Was there a distinct style of Jacksonian politics?



The question of whether there was a distinct style of politics in the Jacksonian era of American history, 1820 – 40, is an important one as it is considered that ''Before Jackson, it was possible to think of America without putting the people at the centre of politics; after him, such a thing was inconceivable.'' (Meacham:2008) The distinct style of politics that facilitated this change emerged due to the evolution of party politics and the factionalism that was tearing apart the Republican Party. After 1824 factions broke away from the Republicans to form the Democrat party led by Andrew Jackson. This new faction led to an embryonic form of the two-party system, a transformation in party organisation and an embracing of a new style of political campaigning that disseminated the populist message of Jackson to a electorate that had been radically transformed by the market revolution. This in turn led to Jackson’s political opponents coalescing into the Whig party and in an attempt to recapture the presidency they too embarked on reforms that enabled them to win the 1840 election by embracing the style that had been so successful for the Democrats.

With the decline of the Federalist Party after the War of 1812 we saw national politics evolve in to a one party system. Out of this a consensus emerged that looked to rehabilitate the federalists back into government, what one New England editor at the time coined ''An era of good feelings.'' Though paradoxically what we saw was a growth of factions over the years rather than the harmony James Monroe originally sought (Watson 2006:59). Ultimately this situation led to the various factions within the party producing five candidates for the presidency in 1824 and the subsequent result stands out as it set in motion a chain of events that would be crucial to the development of the two party system. (Ashworth 1995:370)

With the ascendancy of John Quincy Adams to the presidency we immediately saw the splits in the party come to the fore. Jackson had won both the popular and electoral vote but with no overall majority (Pessen 1985:163) the appointment of the president was left to the congress to decide. In congress Henry Clay, frustrated by his low polling figures in the election, still had enough power to as Remini (1997:14) states, play 'king-maker', putting Adams into the presidency while being subsequently offered the office of sectary of state. Allies of Jackson interpreted this deal as a ''corrupt bargain'' and Jackson himself proclaimed that ''The will of the people has been thwarted.'' (1997:14 & 2006:82 )

There where others in Washington who agreed with and shared Jackson's political convictions, most notably Martin Van Buren. Both shared a believe in Jeffersonian Republicanism with Van Buren further believing that the protracted one party system now in operation would lead to corruption and misbehaviour the result of which would be the hobbling of good government. (1997:13) So when, in his first state of the union address, Adams announced the details of a massive spending program called the 'American system' (1997:15) this clique became aghast at the direction the country was taking. As a direct result of this Van Buren reached out to Vice President John C. Calhoun. (1997:16) In a crucial meeting the former impressed on the latter that Jackson was the logical choice to unite behind, due to his popularity with the electorate, in opposition to Adams. (1997:17) Calhoun also shared Jackson and Van Buren's fear of the threat to republicanism and in June of 1826 pledged his support to Jackson for the 1828 election (2006:73) an alliance that was the beginning of the Democrat party.

To get Jackson the presidency in 1828 Van Buren would have to mobilise an electorate that was changing radically due to the processes of the market revolution and an increase in suffrage around the country. These changes in American society where having a profound effect, producing a collective sense of fear for the future of the republic. Americans where losing their faith in the liberty and equality promised by the young country.(Feller 1995:XII) But according to Watson (2006:48) Americans still felt that republicanism could offer them dignity and this did not escape the attention of Van Buren and Jackson.( Rozwenc 1964:XIX) Van Buren knew that Jackson’s achievements combined with his populist majoritarian rhetoric made him the perfect receptacle for the votes of the people but he also recognized that strong party organisation was required and as Watson (2006:87) observes he henceforth set about using the skills and knowledge he gained in New York, where new techniques of mobilizing the electorate had sprung up. (1964:XVII)

To achieve the strong party organisation that Van Buren desired he would go about creating a national structure by adopting the spoils system that he had been in use while he was a Bucktail in New York.(2006:70) This allowed Jackson to distribute patronage and achieve loyalty to the party. (1964:XVII) They also took advantage of new technologies and disseminated their propaganda through a national newspaper based in Washington that would in time expand to encompass many other papers around the country. Their was an embracing of new methods and a reworking of older forms to get across their message such as adopting the symbol of the hickory leaf, they would hold ''Jackson meetings'' in counties that had a Democratic party presence attracting the ire of political opponents who complained that these meeting where comprised of ''..the dissolute, the noisy, the discontented, and designing of society.'' The Democrats replied that these where the real people of America of whom Jackson was one and whose interests he represented.(1997:18-20) They also would hold parades, barbecues, rallies in the hope that they would attract an enthusiastic attentive audience (1985:160) and finally and crucially Van Buren took advantage of the convention.

The convention was crucial as Van Buren recognised the reward that the party could obtain by turning the nomination process over to the voter. In effect it appeared as though the party was decentralizing the appointment process and giving the people an important role in the selection of nominees who would have to vie for the support of the party faithful to gain the nomination. It was also a process that required strong oratory skills, of which Jackson's populist style was suited to. In reality though a study conducted by Richard McCormick during this era showed that they where little more than a cosmetic process that gave the impression of participation but was open to manipulation and control by party leaders and as James Stanton Chase noted ''delegates were only asked to approve a choice made by an inner circle of party leaders.'' (1985:159) Despite the criticism, this new style of campaigning and organising had achieved its goal and the Democrat party held the presidency till 1840.

In response to this the opposition, who had been in disarray for several years, started to coalesces into a faction, the Whigs, that aligned not on what they agreed on but what they opposed, Jackson and his policies.(1995:380) The policies of the Democrats from 1828 onwards had created an environment that solidified the two party system and what we now saw was essentially an alliance of slaveholders and farmers versus those who believed in and where allied with merchant capital.(1995:X) While within the electorate itself, the populist façade of the Democratic party was faltering as government policies over issues such as nullification and the bank crisis revealed where the Democrats agenda lay. This provided an opportunity for the Whigs to expand their base and pick up votes from dismayed Democratic supporters. They did this as the Pessen (1985:169) notes by using the same techniques that the Democrats used in previous elections. They campaigned using populist rhetoric, their candidate in 1840 was, like Jackson, a war hero and on reflection the Democratic Review commenting on the Whigs success concluded ''we have taught them to conquer us!''

In conclusion what we saw in the Jacksonian era was indeed a distinct style of politics. The factionalism that we saw emerge in Washington in the early 1820s led to a radical change in the nature of political campaigns. The reforms we saw here recognised the changing political and social landscape of America, embraced populist majoritarian politics, though a very limited form, then disseminated it through newspapers, rallies, conventions and with the acceptance of these new techniques by opposing political factions we see the formation of a two party system. The legacy of the Jacksonian era and the style of politics that characterised it still reverberate through American society today and we see many parallels to it in modern campaigns where populist politicians try to connect to the electorate through the same ideas of majoritarian politics, using a two party system that has its roots here and in the case of the Obama's 2008 campaign an openness to use new technology to get their message across to the electorate.



Bibliography:
• Ashworth, John. 1995. Slavery, capitalism, and politics in the Antebellum Republic 1 Commerce and compromise, 1820 - 1850. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.
• Feller, Daniel. 1995. The Jacksonian promise: America, 1815-1840. The American moment. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Meacham, Jon “The Change Agent. Our politics are rooted in the grand, complicated presidency of Andrew Jackson.” New York. http://www.newsweek.com/id/166828/output/print (accessed March 4, 2009).
• Pessen, Edward. 1985. Jacksonian America: society, personality, and politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Remini, Robert Vincent. 1997. The Jacksonian era. Wheeling, Ill: Harlan Davidson.
• Rozwenc, Edwin C. 1964. Ideology and power in the age of Jackson. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.
• Watson, Harry L. 2006. Liberty and power: the politics of Jacksonian America. New York: Hill and Wang.