Rosemarie Zagarri. Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.
Traditional histories of political involvement by women generally begin Antebellum reform movements, culminating in the Seneca Falls convention which has long served as the traditional starting point of formal feminism in American history. Without denying the importance of Seneca Falls or the Antebellum feminist movement in general, Zaggari argues that that particular "feminist moment" is best understood not as the birth of a new level of activism by women, but rather as the culmination of decades of prior political activity by women, and the reaction which ultimately limited it. The Early Republic had been a period in which white women had a much higher degree of public participation in political life than subsequent generations would be accorded. The reasons why that was, and why women lost that freedom of participation, are tied to the role in which race and gender defined full citizenship in the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian years.
Women in the early Republic had many concerns about their rights--"rights" much more broadly defained than suffrage. The language of the Revolution was universal in scope, and just as African-Americans used that language to argue for full inclusion in the polity after independence, so did white women argue that civil law, family law, and other social and legal strictures required their consent just as the Revolution itself had laid claim to legitimacy based on the consent of the governed.
For a time, there was room and even encouragement for female participation in the political realm, even if most white men resisted the revolutionary logic of extending freedom and equality to women and African-Americans. Female patriots gave legitimacy to Revolutionary and Whig rhetoric And during the early national period there was initially a generally welcoming attitude towards "female politicians" speaking and writing on behalf of Federalist and Republican positions. However, involving women in partisan politics threatened their gendered role as protectors of social morality and private, domestic harmony. The quest to push women out of politics began.
Within a few decades it succeeded, so much so that by the late 1820's many older women found that they could surprise their daughters and granddaughters by explaining that in their youth women were allowed and sometimes even encouraged to take independent positions on political matters and even enter the public sphere while doing so.
Showing posts with label party politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label party politics. Show all posts
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Liberty and Power
Harry L. Watson. Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America. (Updated edition)
Hill and Wang, 1990 and 2006.
This updated edition of Watson's influential synthesis history of the politics of Jacksonian era traces the roots of the Second Party System to social anxieties generated by the rise of the Market Revolution, within the context of the republican tradition bequeathed to the Early Republic by the Revolution. Republicanism, as understood by early Americans, posited a fundamental--even existential--conflict between "liberty" and "power" in which the latter was an implacable foe of the former.
As the afterword to this updated edition acknowledges, this simple formulation contains some premises which subsequently merited reconsideration. There has been much debate on the degree to which republicanism was a genuinely felt and coherent ideology in the early Republic. The concept of the Market Revolution has been challenged both by those who believe that America was already a fundamentally capitalist society from the colonial period forward, and those who argue that there was no "revolution" but rather a gradual, continuous evolution which either predated, postdated, or overlapped the generally accepted periodization.
These are not insignificant questions, but Watson concludes that while research subsequent to the 1990 publication of his work has often raised important and thought-provoking challenges to his guiding assumptions, the essentials of his argument are still valid. Therefore, his argument needs to be accepted within that framework.
The end of the War of 1812 removed two existential threats to American sovereignty--the British presence in the West; and their support for the Indian nations who lived there. This freedom allowed Americans to turn their attention towards the settlement and development of the trans-Allegheny west, but it also removed the pressures which had subtly reinforced the tendency to distrust and fear partisan divisions within society. The specter of "corruption" and "interest" which orthodox republicanism accepted as fatal to republican societies would begin to flourish seemingly everywhere in the rush to move west and participate in an increasingly diverse national economy where local economic production was increasingly directed towards distant markets.
The ongoing collapse of traditional community ties of reciprocity and mutual regard created a mood of anxiety and fear which manifested itself in different ways depending on circumstance, time, and place. In this regard, Watson considers such phenomena as Anti-Masonry, labor agitation, and the Second Great Awakening as being related to the same stresses and challenges which the Second Party System ultimately evolved to manage.
Because in the end, Watson argues that we should listen to Americans of the Jacksonian era when they tell us what they were trying to accomplish. We should be skeptical of arguments which discount the policies and beliefs over which Democrats and Whigs fought over as being unworthy of the effort and energy expended merely because the interests in question weren't always clearly defined; or that there were deeper processes at work which they were not fully aware of underlying the dynamic of their political system. Rather, Watson argues that while often the rhetoric and practices of the Second Party System don't always sync up with direct linkages to immediately obvious social pressures, a deeper analysis finds a consistent pattern in which not only did party politics address the ways in which these underlying anxieties were articulated, but also the political leadership were self-consciously seeking to ally the stresses of society not by denying or suppressing them, but by channeling them into engagement with a national, two-party system.
The glaring exception, of course, was slavery--one issue which was starkly geographical and for which the two-party system could not ultimately defuse. But despite that moral failing--and despite the fact that the Second Party System itself would not survive the ultimate national reckoning with that sin--the basic parameters of politics which was established in the Jacksonian age would survive, and continue to shape the American political system.
Hill and Wang, 1990 and 2006.
This updated edition of Watson's influential synthesis history of the politics of Jacksonian era traces the roots of the Second Party System to social anxieties generated by the rise of the Market Revolution, within the context of the republican tradition bequeathed to the Early Republic by the Revolution. Republicanism, as understood by early Americans, posited a fundamental--even existential--conflict between "liberty" and "power" in which the latter was an implacable foe of the former.
As the afterword to this updated edition acknowledges, this simple formulation contains some premises which subsequently merited reconsideration. There has been much debate on the degree to which republicanism was a genuinely felt and coherent ideology in the early Republic. The concept of the Market Revolution has been challenged both by those who believe that America was already a fundamentally capitalist society from the colonial period forward, and those who argue that there was no "revolution" but rather a gradual, continuous evolution which either predated, postdated, or overlapped the generally accepted periodization.
These are not insignificant questions, but Watson concludes that while research subsequent to the 1990 publication of his work has often raised important and thought-provoking challenges to his guiding assumptions, the essentials of his argument are still valid. Therefore, his argument needs to be accepted within that framework.
The end of the War of 1812 removed two existential threats to American sovereignty--the British presence in the West; and their support for the Indian nations who lived there. This freedom allowed Americans to turn their attention towards the settlement and development of the trans-Allegheny west, but it also removed the pressures which had subtly reinforced the tendency to distrust and fear partisan divisions within society. The specter of "corruption" and "interest" which orthodox republicanism accepted as fatal to republican societies would begin to flourish seemingly everywhere in the rush to move west and participate in an increasingly diverse national economy where local economic production was increasingly directed towards distant markets.
The ongoing collapse of traditional community ties of reciprocity and mutual regard created a mood of anxiety and fear which manifested itself in different ways depending on circumstance, time, and place. In this regard, Watson considers such phenomena as Anti-Masonry, labor agitation, and the Second Great Awakening as being related to the same stresses and challenges which the Second Party System ultimately evolved to manage.
Because in the end, Watson argues that we should listen to Americans of the Jacksonian era when they tell us what they were trying to accomplish. We should be skeptical of arguments which discount the policies and beliefs over which Democrats and Whigs fought over as being unworthy of the effort and energy expended merely because the interests in question weren't always clearly defined; or that there were deeper processes at work which they were not fully aware of underlying the dynamic of their political system. Rather, Watson argues that while often the rhetoric and practices of the Second Party System don't always sync up with direct linkages to immediately obvious social pressures, a deeper analysis finds a consistent pattern in which not only did party politics address the ways in which these underlying anxieties were articulated, but also the political leadership were self-consciously seeking to ally the stresses of society not by denying or suppressing them, but by channeling them into engagement with a national, two-party system.
The glaring exception, of course, was slavery--one issue which was starkly geographical and for which the two-party system could not ultimately defuse. But despite that moral failing--and despite the fact that the Second Party System itself would not survive the ultimate national reckoning with that sin--the basic parameters of politics which was established in the Jacksonian age would survive, and continue to shape the American political system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)