Consensus+and+Ideology+in+the+Age+of+Jackson

LM - Hofstadter effectively debunks common notions that divisions in the American body poltic of the early Industrail Revolution were cast by social and economic molds. In fact, no significant correlation can be drawn between the influence on socio-economic standing and how one voted. Through extensive examples and specific citation, Hofstadter creates a convincing case for other, far more influencial factors. The

Investigating the Whig and Jacksonian Democratic parties, it is obvious that infact leaders of these respective parties came from strikingly alligned backgrounds. Lawyer, doctos, wealthy sounthern planters, and rich merchants all found their way into positions of power more than their poor and unsuccessful counterparts did. Across the parties, it was overwhelmingly these individuals who were elected to represent the people. Thus, there can be no relationship proved between how the rich vote for the rich and the more vote for the poor, or similarly how the rich vote for the rich party and the poor for their poor party. There simply was no poor party. One would topically guess that a candidate that is strikingly supported by one class could be considered the "candidate //of that class."// However, this is interpretation wholly untrue, as there is substanital evidence to explain how other factors of ethnic, religious, and geographic causation determined how a Jacksonian era voter chose opinion. The real reasons people chose to vote lie behind an ideological framework, as opposed to a social or economic. For example, because one's religion is largely representative of his or her ideological views, religion is a factor that can be correlated to candidates that support ideas in line with values held by certain religions. (This does not mean that candidates of a certain religion have an automatic voting block created by members of their own faith, it merely illustrates that political voting habits are determined most by what values people believe in). A further real ideological correlation can be drawn from ethnic influence, as immigrants of similar origins generally had similar accultred political viewpoints. Furthermore, identifiable voting blocks do exist in locales. Florida was a primary example, where the cities remained Whig supporters and the rural swamps retained a Democratic identity. In this manner, it can be seen that people who dwell in cities (regardless of social or economic stature in the city) want political support from a party that is behind urban supporting policies. Further example of geographic divisions similar to the city phanomenon can be seen by the evolution of a North versus South political situation that caused the Civil War. Although this is an instance of geographic political division in the extreme, a visible divergence existed in the Jacksonian era between what Boston wanted, what New York wanted, what the hill people of Hanging Dog Tennessee wanted, what souther plantations owners wanted, etc.

There is one last factor influencing that can be incorrectly associated with economic class. A political movement that sprung out of the sea and created a temporary tidal wave of political impact was the Worker's Parties. Usually holding a dirivative of that name (The Philidelphia Worker's Party, the Worker's Party for Democracy), these parties represented a pooling of interests for a certain field of work. As not to confuse these working parties with a party of the rising middle class, it is important to understand the verticle integration of these new parties. They included a voting block of all members a certain industry, from the lowely factory hand to that factor's top dog. Under the general name of "Working Party", usually these political parties held the support of entire industries, for example all levels of the cotton industry would support the Worker's party of their choice. Although the Working Parties' reign was short lived, the idea of people politically uniting to support what they believed remained consistent with how other ideological beliefs brought Americans together.

checked


 * week** 2v

ADB - In the article, author Edward Pessen analyzes the assumption made by many that in 19th century America, the “rich party” was the Whigs, and the “poor party” was the Democrats (Jacksonians). In said analysis, Pessen notes that party choice correlated not as much with wealth, but rather ethnicity, lifestyle, and, most significantly, religious preference. For example, evangelicals (Protestants) aligned themselves with the Whig Party, while Catholics were Democrats. Pleasure seekers (hedonists) voted Jacksonian also, while the God-fearing were Whigs. In looking forward, the major political parties of America today, Republicans and Democrats, both compare and contrast in voter loyalty with these early political groups.

Regarding religion, the Republican Party generally has the support of some Protestant groups, as well as overwhelming support from the Mormon sect, while Democrats are generally Catholic or other religions, or even people without one (stemming from their support for equal opportunity for all, regardless of religious adherence). This can be seen, to an extent, in the on-going controversy over Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. Conservatives primarily denounce termination of embryos, while liberals elect to side with the idea that the parents have the choice to keep the child or not, since they created it. While the 19th century parties did not have to deal with such an issue, the comparison illustrates the difference between their ideologies (it is being assumed that Republican and Whigs are similar entities): the Christian base of Republicans denounces an idea that goes against their beliefs, while Democrats, with a more “mixed-bag” of religious preferences, do not condemn it wholly. With regard to race, blacks initially had overwhelming support for Republicans, due to Lincoln’s emancipation of slaves in 1863. However, during the Depression, FDR initiated the New Deal, which offered economic relief for African Americans. This, in combination with the Civil Rights Movement under Johnson and Kennedy in the 1960s, brought many blacks firmly onto the Democratic side. This is a trend that has traveled to today’s politics, though not all minorities are overwhelmingly Democratic; Hispanics and Asian Americans have more recently aligned with Republicans, due partially to Bush’s campaigning in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races. Republicans today also have a very high amount of white voters. As for lifestyle, a good example is the hippie movement of the 1960s. Pessen describes hedonists as “Jacksonian”, and the God-fearing as “Whig”. A similarity can be seen in more recent history: hippies were primarily Democratic, due to their message of peace in opposition to the Vietnam War. However, they also felt that taking drugs, primarily cannabis and LSD, was positive, a way to pleasure oneself and to delve into spirituality. Though Jacksonian Democrats may not have been heavy drug users, they are described as “pleasure-seekers”, while those with a more conservative lifestyle (Whigs) “feared God” (in the sense of awe and respect, not fright). checked

bb
 * week 3**