A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

THE HOUR BEFORE THE END

 

To continue the story of the Whig Party, this posting will describe the political landscape in those months leading up to the 1852 election.  This blog is focusing on the Whigs as a case study that functioned in a political culture that one can describe as dominated by a version of federal theory.  This blogger calls that version parochial/traditional federalism in which its adherents ascribe(ed) in federal beliefs and values but extend(ed) its sense of partnership only to the Western European descendants living in America.[1] 

          This blog assumes that given the general democratic attributes American politics reflected, what the nation’s leaders debated at a given time reflected what the nation’s population was considering important.  The drawback to the approach this blog uses is that the names of vying politicians seem to take center stage while political beliefs and values making up the political culture is best seen among typical citizens.  Of more importance were those concerns about which Americans were worried.  Hopefully, the reader keeps this in mind.

1848-1853 (continued)

          With Millard Fillmore taking up the presidency after Zachary Taylor’s death, Fillmore, as pointed out in the last posting, chose to enforce the newly enacted Fugitive Slave Act, part of the Compromise of 1850.  As expected, this policy made him popular in the South but lost him support among Northern Whigs.  Therefore, he was vulnerable in the upcoming election. 

In addition, two nationally known Whigs had presidential ambitions, Secretary of State Daniel Webster – a former senator from Massachusetts – and General Winfield Scott who led American forces in the Mexican-American War.  The general was garnering a good deal of support in the North but found little of it in the South in that he was perceived as being too close to New York senator, William Seward, who espoused an anti-slavery position.[2]

At the Whig convention in 1852, Fillmore received at the Baltimore meeting, 133 delegate votes on the first ballot, missing the necessary number of votes by 14.  It then took another 52 ballots – and a failed brokered deal between Fillmore and Scott supporters – for Scott to win the nomination. 

The Democrats in their convention – also in Baltimore – nominated little known, pro South (pro slavery) New Hampshire senator, Franklin Pierce, beating contenders such as Lewis Cass, Stephen A. Douglas, William L. Marcy, and James Buchanan in 49 ballots.  The result of these battles, both for the Whigs and Democrats, was that in both party platforms turned out to be highly similar and the ensuing campaign was mostly a personality contest between Scott and Pierce.

That is not to say that the voters were not concerned about contentious issues.  With the Compromise of 1850 having been struck just two years earlier, many were concerned with the fate of slavery especially as the nation began adding states in the West.  Dissolution of the union was already being considered among some in the national electorate. 

But both parties supported and agreed to enforce the Compromise of 1850 while the Democrats were more strident in their advocacy and promised, in line with the party’s traditional position, less government intrusion in people’s affairs.  Each side during the campaign engaged in direct attacks on the other side – some accurate, some, at best, stretching the truth.  All the campaign strategies that had become common after the 1840 Harrison campaign found expression in 1852.  That included handbills, parades, and rallies.

Of note, the ensuing election solicited a low number of voters casting their votes, but from those who did vote a clear choice was made.  Pierce won 254 electoral votes to Scott’s 42 electoral votes.  Of note was Pierce’s vice president, William R. King.  He was from Alabama and was considered to balance the ticket with the New Hampshire candidate, Pierce. 

He was also known as a moderate voice who strove to maintain the debate over slavery in a civil tone.  He fell ill with tuberculosis and felt it necessary to go to Cuba for a cure.  Consequently, he was sworn into office there, the only vice president having been so in a foreign land but made his way back to his plantation, only to die the next day after his arrival, six weeks into his term. 

As Pierce’s term began in 1853, two national concerns seem to have been taking up people’s attention.  For this youngest president to date (47 years old), one concern, of course, was the expansion of slavery, but the other was the economy.  The memory of the national depression, although over, was still fresh. 

So, while the Whigs lost convincingly in 1852, their ranks were mostly confident that they could rebound as they did in 1845 after the Democrat Polk’s presidency.  But the overall national condition had changed since that earlier election result.  In 1853, the economy continued to strengthen and there was a lull in the concern over the status of slavery and its expansion.  This latter state did not last for long and simple arithmetic helps explain why.

In 1846 the number of slave states outnumbered the number of free states, 15 to 14.  But one can see a growing concern among pro-slavery forces, and in retrospect, one can see why.  In 1858, the split was 15 slave states, 17 free states and in 1861, it was 15 slave states and 19 free states. 

As a reminder, expansion was especially important to the pro-slavery side in that Southerners saw as essential that the number of slave states, at least, be equal to the number of free states.  This was seen as essential since if the number remained or could be reestablished as equal or higher, slaveholders could count on the Senate to be at least divided in half, and that would guarantee that any anti-slavery, national bill could be stopped. 

But in the immediate months after Pierce took office, these concerns seem to be stagnated as the elements of the 1850 compromise went into effect.  Therefore, especially given the improved economy, the Whig expectation that their established policy positions over the economy would again be seen positively, now seemed to be something of the past.  Their call for a higher tariff only promised higher prices – which was not a winning message. 

So, as 1854 approached, optimism would begin to wane, and forward-looking Whigs started or would soon begin to look elsewhere for a place to render their support.  The next posting will focus on this, the end of a major political party that lasted as a viable entity some twenty to thirty years.



[1] This blogger believes that there are still many in the American public who abide by this form of federalism.

[2] Elbert B. Smith, The Presidency of Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore (Lawrence, KS:  University Press of Kansas, 1988). 

No comments:

Post a Comment