico (such as Texas, New Mexico, and California). The Whigs believed before the nation acquired more territory, the government should focus on the economic development of the existing states and territories. Complicating the question of territorial expansion was the expansion of slavery in new territories. The Missouri Compromise seemingly settled the issue of slavery in the existing territories, but not what might happen in any new territories. Both the Democrats and the Whigs in the 1830s wanted to avoid questions about slavery, whether in terms of expansion or abolition. The Whigs found themselves stymied by the slavery question; their economic program appealed to many large slaveholders, but their reform outlook appealed to many abolitionists. Opposing territorial expansion became the easiest way for the Whigs. If the United States did not acquire any more territory, then the question of the future of slavery in those territories could not divide their coalition. To attract southern supporters, the Democrats avoided questions of slavery by emphasizing that states had the right to choose to allow slavery or to abolish slavery, which seemed to appease most supporters. Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and their followers looked for other ways to diffuse the slavery question, especially as antislavery sentiments began to increase in the 1830s and activists looked to the federal government to take a stand against the extension of slavery. Jackson gave tacit agreement for the postal service to interfere with the delivery of antislavery tracts to the southern states. Meanwhile, Congress implemented what became known

PDF page 574: accept the petitions, but would table them without discussion. As the Democrats and the Whigs built their coalitions, they attracted diverse voters to their parties. Voter loyalty stemmed from a complex set of factors. Voters in the South and the West tended to support the Democrats, whereas voters in New England, the Mid Atlantic, and the upper Midwest preferred the Whigs. Small farmers, urban workers, and artisans looked to the Democrats to represent their economic interests, whereas large southern planters, wealthy business owners, and middling farmers chose the Whigs. Immigrants tended to appreciate the Democrats’ ability to separate political and moral questions. This ability also made them appealing to Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and free thinkers. Native-born Americans, especially those associated with the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Quaker churches, leaned in the other direction because the Whigs saw nothing wrong with the government weighing in on questions of morality. Sometimes regional or class factors determined voting patterns, but in other cases ethnic, religious, or cultural factors influenced party choice. In the end, the voters’ decisions came down to which party would best represent their interests at the local and national level.

PDF page 576: After the Whig coalition emerged, both parties began to prepare for the presidential election in 1836. Martin Van Buren of New York easily won the Democratic nomination. By all accounts, Van Buren had the political experience to be president. Not only had he been instrumental in the creation of the Democratic Party, but he also advised Jackson on a host of issues in the 1830s. For as influential as Van Buren was in his home state and in the nation’s capital, however, he was not particularly well-known by voters around the country. The Whigs decided to run three candidates with strong regional bases—Daniel Webster of Massachusetts to appeal to the Northeast, Hugh Lawson White of Tennessee to appeal to the South, and William Henry Harrison of Indiana to appeal to the West. Given Van Buren’s lack of popular appeal, the Whigs hoped to throw the election into the House of Representatives, where they could unite behind a single candidate. During the campaign, the Whigs harkened back to the fears of partisanship among the nation’s founders as an explanation for presenting voters with three candidates. The Democrats countered such anti-party sentiment by arguing their unity would help promote their principles and discourage abuses of power. The Democrats also implied to voters that the Whigs

PDF page 576: Representatives, the Whigs nominated three favorite son candidates—Daniel Webster, Hugh Lawson White, and William Henry Harrison. However, their strategy backfired and Democrat Martin Van Buren defeated all three opponents. Author: National Atlas of the United States Source: Wikimedia Commons

PDF page 573: Moreover, the party supported the maintenance of the economic and judicial nationalism seen in the Era of Good Feelings. The two parties clearly differed on the meaning of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. The Democrats believed in a strong central government as evidenced by Jackson’s position during the nullification crisis, but one that left most decisions to the states. When it came to the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution, they believed in strict construction. The Maysville Road veto in 1830 demonstrated the party’s view on limiting the role of the government. Jackson saw the bill, which provided federal funding to build a road entirely in Kentucky, as beyond the scope of the powers granted to the federal government. The Whigs, on the other hand, saw a larger role for the federal government, especially when it came to economic development. In their view, funding for projects like the Maysville Road did not exceed the powers delineated to the federal government in the Constitution. Such funding would benefit the entire