Andrew Jackson Cartoon

                President Andrew Jackson has a longstanding reputation as being the “people’s president”.  He was known for being very democratic.  Some believe, however that he may not have been as democratic as his reputation represents him to be, and that he did not advocate as much for “the people” as he was credited for.  His controversial actions caused many people to have opposing views on whether Jackson was indeed the “people’s president”.

                One action that Andrew Jackson took that can be seen as democratic was he fought against the national bank to protect the Americans from being exploited.  To fight against the banks, Jackson used the power of the veto to reject a bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  Jackson said that “the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes”¹.  The wealthy people could unfairly use the bank to their advantage.  The bank controlled the economy of the country since it gave out loans.  A lot of people depended on the bank and it practically had “a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange”¹.  Jackson believed the banks had too much power and that corporations, a new type of business, used the banks to become wealthy.  These corporations were just anonymous machines out to make money.    Jackson wanted the bank destroyed because “great evils to our country…might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people”¹.  He felt that the few wealthy people in control of the bank would inevitably use the bank to take advantage of the poorer people that they did not care about.

                A prominent and wealthy senator named Daniel Webster was disgusted at Jackson’s decision to veto the bill that would renew the bank’s charter.  He believed this decision was very undemocratic.  He said that “It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich”².  It would just turn the poor against the wealthy and the wealthy against the poor and cause problems and fighting.  It also “sows…the seeds of jealousy”².  He thought it would cause people to just hate each other and the poorer class to become jealous of the wealthy class.   

General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster

                This political cartoonist agrees with Jackson’s decision to destroy the bank.  He depicts the bank as a monster with many heads.  These heads are the wealthy people in charge of the bank as well as the corporations using the bank to their advantage.  Jackson is shown destroying this evil and malicious monster, the bank.  The cartoonist depicts Jackson defending the people and would agree that Jackson is the “people’s president”.

                Andrew Jackson should not completely be considered the “people’s president” because he made a lot of mistakes, but he should be acknowledged for often defending “the people”.  Instead of giving certain jobs in the government to well qualified people, he tried to reward people who helped him win office, by giving them these positions, which is known as the spoils system.  This system of changing the people in office appeared to Jackson a loyal and considerate thing to do, but unfortunately in one case, it did not work, as one of the people he trusted and gave a position to, stole a huge sum of money.  Jackson also claimed to be a father to the Native Americans, but he never truly defended them; instead, he made these people leave their homes.  But, he was the “people’s president” when he used the power of the veto to fight for the people and he fought against the bank which was only helping the wealthy and large corporations.  Andrew Jackson tried to be the “people’s president”, but certainly made some mistakes during his term.

¹ James D Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1902, 1905.

²Daniel Webster, July 11, 1832.

The Slow Increase of Suffrage and Democracy in the United States in the 19th Century

                Democracy is a form of government where everyone has a say.  As defined by the Miriam-Webster dictionary, democracy is a “government by the people”¹.  Democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or  indirectly”, meaning everyone votes on laws or everyone votes for people to represent them and help make laws.  Voting should occur “periodically”¹.  Democracy involves “free election” meaning democracy should be defined as a fair government where everyone has the right of suffrage¹.

                The United States at the beginning of the 19^th century was not very democratic.  It was much more democratic than other European countries, but still had many flaws.  Over the course of the century, however, the United States slowly became more democratic. 

In a painting depicting an election day, by George Caleb Bingham, many of the flaws of voting are pointed out.  

These flaws on election day contribute to the United States not being as democratic as it claimed to be since suffrage is a large part of democracy.  In the painting, there are no women, showing that the voting was restricted to just men.   There is also a black man shown selling drinks to a voting man in the painting.  The black man clearly cannot vote, meaning that suffrage was limited to just white men.  It also shows that the people voting did not take the election seriously since the man drinking will be voting drunk.  At the beginning of the century not only were white men the only people who could vote, but they had to own property worth at least fifty dollars.  This also limits the right of suffrage and makes the United States less democratic, since if a man loses his property but “in the meantime has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government and his acquaintance with mankind are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers”, “the man cannot vote” because “the jackass [property] is dead”².  So few people had a say in their own government since suffrage was very limited and Townshend found, “The attempt to govern men without seeking their consent is usurpation and tyranny”³.  People were being controlled by a government that they had no input in, so Townshend claimed that the United States is like the monarchy in Austria where the people did not have a say in the government.  

Suffrage and the people’s say in the government did increase in the 19^th century, which increased how democratic the United States was.  The graph below shows that the number of states that required men to own property decreased as well as requirements to pay taxes decreased, meaning the right to vote became less and less about economics.  Suffrage increased and thus democracy increased.

Below, is another chart that shows an increase in people instead of a legislature voting for the electors in the 19^th century.  Again, this helped more people to have a say in their government, making the United States more democratic.

This transition of increased suffrage due to less financial requirements was gradual and not very violent in most states.  Only in one state, Rhode Island, the transition occurred but took a lot of effort and was very violent.  This transition is called the “Dorr War” since Dorr led the fight to eliminate the property requirement for voting.  Rhode Island was still using a charter from the time the United States was controlled by Britain and Dorr questioned this by saying “We begin by inquiring whether it be consistent with the spirit of the Declaration of American Independence, and becoming the character of Rhode Island Republicans, any longer to acknowledge the charter of a British King as a Constitution of civil government?...”⁴.  He thought that Rhode Island was being undemocratic by not allowing everyone to vote and using a charter from the time that England controlled them.  Eventually a new constitution was adopted and even Rhode Island increased the number of people allowed to vote and thus increased how democratic the United States was in the 19^th century.

                The United States slowly became more democratic over the course of the 19^th century.  Originally suffrage was limited to only white men who owned property or paid taxes.  By the end of the 19^th century almost all white men could vote.  Suffrage was still limited because women and black men could not vote, but the right to vote still increased.  Also, many states started allowing people instead of a legislature to vote for electors.  Through the wider spread of suffrage, the United States became more democratic in the 19^th century. 

¹ Democracy (From Mirriam­Webster Dictionary).

² Benjamin Franklin, The Casket, or Flowers of Literature, Wit and Sentiment (1828).

³ Norton Townshend, Ohio Constitutional Convention, 1850.

⁴ Copyright 2012 Digital History http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook_print.cfm?smtid=3&psid=387.

Romanticism

                Romanticism was a movement in literature, music, visual arts during the 19^th century.  This movement occurred due to enlightenment, a time when many wealthy class citizens talked of rights but did not do anything to secure these rights for lower class citizens.  They talked about the importance of majority but made decisions in favor of themselves, the minority.  Romantics wanted the enlightenment thinkers to take action on some of the ideas they discussed, such as giving people rights.  Romantics also argued against some of the ideas of the enlightenment thinkers.  Romantics thought that people cannot control nature, that not every decision should be intellectually based, that individuals are important, that not everything is beautiful, and that not everything always makes sense or is rational.  This goes against the beliefs and ideologies of the enlightenment thinkers.

The Turkish Patrol
1831
Oil on canvas, 115 x 179 cm
Wallace Collection, London

                This romantic piece of art is very emotional.  Two men are being chased by a group of men with guns and swords.  These men outnumber the two men running from them.  The group of men who are chasing the two have almost caught up with them as they run away.  The painting gives one the scary emotional feeling of being chased and hunted down.  To make the painting even more emotional, three women and a young child are watching the whole scene unfold.  It would be very scary and upsetting for the women to see this chase, and it would be emotionally scarring for the young child to watch men try to kill others.  This piece also highlights the importance of the individual.  The man on the horse is elevated in the picture and is painted in the most light.  He is also one of the only men wearing a bright, white turban.  This picture shows that the man in charge of the group chasing the other two men has the most power.  The other men in his group are following his lead.  Since he has the power in the group, he does not have to concern himself with actually attacking because the other men will do that for him.  This picture also shows an awe of nature.  The horse is the one piece of nature in the painting.  The horse is painted strong and fast.  The horse is at the front of the group about to attack the two men in front.  This painting is horrific as well.  Two men are being attacked by a horse and other men with guns and swords.  People are watching.  Being chased down to most likely be killed is very horrifying.  This piece of art demonstrates various themes of romanticism.

The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

                The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not complete successes, but were also not complete failures.  Most of the revolutionaries were fighting against a government or a specific monarch.  Many revolutionaries wanted freedoms and rights.  The governments fought to maintain conservative ideas and an absolute monarchy.  Though not all the goals of the revolutions were achieved, the revolts did keep revolutionary ideas alive and spread them across Europe.

                The revolution in Poland in 1830 had some success.  Nationalists in Poland revolted wanting to achieve independence and separation from Russia.   These revolts had strong nationalistic ideologies behind them and were said to be “truly polish”¹.  The Russian government, obviously wanting to keep Poland under its control, opposed the revolt and claimed that, “The Polish kingdom is forever linked with the Russian Empire”².  The revolt in 1830 was successful at first because they gained their independence and “snatched [it] from the lawful authority”, but after only five months this independence was once again lost to Russia who regained control of Poland³.  Despite this, the nationalistic spirit remained strong.  Poland had short lived success as the freedom they gained was short lived, but national pride was preserved.

                In France a second revolution occurred in 1830.  This revolution had some success.  The radicals and liberals were both against the monarchy.  The radicals did not want a monarchy at all and liberals wanted a constitutional monarchy.  The radicals and liberals wanted freedom of press, suffrage, and to oust the current monarch Charles X.  Charles X took away the freedom of press when he wrote that, “The liberty of the periodical press is suspended”⁴.  He also limited suffrage causing many people to dislike him.  The revolution was successful in getting a new monarch since Charles X was “too profoundly pained at the evils which afflict or which may threaten my people” and thus he took “the resolution to abdicate the crown” and Louis Philippe came into power⁵.  Louis Philippe was better liked and put in some policies that favored the middle class.  The reason the revolution was not a total success was due to the fact that the changes were short lived and freedom of press and widespread suffrage was not achieved.  Voting privileges were limited as census suffrage was used meaning votes were weighted based on your rank in society.  Also, one could not run “if, at the day of his election, he is not thirty years of age, and if he does not pay five hundred francs of direct taxes”⁶.  The French Revolution of 1830 was successful in eliminating an unpopular monarch, but did not achieve the rights and freedoms sought after. 

 http://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/french-revolution-1830/13399412/?s=EJcjwn&ref=link


            The Frankfurt Assembly in Germany existed from 1448-1849.  Nationalist rebels wanted a constitutional monarchy and to unite the country, like Poland had wanted.  The people of Germany wanted to unite Germany and have “a powerful ruling house”⁷. 

To accomplish this, the German people asked Frederick William the 4^th to be their monarch.  Frederick William though turned down the crown “because the Assembly has not the right, without the consent of the German governments, to bestow the crown which they tendered me”⁸.  Since the offer came from the people of Germany and not kings, Frederick the 4^th would not become the monarch of Germany.  He was then considered the opponent since he turned down the offer and was a conservative who did not care about the nationalistic ideologies.  This revolution was basically a failure because while they eventually achieved a constitutional monarchy, it only lasted for approximately a year, and many had to die fighting to achieve this short lived victory.  

            In Europe most of the revolutions in 1830 and 1848 ultimately did not fully succeed, but many aspects were achieved.  Sometimes success was short lived and other times the ideas of the revolutions lived on and spread.  The radicals, liberals, and nationalists against the conservative governments and monarchs caused change in various ways in Europe.

¹ Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, 1830

²Constitution of The Kingdom of Poland November 27, 1815. Official Journal of the Polish Kingdom Rights of 1815, Vol I, pp. 1-103.  http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/users/khpp/fontesu/1815.htm.

³ Tsar Nicholas I, Imperial Manifesto on Poland, March 25, 1832.

Etty, John, ed. Primary Sources in Russian History, 1801 – 1917.  London:  First and Best in Education, 2009.  www.google.com/books.

⁴ The July Ordinances, July 25, 1830 By Charles X and His Ministers. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁵ Abdication of Charles X.  August 2, 1830. In Duvergier, Lois, 87-88. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁶ Declaration of the Chamber of Deputies, August 7, 1830.  In Duvergier, Lois, 93-101. Anderson, Frank Maloy, ed.  The Constitutions and Other Select Documents Representative of  the History of France, 1789 – 1901.  (Minneapolis:  HW Wilson Company, 1904) p. 495- 515.  http://ic.ucsc.edu/~traugott/hist171/readings/Anderson%201904%20select%20docs.pdf.

⁷ Johann Gustav Droysen: Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

⁸ Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849. Eva March Tappan, ed., The World's Story: A History of the World in Story, Song and Art, 14 Vols., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914), Vol. VII: Germany, The Netherlands, and Switzerland, pp. 276-278

Scanned by Jerome S. Arkenberg, Cal. State Fullerton. The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.

Picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Parliament

The Monroe Doctrine

                The United States did not approve of the dominant conservative ideology of the Quintuple Alliance, but tried to stay neutral in all situations.  Russia wanted to start establishing colonies in Oregon because they felt the territory belonged to them and not the United States, even though the United States unofficially claimed the area.  In order to not upset Russia, but to make it clear the United States was a strong country, the United States decided, “to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent”¹.  The United States also tried to maintain positive relationships with the European countries, but be firm about issues the Quintuple Alliance was dealing with.  The Quintuple Alliance was deciding whether or not to help Spain recover the colonies it lost to independence in Latin America.  The United States did not side with the Quintuple Alliance and “we [the United States] should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety”¹.  By taking this position, the United States did not side with all the Latin American countries.  They just said they would defend the already independent countries and consider any threat to them a threat to the United States.  The United States took this stance because trading with the independent Latin American countries was economically beneficial to the United States.  To continue preserving friendly relationships with the Quintuple Alliance, the United States did not accept an alliance with Britain and stated they would not “interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers” and would “cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none” meaning they would never choose a side in European conflicts¹.  They would remain friendly, neutral and would try not to get involved.  To remain friendly and neutral with the Quintuple Alliance the United States did not react too severely to any of the dominant conservative ideology and tried to maintain a neutral stance when possible.

                My “Me Thinks” is very annoyed, yet confident, like a Russian diplomat would have been when the United States proposed a meeting to negotiate the territory claims on the northwestern coast of the North American continent. 

The Russian diplomat would have felt that the United States did not even have a chance of keeping the land, if Russia wanted to claim it.  The diplomat would have felt that the United States was wasting his time and was just like a child needing to be disciplined.  He would have been very confident in Russia’s ability to gain the territory no matter what the United States did as long as Britain’s army did not support the United States since Britain had one of the best army’s in the world at the time, while the United States army was very weak.  Since the Monroe Doctrine turned down an alliance with Britain, that would have surprised the Russians but made them even more confident in being able to defeat the United States if necessary.  When the United States decided to back up the independent Latin American colonies, the diplomat would have once again been annoyed because he would have believed the United States had no power to back up the Latin American colonies and again was just misbehaving like a child.  The Russian diplomat would have felt annoyed at most of the decisions in the Monroe Doctrine but also confident in Russia’s ability to defeat the United States whenever necessary. 

¹  President Monroe James, The Monroe Doctrine,  http://www.ushistory.org/documents/monroe.htm.

                

The Congress of Vienna

                The Principle of Legitimacy solved the problem of finding a ruler for France.  Once Napoleon was killed, there was no one in charge of France and so at the Congress of Vienna, the members decided what to do about France and who would rule the country.  To reinstate traditional government and put the line of Bourbons back on the throne, the congress used the principle of legitimacy to reinstate lawful monarchs.  The congress also kept the lower class citizens happy with the restored monarch by making it a constitutional monarchy where “one may profess his religion with equal freedom” and where “Frenchmen are equal before the law”¹.  This would help to stop a revolt by the lower class citizens who would otherwise be angry with the restoration of the monarchy and their lack of rights.

                The Principle of Legitimacy would have pleased Metternich since he was a conservative.  Conservatives preferred traditional government with absolute monarchs.  This principle preserved the monarchy and brought back the traditional line of rulers.  Even though France became a constitutional monarchy and not an absolute monarchy like conservatives preferred, Metternich and the other members of congress did not want a repeat of the French Revolution.  They did not want any revolts due to citizens being angry about having an absolute monarchy.  Instituting a constitution kept all citizens from becoming angry enough to revolt.

                The Congress of Vienna impacted Europe by using concepts like the principle of legitimacy to solve various problems.  The principle of legitimacy kept monarchy (in some form) in Europe; including France.  The monarchy attempted to keep the majority of the power and the lower classes without power.  The only time the lower class was equal was “before the law”¹.  Another concept of the congress was the concept of the balance of power which also affected Europe.  The balance of power reinstated most former boundaries of countries. 

Only a few nations were expanded to try and make sure no one country had significantly more power than another.  This helped because if there were any wars, no one country would become powerful enough to take over the other countries like Napoleon did.  The power was balanced between the major European powers like France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Britain.  These five countries excluding Britain formed a Holy Alliance.  This meant that monarchs were supposedly given the authority to rule by God.  If there were any revolts against the monarch, all four countries would work together to crush the uprising, since revolting would be considered going against not only the monarch but God as well.  The holy alliance and this principle of intervention stopped revolts in Italy and Spain.  Europe underwent a drastic change after the rule of Napoleon ended and the concepts of the Congress of Vienna were put into place.

¹The Constitutional Charter of 1814

Picture: http://www.bridgemanartondemand.com/image.php?imgref=CHT164217

Ideologies

                Our Vine represents conservatism in the 19^th century.  Conservatives in the 19^th century wanted to keep a traditional government which they thought would help stop revolting and prevent social change.  They believed that when ordinary or lower class citizens have power it just creates chaos and violence.  In our Vine, two lower class citizens are trying to revolt.  They are each holding weapons (a fork and pens) to represent the violence, and they are jumping around to represent the chaos.  Two upper class citizens in charge of a country say “no” to the social revolt, and say they are keeping tradition which reflects the views of conservatives.  One of the upper class citizens is also holding a poster with a social pyramid.  The top is highlighted to represent them and show the hierarchical class system conservatives believed in.  The poster says “US!  We are better”, which also reflects the view that the upper class was the only group of people who knew how to properly rule.

                Conservatism influenced political and social action in the 19^th century.  It pushed to preserve an absolute monarchy.  In the 19^th century, conservatives pushed to keep people in lower classes with no power.  It also tried to stop political and social revolts and stop violence and chaos as seen during the French Revolution; a time when lower class citizens gained power and caused a lot of violence including beheading of people.  Conservatism always pushed against liberalism, and the conservatism minority tried to not let the majority have any sort of political influence.  Social action was also influenced by conservatism.  Again, conservatism tried to preserve a hierarchical class system, where only a few people were at the top of the social class and the majority were at the bottom and were considered powerless and lower class.  By keeping the majority powerless, social revolts, chaos, and violence tried to be stopped.  Conservatives tried to influence political and social action to benefit the upper class.

                Liberalism and Nationalism also influenced political and social action in the 19^th century.  Liberalism pushed for political change such as dissolving absolute monarchy (and absolutism) and having a constitutional monarchy (a monarchy with a written constitution).  They wanted middle class citizens to have some political power.  Liberalism pushed for meritocracy so upper class rulers and the Church would have less political power and middle class citizens would have some more.  Liberalism tried to get rid of old traditions and caused people to revolt for political and social change.  Socially, it influenced many enlightenment thinkers and enlightenment ideals.  Liberalism believed that people should have liberty, freedom, and certain rights which one is born with.  Locke, believing in the ideology of liberalism, believed that the government should protect people’s rights.  Nationalism also had an influence in the 19^th century.  One major influence of nationalism on political action was the expulsion of foreign rulers.  Nationalists felt that people living together sharing similar culture were meant to be united.  They did not want foreigners who did not share in their culture and lives to rule them.  Some nationalistic countries like Italy and Germany tried to get rid of foreign rulers.  Socially, nationalism tried to unite people within a country.  Like liberalism, nationalists were hopeful.  They were more liberal than conservative and believed they should all become as united as possible.  In the 19^th century, political and social action was influenced by liberalism and nationalism.