American History

Over a more than one-hundred year period, the Southern states of the Union faced off repeatedly with the broader federal legislative and judicial branches over the issue of race and the constitutional protection for states rights. First the legal status and later the treatment of blacks in the South consistently were covered under the larger heading, in the minds of Southern lawmakers, as a matter of their rights as sovereign states as laid out by the Constitution. In 1837, 1866, and 1956, Southern lawmakers presented an essentially standard message of states rights in an evolution of topics which are revealing in understanding the motivation behind their resistance to civil rights as well, as a reflection of the time period itself and how it related to the idea of civil rights. In each instance, whether presented by John C. Calhoun, Alexander Stephens, or a group of Southern Senators, the issue is looked at from the perspective and interests of the white population, and supported with fictional imaginings of the lives of those being oppressed, the lawmakers protestations and assertions for state rights do little cover the underlying racial prejudices that fuel these confrontations.

In his 1837 address to the Senate, John C. Calhoun, argues from a position predating the end of slavery and the destructiveness of the Civil War. Important to his perspective is the still legal presence of slavery as an institution not only in Southern society but in commercial and political relationships. However, in his rhetoric there is a sense of things to come, as represents the mindset that helped to fuel and push forward the secession of the Southern U.S. states. Calhoun knows that the outcry by abolitionists will only become amplified as time goes by, A large portion of the Northern states believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in anyway responsible for its continuance.  This mention of the different ideologies between Northern and Southern states is important in establishing the mindset of Calhoun and his likeminded Southern lawmakers and constituents in their feeling of being separate from their Northern neighbors. In mentality, at least, the secession has already begun, and in the sentiment of Calhouns message of the Southern states constitutional rights to sovereignty there lies the stubborn retention of regional concepts of race, We of the South will not, cannot, surrender or institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both.

Perhaps one of the most important parts of Calhouns speech in terms of its relation to the successive opinions of Southern lawmakers in 1866 and 1956 is the manner in which he lays the ground work for the talking points connecting states rights and the status of blacks in Southern society. Each of the men, from Calhoun to Stephens to Ervin and Thurmond, use their interpretation of black life as part of their argument for the right of the state to have full jurisdiction in the area of racial equality whether it be the basic rights of a freedom, the right to vote or own land, or the right to equal and integrated education. In each instance, the suffering of slavery, the marginalization of a population unable to vote because of racism and violence against them, and the inability to be recognized as simply American rather than Colored and afforded the same rights and freedom of interaction with society given to whites are not described. Instead, Calhoun describes slavery as moral good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa  attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.  What he fails to address, of course, is the stereotype and hundreds of years of prejudice and white supremacy that allows this to be a fact to Calhoun. If one race is to base its entire understanding of another race on ideas of inferiority and savagery, than the developing relationship between the two races including their history will be peppered with facts founded in fiction. This fiction and the faint cover of states rights that became stronger and stronger with the events leading up to the secession, combined to create a parallel to human history. It was the strength of that fiction and the bitterness created by the defeat of the Confederacy and the ensuing Reconstruction that helped to further entrench the racism of Calhoun, while shoring up the rhetoric of federal and state powers as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Alexander Stephens, fresh from the devastating experience of the Civil War and the beginning stages of Reconstruction, speaks from a more humbled and political level. Unlike Calhoun, he is not anxious to draw attention to the racial problems that persisted in the South instead attempting to place the secession of the Southern states wholly in the realm of states constitutional rights rather than the issue of race and slavery, They did what they did, believing it was best for the protection of constitutional liberty  they resorted to secession with a view of more securely maintaining these principles. However, even in his well-crafted answers that attempt to show Confederate states actions as defensive against the usurpation of their constitutional rights as states, there is no denying the issue of race and rights for blacks is still an issue for many. Presented prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, Stephens questioned the continued issue of constitutionality of the actions of the Union during the Reconstruction, particularly in the issue of blacks proposed right to vote, I do not think, therefore, that the people of that State, while they are disposed, as I believe, earnestly to deal fairly, justly and generously with the freedmen, would be willing to consent to a change in the Constitution that would give Congress jurisdiction over the question of suffrage. In addition, while Stephens consents to his own belief that the abolishment of slavery was for the common good, he stops short of fully accepting the right of the Union to impose the ideology of the abolitionist on the Southern states and still contends, I do not think there is any constitutional power on the part of the government to have enacted as a condition precedent to their restoration under the Constitution.

Stephens illustrates the deep divide over the issue of race, without the rhetoric of the gentle master as shown in Calhouns defense of the practice of slavery, instead perhaps sensing the turn in the national tide and the position of the South he chose instead to appeal to a broader, less tangible idea of justice as enshrined in the Constitution. In the end, of course, freedmen were given the right to vote and with successive judgments by state and federal courts, civil rights were expanded upon. However, as shown in the judgment of Plessy vs. Ferguson, the application and interpretations of equality were still limited by the racial ideology of white supremacy as first expressed by Calhoun. In their ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court described the purpose of the 14th amendment to enforce the idea of racial equality in the eyes of the law but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. In their ruling in 1896 that declared the concept of separate but equal was keeping with the ideas lain down with the 14th Amendment and the Constitution itself, the Court played directly into the hands of bigots and white supremacists who wished for a continued distinction between races. No longer slaves, the rhetoric of racism shown in Calhouns speech now incorporates the changes of America and the Constitution. The once hated 14th Amendment, combined with the ruling of Plessy vs. Ferguson, allowed Southern lawmakers in 1956 to air an old and new perspective on racial equality.

Ninety years later, as finally social equality was coming into the modern era with the Supreme Courts 1954 ruling on Brown vs. Board of Education and the negation of the separate but equal precedent set by Plessy vs. Ferguson, Senator Sam J. Ervin and his fellow southern lawmakers once more stood on the floor of the Senate. As with Calhoun, they came to decry the violation of their state rights framed in the idea of the Constitution but revealed in their rhetoric and the rebuttals from Morse and Humphrey the same resistance to civil rights. More like Calhoun than Stephens in many respects, the Senators Declaration of Constitutional Principles and the supportive speech by Senator Strom Thurmond revealed the age old racial legend and lie that blacks are happier in their inequality. Thurmonds debate against the ruling, more so than that presented by Smith, shows the archaic ideas of race and civil rights that prompted the anger of the Southern senators. As with Calhouns enemy the abolitionist, Thurmond sees the threat as coming from outside the South, Except for these troublemakers, I believe out people of both races in South Carolina would have continued to progress harmoniously together.  Like Calhoun, Thurmond is fulfilling the role of dominant white male, speaking of racial conditions for which he has no understanding. He fails to see the underlying issue of equality as the main issue at hand and instead defends the Negro schools are better than the schools of white children. Yet the Negroes continue to seek admission to schools for the white race  He wrongly sees the issue as a threat to white purity and supremacy, calling white in the South the greatest minority in this Nation.  In this and Thurmonds fear of racial mixing emerges as the center of what he believes to be the issue rather than the true nature of equality that the Court hoped to define. The reactions of senators Morse and Humphrey illustrate how thinly veiled this racism proved to be as well as the weakening character of the Southern senators debate for state rights as a cover for the ingrained prejudice in Southern race relations.

Overall, each instance in history where the issue between states rights and civil rights have met on the floor of the Senate or before Congressional Committee, has illustrated the changes of the nations understanding of equal rights. From Calhouns speech on the growth of the abolition movement to Stephens testimony following the defeat of the Confederacy and more importantly the institution of slavery, and finally to the beginning  of the modern era of Civil Rights, there has run a similar thread of the desire to retain the status quo out of unequal concepts of race. The idea of states rights versus those of the federal government in determining state laws, is simply a flashpoint that has continued to have relevance in arguing a minority viewpoint that in itself is at odds with the very tenets of freedom and equality by which the nation was founded and the Constitution written. All three illustrate, that while certain parts of society may resist the changes of time, the ability of the law to adhere not to popular opinion but instead to the changing view of justice is not only within the limits but also is an obligation of the courts.

Injustices like racism and imperialism are often incidental and peripheral developments of Western civilization. Historically, colonization began as a movement to enrich and expand the Western countries, thus, the rule became that every colony should contribute to the economic prosperity of the mother country. Because of this, when the natives see the disparity between themselves and the rich colonizers, the colonists became imperialists to keep the natives in line. Such cases include Central American states were geared to mercantilist demands dictated from Europe. The colonists also insured continuing dependence by prohibiting trade among the colonies and other European nations. Priority was given to the production of commodities for export rather than foodstuffs and other goods necessary for the well-being of the colonists.

The inclusion of women and minorities does not distort history, but rather, gives history larger picture to complete the picture of what really happened. The contributions of women and minorities, which are sometimes removed from traditional history, give another viewpoint in which to explain and tell how things happened and why they did. A case in point is Elizabeth Grymestons writings where she used her life experience as her witness, and drew immediate and powerful connections between yesterdays actions and tomorrows possibilities that served an English audience who wanted other perspectives on Catholic conformity.

Focusing on resistance movements does minimize history especially because it focuses on only one end of the spectrum without seeing the other side. Because it is important to look at all sides, we cannot be satisfied with just the African perspective of colonialism and oppression, but we must also see the views of the colonists to better understand the dynamics of history.

Egyptian nationalism should be taught in terms of how it has been evolving with the times and contrasting each and every phase in how it adapted itself and why. It would also be interesting to discuss the historical context in which Egypt maneuvers its nationalistic tendencies.

These songs can be used in social studies classes especially when looking at history, culture, sociology, anthropology, and even political science. These songs can contribute into digging into the psyche and all of the instances surrounding the attitudes of people in history and juxtaposing them to todays modern people.

Connections from these songs include the strength of the people in the face of adversity, a call to action, and the assurance of victory and freedom in the end from hearts that cant be quelled.
Maxine Greenes description of multiculturalism is the one closest to my understanding of the topic. With a myriad of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, multiculturalism, as I believed is something that needs mutual assimilation to be able to create a diverse, but peaceful community that hinges on conforming with others.

I agree with Albert Shankers perspective on multiculturalism. Considering that multicultural countries are often segregated, there are often judgmental attitudes against one another. This is evident even in New York where there are Black, Hispanic, White, and Asian blocs within the state. I, however, disagree with Octavio Pazs claim that there is no such thing as a pure culture. I believe that such pure cultures still exist in rural areas of countries such as in Asia, South America and Africa where tribal people continue on their way of life for years. I believe that Octavio Paz takes a myopic view of culture as seen in a New Yorkers eyes and that there are cultures that oppose the influence of other cultures, particularly Western culture, which they see as destructive to their way of life.
This chapter has opened my eyes to the perspective of approaching understanding society in the kaleidoscopic lens of culture. This chapter has made social studies curricula more diverse by expanding the world view of students and giving them a broader understanding of the society they inhabit in.

I think that these activities of imperialism and racism are offshoots from the very human instinct of survival. When people decided to group together and form communities, of course there is always a pariah or someone left out. That desire to live and to continue to survive progressed to civilizations when the existing civilization has experienced for example, a drought or a food shortage and someone else has the upper hand, war or armed conflict would break out for civilizations fear of being destroyed or to end. Adolf Hitlers concept of Lebensraum called for an aggressive, armed expansion of Germanys borders, which was one of the triggers to World War II. But Hitlers concept of Lebensraum stems from the Germanic peoples suffering from lack of space in Germany long before Hitler and the Nazi Party came in to power (Germans moving to Eastern Europe was called Otsiedlung). Germany was close to imploding during the Weimar Republic due to the strains on them after WWI. Hitler desired for Germany to become a global power again, like the days of Otto von Bismarck, yet unlike Bismarck, he had his own agenda as well He used the Jews and other peoples of Eastern Europe as scapegoats so that the GermanAryan race can grow. Its a desire to survive, which is in the instincts of every animal in the planet that eventually grew into racism and imperialism.

1. Its an even bigger distortion of history if teachers omit the contributions of women and minorities in history. A more holistic view of history is being cultivated by adding the contributions of women and minorities, in my opinion. There are always two sides to every story, and its up to the listener what to get from it. Is Rosa Parks involvement in the Civil Rights Movement with Rev. Martin Luther King downgraded because shes a woman Well she was one of the triggers for the whole movement to rally upon Is Mao Zedongs last wife Jiang Qing not part of the Gang of Four that took Communist China to a wild tailspin at the Cultural Revolution that took decades to recover from How about Queen Boudica, queen of the Brittonic Inceni who fought against the might of the Roman Empire Omitting the contributions of the women and minorities in history is looking at history from one angle. History is meant to be taken at many angles.

2. Focusing on resistance movements will lead to lionizing them. It does not give a more holistic view of what is happening if there is only a focus on one side, in this case resistance groups who are fighting against oppression. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which was a spontaneous revolution of the Hungarian people against Soviet rule, was more well known due to  the brutal suppression of the revolutionary government  and the subsequent repression by the Hungarian people by the Soviets afterward. A lot of literature and testimonies taken from Hungarians were taken, but not much from the Soviet side (though the Soviet Union was reluctant to share) and The Hungarian Freedom Fighter of 1956 was even called Time Magazines Man Of The Year in 1956 The history of oppression still needs to be seen at the point of view of all the people involved. The resistance, the oppressors, the oppressed. Why the Rwandan Genocide Why did the Hutu-led Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi militias kill thousands of Tutsi and Hutus who did not agree with their Hutu Power ideology What was the trigger for these groups What did the Tutsi do to earn the ire of the Hutu to make them kill Looking at oppression from the resistance groups point of view is incomplete and inconclusive.

3. Egypt has a very vibrant history, even before its conversion to Islam. But after the last of the Pharaohs, Egypt found itself under Roman, Byzantine, Arab, then Ottoman, then French, then British rule. Egyptians then lacked the identity of a nation during those times. When they finally broke off from Ottoman rule with the help of the British,  they never really had someone from Egypt in charge until the arrival of Muhammad Ali of Egypt. However, the leader they were proud about was actually a British puppet. The alliance with the Soviet Union was created to keep France and Britain out, but the newly formed state of Israel made that alliance stick. Egyptian nationalism was formed under centuries of foreign rule and oppression, and that they were able to persist and survive made them proud.

Its your classroom
1. Yes, it can be done. It will show to my class the perils of subjugating people under the threat of force. Be it by armed conflict or even by art, subjugation and oppression by any form is not welcome in a civilized, modern society.

2. Yes, there are connections to these songs. Oppression does not last forever, as history is always glad to point out. People will find ways to bring it down. A sad and rather morbid connection is that lives will certainly be lost in the quest for freedom. There is always a price people have to pay, and if people wanted freedom badly enough they will make that effort to get it.

Join the Multicultural Debate
1. James Banks and Maxine Greene has the right idea, its all about empowerment of people to be more knowledgeable, active and caring citizens,  and the ability to look at things from different angles and perspectives to see the bigger picture. Both of them come close due to they give priority to openness and understanding between people whatever race, creed or culture they belong to, which is basically multiculturalism.

2. Most of the statements are agreeable, they all preach the most important thing and that is to become more open and understanding of culture and other people. Though Albert Shankers statement that multiculturalism is also a form of separation, it is from the notion that multiculturalism separates from a common set of values and a rigid adherence to a single code can lead to bigotry and isolation.

3.   The implication is that people are now slowly but surely being more exposed to other people and other cultures, and its high time that people recognize them and learn from them. Social Sciences should be able to process these kinds of information taken from various sources and turn them to concrete action meant for students to become more well-rounded. The acceptance of the contributions of different cultures and peoples are being repressed by old, colonial and outdated paradigms, and multiculturalism is a paradigm shift for both educators and students. Not just looking at one angle of the story, like in fairy tales, but in other angles.

Historically, the United States has been the destination for many immigrants earning it the reputation of being a mixed raced state. However, the immigration of Africans into the country in the early periods stands out because such migrations were usually involuntary. Other immigration groups came into the US in the pursuit of political freedom and economic opportunity (Anderson  Stewart, 2007). Africans in America were commoditized into capital goods, through slavery, to promote the development and economic growth of the country (Anderson  Stewart, 2007, p. 1). The immigration was aided by slave trade that was carried out as early as 1619 all the way until it was abolished in 1850 (Painter, 2006). As Anderson and Stewart (2007) point out, the enslavement was driven by a form of racism based on color that effectively denied the Africans their language, history, culture, ancestral ties and homeland affiliations (p. 1). In short, freedom was denied.

The Africans were to be later integrated into the fabric of the American society (Americanized) hence the term African Americans. Any meaningful discussion of the history of African Americans must start by first acknowledging the roots of their enslavement. Only then, can the strides that have been made by the African Americans be fully conceptualized. This study focuses on the progress that has been made by African Americans in different times in history ranging from 1865 to present day. It focuses on the challenges encountered during these times, the actions taken and how those actions have affected the social, economic, religious and cultural dynamics of the American society.

The year 1865 coincided directly with the end of the civil war. The war was between the Southern faction (predominantly farmers) and the Northern faction that was against the continuation of slavery (Anderson  Stewart, 2007). The war was therefore fought primarily on the issue of slavery. Over this period, the African Americans provided free labor for their masters in farms and as such, they faced economic oppression. The few who had made it to the army faced the same kind of oppression owing to the militia act of 1862 enabled the War Department to pay Black soldiers less than whites (Anderson  Stewart, 2007, p. 65). The political issue they faced at the time was a lack of freedom as they were not even considered eligible to vote. African Americans perceiving an interest in the civil war joined forces with the Northern faction to help defeat the south.

The North with the help of African American supporters won the civil war. The war led to the abolition of slavery by the then president Abraham Lincoln. The 13th Amendment, adopted late in 1865, officially abolished slavery (Black history milestones, 2010). This was to be the first victory for the Blacks in America. Lincoln was assassinated that same year, possibly due to his stance against slavery, but tremendous gains were made even after his assassination. For instance, the 15th Amendment, adopted in 1870, guaranteed that a citizens right to vote would not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (Black history milestones, 2010). Nevertheless, the freedom that was now instituted in law made little tangible real difference in their living conditions. But the passage of these laws was to be significant for future periods.

The period between 1877-1876 saw commendable gains being made to make freedom real for the former slaves. On a social front, many family members had been estranged from each other following the civil war. In the aftermath of the war, people made concerted efforts to reunite with their families. Painter (2006) observes that sympathetic newspapers published by or for African Americans, carried special lost friends columns (p. 131). The effect of this was closer harmony and cooperation in society. The economic hardships that the African Americans faced while being enslaved were addressed. As Painter (2006) observes, they meant to work the land, but less for the market or for the good of other people but more to raise crops to feed themselves and their families (p 131). The black people in a bid to secure land to farm on their own used a range of means- legal, economic and forceful. The effect of this as Painter (2006) points out was that by 1900 freed people did mange to acquire farms and even a few plantations through purchase (p 132). This resulted in the economic progression of the black people.

Illiteracy was a common feature among the slaves. This was a technique that was used by the bond masters to keep the blacks in ignorance as they equated education with freedom. As Painter (2006) notes, they made freedom real by creating their own educational and religious institutions (p. 130). Indeed, Painter (2006) asserts that they made education one of their priorities after being freed. Protestant churches were established to fill the need for religion. The setting up of churches was a way of confirming their freedom even to worship that had been stymied in previous periods. Anderson and Stewart (2007) note that, the black church was a major institution in giving important assistance to and in sustaining the perseverance of the freed slaves (p. 72). The church played an important role in the provision of supporting services such as caring for the sick, assisting new immigrants find housing and employment and feeding the hungry.

However, despite these gains that were being made, there was still resistance from whites to this new wave of emancipation among the blacks. For instance there was still segregation being practiced in schools between black children and whites. Racial protests prompted  W.E.B. Du Bois to form a civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909 (Black history milestones, 2010). According to Black history milestones, Among the NAACPs stated goals were the abolition of all forced segregation, the enforcement of the 14th and 15th Amendments and equal education for blacks and whites. The entry of the US in the World War 1 as stated by Anderson and Stewart (2007) saw may African Americans seek to enlist in the army. They were however rebuffed at first, but were later accepted. Notably, enlisted African Americans were relegated to supporting tasks and not active military service. This was a preserve of the whites (Anderson and Stewart, 2007).

The period between 1921 and 1945 saw the blacks who still worked in the Southern farms face economic crisis. This follows a major depression in the agricultural sector between 1920 and 1927 (Anderson and Stewart, 2007). Most of these blacks migrated from the south to the north since the farms could not sustain their livelihoods. The outcome of that was the Harlem renaissance movement where African American creativity in the arts, literature and music blossomed (p. 76). This had a tremendous effect in determining the cultural make up of America. Similarly, this literary genius of the African Americans, coming right after the World War 1 had huge economic benefits to the United States. It was marked by high employment rates and general economic growth. The migrations to the North caused the population there to soar. As such, the African Americans became a force to reckon with in the Northern politics. Both sides of the political divide, Republicans and Democrats, did everything possible to win this block of voters. Their efforts included offering small political amenities and appointments to blacks (Anderson and Stewart, 2007). This period marked the entry of African Americans into American politics.

Undeniably, by1945 notable gains had been made by African Americans in gaining economic, religious, literary and political freedom. However, segregation was still widely practiced with the whites being viewed as being superior to the blacks. Certain industries were still dominated by whites, there was discrimination in schools. Sports such as baseball and basketball were not spared discriminative practices either. For instance, in 1945 Jackie Robinson was discharged from the army for refusing to move to the back of a segregated bus (Black history milestones, 2010). The period between 1945 and 1976 would see some of this discriminative practices outlawed. This resulted from the brevity displayed by individual like Jackie Robinson who refused to accept the status quo namely, being relegated to second class citizens.

The NAACP brought cases before the Supreme Court. The late breakthrough was to come in 1954 when the court reversed the separate but equal doctrine that had been established in 1896 (Black history milestones, 2010). Up until then, blacks used to ride in the back of public buses, the front seats having been reserved for the whites. This was to change when a lady named Rosa Parks willfully violated this rule. She was arrested but her actions sparked a bus boycott by the black population. The boycott was successful owing to the fact that blacks constituted 70 of the bus riders at the time. The protests were led by a young Pastor called Martin Luther King, Jr. (Black history milestones, 2010). The boycott finally paid off with the Supreme Court declaring the bus companys segregation seating policy unconstitutional on November 13, 1956.

Rosa Parks is viewed to have pioneered the civil rights movement rightfully earning the title mother of civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. was to prove himself a force to reckon with in the civil rights movement. He vigorously advocated for the rights of the black man in various forums, imploring the African American community to stand up for their rights. Other notable individuals such as Malcolm X who served as the leader of a parallel movement with no name, one that had deep ties to local militants in urban cities as well as to Third World revolutionaries, also played a significant role in the liberalization. Malcolm X was credited with the concept of black power that implored African Americans to stop relying on the Whites institutions to get what they want as these institutions were essentially racist.

The period after 1976 saw the calming down of tensions between the whites and the blacks. Affirmative action referring to policies and initiatives aimed at compensating for past discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin was instituted in 1978 (Black history milestone, 2010). This period was marked by tremendous gains being made by African Americans in different arenas. In Hollywood, black actors have continually made a name for themselves. Celebrities such as Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey, whose show started in 1986 and runs up to date, have proved that African Americans can make it at whatever field (Black history milestone, 2010). The climax of the progression of the African Americans happened in politics. Barack Obama, the current US president made history by becoming the first African American person to rise to the highest office in the free world. Barrack Obama, on January 20, 2009 was inaugurated into the highest office in the land (Black history milestone). The ceremony was symbolic for most African Americans. It signified the climax of the struggle of the black person, attained through the painful sacrifices made by people such as Martin Luther King Jr. who paid with their own lives to get us where we are.

The present American society dates back to colonial period and past history which is influenced by political economical, cultural and military settings. The article focuses on the American society in the colonial period by analyzing their background culture. The research and interpretation is concerned with cultural history of American nationality as impacted by European culture. Religion, beliefs, ideologies, values and way of life are all facets of the culture whereby individuals feel reluctant towards it.

The Colonial Period in America
The Colonial Period in American History is reflected to English culture and its institutional arrangements as well as development of American consciousness. The concept states that culture has social implications that involve segregation between developed high culture and basic low culture. Present United State nation is as a result of immigration of Europeans who had diverse way of thinking, culture and features. They impacted the American way of living by giving rise to new culture which is more oriented to European nationality than the native culture. Though the immigrants consisted of Dutch, Germans, French and Swedes, English were dominant in settlement to influence the culture of natives. The wealthy English landowners and merchants were men of high culture who were able to develop the practices essential in improving, spreading and establishing diverse cultures.

The Presbyterian, Congregationalists and Episcopal churches dominated early American society by establishing states and regions. Statuses of individuals were used to create states and regions. In the mid of 19th Century, they shifted to new groupings by preaching universal gospel rather than upholding past political democracy and they avoided emphasizing on trained and educated ministers. The hierarchy and centralized structures gave way to Baptists and Methodists they experienced tremendous increase in membership throughout the nations between 1800s and 1840s during onset of civil war. Despite the rise of sect, trained ministers were scarce and only weapon they could use were bibles which were used to establish true believers whom they were preached for on individualistic doctrine of free grace, individual responsibility, conversion and regeneration. Great awakening in 1730s and second awakening in 1790s brought by students of Yale and other colleges originated from New England shaped American culture and religion through successive revivals.

James Logan and Benjamin Franklin were instrumental in advancing intellects and culture of Pennsylvanians by introducing science work in the settlement. Franklin contributed intellectual activities in Philadelphia by forming debating club which turned into center of American Philosophical Society he furthered his work by constructing public schools which is known today as university of Pennsylvania. Logan on the other hand did construction for is collection of books in the settlement.

The land was dry in the settlement and could not support any farming, English introduced irrigation schemes, grain mills and sawmills. Europeans served the needs of people in settlements by engaging in trade since there were large mass of new settlers while others worked in small farms nearby. This resulted to creation of village schools, church and halls where locals and immigrants could meet to discuss matters of common interest.  The prosperity of Massachusetts Bay Colony in the mid of 17th century through commerce expansion resulted to Boston being Americas greatest ports.

Cultural diversity in the colony was further influenced by wealthy farmers and merchants who hired services of private teachers or send their children to schools in England. The desire for learning continued at the borders of established communities. The primitive Scots-Irish were firm devotees of scholarship hence they  made great efforts in attracting educated ministers to their settlements to further  education.

First immigrants in New England came with their own little libraries and continued importing books from London. In early 1680s, Boston booksellers were dealing with business of literature, history, politics, philosophy, science, theology and belles-lettres.   The first printing press was established 1639 in the English colonies and the second in North America was installed at Harvard College which gave rise to education which in turn influenced the change in cultures of natives.

Conclusion
In the colonial development stages, there was lack of influence in controlling the government. It is generally accepted that colonists had right to participate in their own government. The men who had freedom in colony had the voice in legislation that affects them. Education, farming, trade and religion played a major role in establishment of present United States society by influencing the culture of natives in the settlements.

The American Revolution began in 1775 and went on until 1783. The war was between the Great Britain and thirteen North-American British colonies which eventually led to the British rule being overthrown by these colonies. Revolutionaries took control of all the thirteen colonial governments, formed the Second Continental Congress, and went on to form a Continental Army. In 1776, they officially declared their independence as the United States of America. Since 1778, other European nations supported the Americans and fought on their side (Genealogy, par. 1). However, the American Revolution differs greatly with other revolutions around the world and though Americans sought a restoration of Americas old order, it still qualifies to be called a revolution.

Comparison with Other Revolutions
Compared to the French Revolution, the American Revolution was significantly different. The government system in France was founded on feudalism. Great Britain had a constitutionally established monarchy and the British colonies in America regarded themselves as being respectable British citizens and understood their laws and thus their rights. This made them stand up for their rights and fight to gain independence from the Great Britain. The clear rift between the rich and the poor was a mentality deeply ingrained into peoples minds, thus the long continuity of the unconstitutional monarchy in France. The French people were accustomed to the monarchy-associated life, and therefore never called for change until a great economic depression revealed the absolute monarchys weaknesses.

The Great Britain had given its colonies in America considerable freedom which meant they could do much of what they pleased. The Americans were therefore contented with being under British authority. However, Britain failed to represent its colonies in parliament and so when Great Britain tried to introduce acts (e.g. the Sugar Act) and make proclamations (e.g. the 1763 proclamation limiting settlement of the English to the Appalachians in order to ease increasing tensions with Native Americans), the Americans did not take it lightly they saw this as injustice because they were not represented in law-making. Because the Americans were ignored when they sought to be represented in parliament, they became even more rebellious, leading to the revolution.

In France, revolution was sparked by the absolute monarchys ruin of the economy. Those who were interested in climbing the social ladder were in support of the idea of creating a republic and ending absolute monarchy. The king, having failed the economy, became even more contemptible to them, making the peasants to embrace the idea. Thus the French Revolution was as a result of oppression by absolute monarchy, while the American Revolution was a result of lack of representation in the British Parliament (Nosotro, par. 6). On the other hand, the American Revolution was quite different from other revolutions in that it occurred in a British Empires colony that was already enjoying political, economic and religious freedom in great measure.

The American Revolution qualifies to be called a revolution. Americans having learned self-governance under the British already had a greater social, economic and political equality compared to any other colonies in the world. Thus Americans had never experienced excessive oppression or tyranny. Unlike in other revolutions, the government that was formed after the successful American Revolution was very similar to the government that the Americans overthrew. The differences, however, makes it enough to call it a revolution, because even though the governments ideas came from the British rulers, American Revolutionaries turned them into reality due to the oppression.

Revolutions are caused when people start demanding for change. Revolutions happen when provocation causes dissatisfaction enough to create a wave of desire in people to act to change the situation. The American experiences cause was such and therefore it qualifies to be called a revolution. Also, reforms occur when the public has hope for leadership change through reforms, led by revolutionary leaders. The leaders are ready to assume leadership and lead the people in realizing the changes. The notable American Revolutionaries, like Franklin, Jefferson and others, facilitated the writing of the American Constitution and led the people in fighting for independence. Misgovernment justifies the American Revolution because it was the one that brought about the calls for changes by the Americans. Revolutions have to be violent, and the fact that the American Revolution was violent qualifies the American experience as a true revolution.

Conclusion
The American Revolution, like any other revolution, did have its causes. Revolutions are mostly rebellions against oppressive rule and result from the need to change from unsatisfying conditions set by oppressive rulers. The colonies would not have rebelled if Great Britain had not taxed the Americans without representation. The Revolution was started to fight against colonialism, monarchy, and peoples oppression by a few among them. The colonies sought to remove America from dependence on the British Empire to independence and the government that was formed following the revolution was different from Great Britains the Revolution brought about more liberty than they had under Great Britain this was a universal course for all Great Britains colonies in America, and therefore qualifies to be called a revolution. Also revolutions involve violence and that Americans fought with the British in battles makes the American Revolution a real revolution.

1. A Rationale for the Two-Party System

There was a time when bipartisan politics did not exist in the American government. Strange as it may seem to us, the Founding Fathers originally did not envisage the existence of political parties although they worked out intricate details of the future democracy that America would be. The colonials as a whole preferred not to have a British type of political system with mutually hating parties. The fact that differences could arise among themselves too in the natural course of things was not foreseen by the pioneering leaders of the nation, and when these differences began to rear their ugly head it did cause some consternation among them. The emergence of political parties in a democracy, however, is a very natural phenomenon, and considering the size and disparity of the American electorate the emergence of political parties was inevitable. The Founding Fathers perhaps navely assumed that the right candidate could run for the presidency or for the positions of a senator or a governor all by himself. This would have been impossible though, even in the relatively simpler conditions that prevailed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. A candidate could reach the voting population only by being a part of a large political party and standing on its support. Only political parties can manage canvassing on any scale bigger than the local level of a small town.

Democratic governments can have two or more parties. In many countries of the world democratic governments exists with more than two prominent political parties contesting for power. However, there is a general tendency for democracies to revolve around two major parties, even though other political parties many exist on the side. In America particularly the tradition of two-party system has become firmly entrenched. Although there have been and there are many parties in parties in America besides the big two  consider the relatively unknown and small-sized Modern Whig Party, for example   third party candidates are not generally taken seriously during national elections. Even in the 21st century, with the extensive spread and reach of electronic media and communication it would be difficult to conceive the emergence of influential independent candidates or viable alternatives to the traditional two parties.

2. Federalists vs. Anti-federalists

In the beginning, the thirteen states of America joined forces to fight the British imperialism. Americans at that time, however, did not have much experience in politics or in the military. The single political body called Continental Congress which was formed to consolidate the union of colonies and wage the Revolutionary War was considerably inefficient in its organization, just in the way Washingtons ragtag army was untrained. The Continental Congress appointed Washington as the commander in chief and commissioned the war, but it did not coordinate the war efforts in a satisfactory manner. In fact, thousands of deaths in the Continental Army during the late 1770s, at the height of the War of Independence, were blamed on the mismanagement of the Congress and this engendered substantial disgruntlement among some of the leaders. Washingtons requests for supplies were sometimes ignored by the Congress, and this would have created some resentment in the future President. Although differences and causes for complaint occurred during the time of the war within the one existing political body, people could not afford to make an issue out of them, and they were overlooked at that stage. However, after the victory against the British in 1783, the situation was changing rapidly.

A fundamental need for establishing a new government for a newly independent state was a strong constitution. The United States already had a tentative form of constitution by then, made up of the Articles of Confederation drafted in 1777. However, the scope of these Articles was perceived to be inadequate, and there was a need for a more robust constitution. The Articles were drafted by people who did not as yet have a vision of a unified nation. At the beginning of the war, people generally thought of America as 13 separate colonies instead of as a single state. When a preliminary form of federal government came into existence prior to the American War of Independence, it granted substantial powers and functions to the states. When the American Founding Fathers and other political leaders gathered at Philadelphia in 1787, then the political capital of the emerging nation, they decided to abrogate the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Virginia Plan of James Madison, which was expanded to become the Constitution of the United States. The new Constitution made way for a strong government at the center and considerably diminished the role of the states. By doing so it caused concern and anger among many politicians who were distrustful of a strong central government that could dominate the states. Those who were in favor of the new constitution had to do much canvassing to overcome the widespread opposition to it and get it ratified. By this time there were already two groups in place, the Federalists who supported the constitution and a strong central government and Anti-Federalists who were opposing them. James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, and John Jay were the most prominent of the Federalists. Hamilton, Madison and Jay composed a voluminous work called The Federalist Papers in support of the new constitution. This work was influential in gaining many adherents for the new constitution and a new government was soon formed based on it, with Washington at its head.

The Federalists were in power now and Washington did not want any schisms to develop in his government. However these did occur, despite Washingtons sincere efforts to bridge the differences in opinions in his administration. The chief opposition in Washingtons government was between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.

To secure a strong foundation for the burgeoning national economy was one of the top priorities of the new government. Hamilton was Washingtons Secretary of Treasury. During the war years, Hamilton had been one of Washingtons chief lieutenants. Hamilton instituted a series of economic reforms which were backed by Washington. Hamilton had a new vision for Americas economy, he was all for its modernization. Hamiltons brainchild, the Bank of the United States came into existence in 1791. This bank would act as the locus of the economy. It would mint coin and paper money, collect taxes and tariffs, set new regulations and policies, grant loans and so on. Hamiltons economic programs favored a strong federal government, thriving industry, commerce and international trade. Incidentally, many of the Federalists belonged to Northeastern States of America where commercial enterprise flourished, and they typically promoted policies such as the Protective Tariff which protected the interests of the merchant class. And although the Federalists stance was founded on the U.S. Constitution, they being the chief proponents of it, they often tended to make a loose interpretation of its statements in the interests of modernization.

As could have been expected, many politicians from the South coalesced into the main opposition of the governments policies because there existed an agrarian economy in these states as opposed to the nascent industrial economy in the North. Their strongest voice was Thomas Jefferson. From the beginning Jefferson believed the power of the center had to be limited and that the United States should only be a coalition of autonomous states. Under Jefferson, the Anti-federalists joined together to form a new political party called the Democratic-Republican party, which is todays Democratic Party and the oldest existing political body in the United States.

The chief contention between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans was mainly on how strong the federal government should be. However, matters related to economy were also just as important. Jefferson bitterly opposed Hamilton and his economic reforms. Jefferson was against modernization, he was for agriculture and the continuance of the traditional form of economy. The leaders of the Republican Party, among whom were James Madison, Aaron Burr, George Clinton and others, were resentful of what they saw as Federalists excessive promotion of the wealthy merchant class at the detriment of the nations farmers. While the Federalists were for a modern, democratic and egalitarian society, the Republicans (that is to say, Democrats) favored preserving class and sectional differences, and wanted to keep the system of slavery intact. Republicans also wanted the Constitution to be interpreted in a strict manner, so that the federal governments power did not exceed the range that was allowed for by the Constitution.

Washingtons two-term tenure came to an end in 1797, and he died soon thereafter. The absence of Washington was a major setback for the Federalists. John Adams, who was the Vice President under Washington was elected as the new President. Thomas Jefferson was his runner up. At that the time, the law was that the runner up should become the Vice President, and so Jefferson became one despite being in the opposite camp.  Of course there was not going to be much cooperation between the President and the Vice-President in this arrangement. It was a system doomed to failure, a democratic experiment gone sour. In addition, Hamilton was the real authority in the Federalist party and he too did not enjoy high levels of cooperation with the new President.

Washington and Adams were the only Federalists who would become the Presidents of the nation. Adams could not win the second term during the elections of 1800 because whatever chances he had for winning were effectively sabotaged by Hamilton. Consequently, Jefferson did not have to overcome much resistance to reach to the highest office of the country. Burr was his Vice-President. The Republicans were in the ascendancy now. The rise of the Republicans (i.e., Democrats) would go unimpeded for the next two decades, by which time the Federalists would cease to exist as a party. Meanwhile Hamilton was killed by Burr in a duel in 1804, which made the Federalists lose the only strong leader they had. From here on, the Federalists were fighting a losing battle with no strong leadership to tide them over the difficult times. By 1820, the Republican President James Monroe had simply no one in the opposition when he was contesting for the second term. The Federalist Party was gone by now.

3. Whigs and Democrats
3.1. The Benefits of the Two-Party System

Although Washington and the Founding Fathers thought of political dichotomy and dissent as avoidable evils, the multi-party system is an essential feature of democracy. The two-party system that emerged in the aftermath of Washingtons presidency in America could be seen as being highly beneficial for the newly independent nation. While the strife, hatred, and smear campaigns are unfortunate fallouts of the two-party system, it has many positive things too to its credit. The dual party system  the ruling party and its opposition  is very essential to maintain a balance in the administration. If there was only one party, as it was usually the case in major Communist countries in the 20th century, it could behave like a monopoly. As is common knowledge, power tends to corrupt and therefore the opposition plays a crucial role keeping a check on the ruling party in a democracy. The existence of two parties also gives rise to a healthy system of competition. In order to continue in power the ruling party is constantly goaded to give its best performance, and should it fail at this task it would be most likely taken over by the opposition party in the next election. The benefits of a two-party system far outweigh its disadvantages.

In America around the turn of the nineteenth century, at the outset of the industrial revolution, while the Federalists were trying to strengthen industry and commerce, the opposition was doing its best to preserve the central role of agriculture in the economy. This made way for some kind of balance. Similarly, the Federalists were trying to create a strong and dominant center, while the Republicans saw to it that the autonomy of the states was not entirely swept away. This again kept the balance, which was especially needed when a new country just emerging from the clutches of imperialism was trying to find its identity and head in the right direction toward future. Therefore the decline and fall of the Federalists was not a good prospect for the country. Something had to fill in the vacuum. This was where the Whigs came in.

3.2. The Beginning of the Jacksonian Era

After the death of Hamilton, the Federalist party was a rudderless ship which would be soon lost in the mists. Thomas Jefferson made full use of a weak opposition, he was in power for two terms and saw to it that James Madison succeeded him and continued the Republican Partys grip on power. The so-called Virginia dynasty was established. After Madison, another Republican, James Monroe, was the President for another eight years. Between them these three Republican Presidents were in power for 24 years, from1801 through 1825. During the first quarter of the nineteenth century, many changes were happening in America.  The United States was emerging as a strong nation. The countrys population was rising as well as the recognition it had on the world stage. The pride of the country was generally swelling.

The presidential election of 1824 was different from the presidential elections that went before it.  There was only one party, but five candidates. John Quincy Adams, though being a Republican, was the son of the last Federalist President and represented commercial interests of the Northeast. Henry Clay and Adams had many common views but also personal differences, and both of them were contesting. Andrew Jackson had become a military hero during the war of 1812. He had a lot of personal charisma though his political views were not well-known. Two other candidates, Crawford and Calhoun are less relevant for our context. None of the candidates secured the necessary majority of votes, but Adams and Jackson were in the leading positions. At this point, Clay decided to put beside his personal differences with Adams and supported him in the House of Representatives. Clays speeches swayed the Houses votes to Adams. Such things are common in the politics of any democratic government of today. However, at that time it was considered a wicked move. Jackson was very hopeful of securing presidency because of the great popularity he enjoyed, but power was taken away from right under his nose. Clay made this move because his rivalry with Jackson was stronger than his rivalry with Adams, the former was ideological and the latter was personal. John Quincy Adams became the President, and Clay was appointed as the Secretary of State. Jackson and his camp sniffed foul play in this appointment and the 1824 election subsequently came to be known as a corrupt bargain. Jackson and his supporters vowed vengeance, and became fiercely determine to win the next election, which they won in 1828.

Although Adams and Clay were Republicans, they had many typically Federalist points in their agenda. Therefore up until the end of Adams tenure, people did not strongly miss the touch of the Federalists. The Republicans themselves provided the balance in some ways. However, Jackson had absolutely no sympathies with the Federalists. He was a popular and charismatic President, and is today regarded as the first truly Democratic president of America. Jackson was bent upon destroying the Second Bank of the United States, which was a symbol of corruption and evil to him. Jackson had many old-fashioned values and did not believe in such basic things of a capitalist society as paper money and financial speculation. He was opposed to the Protective Tariff. In many ways, he was more Jeffersonian than Jefferson. Jackson eventually succeeded in undermining the existence of Bank of America. His extremism was perceived as outrageous by merchant sections of the American population, whose well-being was greatly affected by Jeffersons antagonistic stance to commerce.

During the Presidential campaign of 1828, Jacksons Democratic-Republican party itself was divided into two. One of these, the National Republican party would be later absorbed into the Whig Party, and the other would continue as simply the Democratic Party. Jackson and his supporters could organize their party on a vastly larger scale than it was any time earlier. The Democratic Party that developed under Andrew Jackson would retain its characteristics till the end of the 19th century. In fact the whole period between Jacksons election in 1828 up until 1854 is sometimes known as the Jacksonian era. It was the new age of the common man.

3.3. The Birth of the Whig Party

The Whig Party was born in 1834 so as to put up a spirited opposition to Jacksons policies. It goes without saying that it has many common elements with the former Federalist Party. The party had to form because the many opponents of Jackson did not stand much of a chance if they fought between themselves and therefore had to unite under a common banner. Although the coalition of Jacksons opponents was organized during the 1832 Presidential election itself, the party was still not cohesive enough to establish its own identity. Strong differences among the various members of the party would in fact continue even after 1834. The Whig Party was made into a force to reckon with mainly through the efforts of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, who are considered to be two of the most brilliant statesmen of their time. However, the only two elected Whig Presidents were William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor, both of whom would die during incumbency. Webster would serve only as the Secretary of State, and Clay would lose a Presidential contest closely. The active years of the Whig Party were between 1834 and 1854. Upon dissolution, the Party would merge into the Free Soil Party, the Know-Nothing Party and the modern Republican Party.

At the forefront of the Whig party were many people from the richer sections of the American population that were mainly concentrated in the Northeast. Whig candidates contested the elections of 1936, though they had slim chances of winning. Andrew Jackson was strongly backing his Vice President Van Buren for presidency. Besides, the Whig Party was hardly two years old and still could not rally around a single leader. The Whigs had to field multiple candidates in the election. They did this out of necessity but also as a possible strategy, hoping to take the election results to the House of Representatives like it happened in 1824. Though this tactic failed to secure them the Presidency, they could muster a decent 40 of the vote in all. During the next four years, the rivalry between Whig and the Democrats would intensify. A Whig candidate would for the first time win the Presidential election during the 1840 campaign.

3.4. The Influence of the Whigs and the Democrats on the Society

Between 1836 and 1840, the whole of America was being divided along party lines. This was the first time that the American public was introduced to party politics, as there was no clear second party prior to this time, and America took to politics in a big way.

By the end of 1830s, party affiliation was no more just a political phenomenon, but was also a social one. A persons party was in some important ways an indicator of his personal history and cultural orientation. The politicians who led the Whig and the Democratic parties saw to it that their parties had the maximum influence on the public. They tried to present a clear agenda for their respective parties hoping to secure greater public affiliation. Lets now take a closer look at the stances of the Whig and the Democratic parties.

The Democrats continued to defend the philosophy of a limited government. They also championed liberty and equality as these words became very popular by that time, while also, ironically, backing the most cruel exploitation system of slavery. The Whigs on the other hand, borrowing their philosophy largely from the Federalists, were all for modernization and centralization. They championed progress, which was becoming the watchword of the 19th century. They had a vision of an affluent and cosmopolitan America. The Congress and the government would play greater roles in organizing the society on modern lines, overseeing the different facets of it such as transportation, education and currency. On the issue of executive vs. legislative power, the Democrats wanted a stronger president, and Whigs wanted a stronger Congress. While these were the basic paradigmatic differences between the Whigs and the Democrats, they were also divided on many other issues while they happened to share some common goals too. The two parties would discuss and debate at the state level, while they argued and fought at the national level.

The influence of these two parties on the society was so much that they ceased to be just political parties and emerged into huge national coalitions with various groups, institutions and individuals joining one or the other side. We can even see them as some kind of mass movement, mobilizing opinion and action at the national level. Up to this point, political parties had mostly been for the fat cats who actually made the decisions now they were increasingly attractive to the masses.
America had been a very diverse society earlier. But because of the rise of nationalism and the influence these two parties had on the public, American diversity was significantly curtailed to one or the other of the two prevailing socio-political choices. It was becoming an eitheror society. Though American diversity still thrived because of the influx of the immigrants, religious issues and so on, there was now a marked two-sidedness to the American national character. Support for the Democratic or the Whig party became a personal issue for a majority of Americans. Politics has entered into many aspects of the social life. Therefore the history of the Whigs and Democrats could be better understood if seen from a broader social perspective than from merely a political perspective.

The Whig Party stronghold was in the Northeast, but it was also supported by many towns and cities of the entire North. The Whigs favored a market economy, a stance which attracted both factory owners and workers. The Whigs were rooting for a new dynamism in the society, and hence they promised opportunities for the ambitious entrepreneurs and workers of the increasingly industrialized American economy. In contrast, the Democrats were working to preserve the status quo, they assured more stability and integrity in the society during times that were inherently turbulent because of the clash of the old and new in the context of the emergent industrial revolution. The Democrats appealed to many people from the upper and middle classes in the South, those people who could be broadly categorized as cultural traditionalists. These people had not much to gain from the expansion of the national markets, and in fact the upper classes among them were fearful that the growing tidal wave of change could deprive them of their power and position in the society.

The Whig Party also inherited many characteristics from the Puritans of the North. These were the people that originally landed in America and they had strict religious observances and high moral principles. As a result, the Whigs strove for a moral resurgence of America. This was an inherent contradiction in their party, although leaders of the party may not have seen it that way at the time. They wanted science and progress, but at the same time they were promoting schools and educational institutions that were Bible-based. Whigs set an agenda of religiousmoral as well as industrialeconomic progress in the society, led by an activist government.

A significant portion of the Democrats were Irish Catholics. Therefore, the Whig and Democratic parties were also divided on CatholicProtestant lines. The Democrats however did not insist on religion, they said they were against theocracy and for a secular government. Therefore, ironically, though they were in many ways against progress, they could attract many free thinkers and atheists. The Fundamentalist strain of the Whig party scared off many progressive minded people who could have otherwise joined it. Perhaps if not for this fatal drawback, the party could have survived the schisms that would later develop in it and could have continued to exist. At that time, however, the Whigs did not care and instead labeled the Democrats as people given to atheism and immorality. A great number of Protestants too joined the Democratic Party because they did not believe in mixing of religion and politics. The rising religious fervor among the Whig members was an unfortunate development both for the party and the country.

After its demise, the Whig Party would be subjected to much criticism. Of all the parties that have existed in the United States, the famous Whig party was the most feeble in ideas, wrote the US historian and journalist Henry Adams in 1879. This is very harsh criticism, considering that the Whig Party had many lofty ideals and was originally driven by progressive notions, and that there have been far worse parties. But the Whigs simply should not have mixed religion and politics, but they did it and mixed up the whole thing. Whigs are generally remembered today as morally uptight New Englanders.

The South is generally thought to have belonged to the Democrats. It must be noted that though many of the Southern localities were staunchly Democratic, there were strong and extensive Whig pockets in the South too. In general, the Southern communities which had a rather cosmopolitan outlook supported the Whigs. As contrasted to the North, the political division in the South was not very much dependent on religious factors. Many Southerners were attracted to the Democratic Party because of Jacksons influence and his denunciation of greed that was taking over the country.

The Whig and Democratic parties were supposed to have divided the country on coherent political, social, cultural and economic bases however, when we look at the party philosophies, we can only detect coherence to some extent, beyond which there is much confusion and contradiction. The Whigs wanted a theocratic Christian Republic, while at the same time they wanted the country to be one of the most industrialized and progressive nations of the world  this apparently makes little sense. The Democrats, for their part, championed the individual and equal rights, while at the same time promoting status quo, class differences and slavery  if this is not ridiculous, then it is dangerously hypocritical. As if this was not enough, the Democrats too wanted a market economy, they certainly did not want to be left behind the times however, they wanted economic progress without the involvement of a government and even a national bank. They did not want to encourage paper currency, greed, ambition, speculation, and yet they wanted to see a flourishing capitalist economy. These were simply absurd demands.

We may assume that the country was being socially and politically divided into two because while there was a growing social and political awareness, people did not have a single party which could offer them a meaningful framework of thought and action. People did not always choose their party affiliation based on self-serving reasons, and besides not all people had something to gain or lose if one of the two parties came into power. In such circumstances, it would seem like people affiliated themselves to a party which they saw as less confusing of the two and had a greater balance of positive characteristics according to them. For example, there was much incongruence in people who considered themselves to be free thinkers to be affiliating themselves to a party that was supporting slavery, but this happened because these people must have thought that slavery was a much better option than the rise of a Bible-banging theocracy which could take the civilization back to Dark Ages. One could imagine a Protestant Church in America corresponding to the Catholic Church of medieval times in Europe, controlling every aspect of the society, if the Whigs kept their original promise.

As for the Democrats, in retrospect we can clearly discern the very height of absurdity in the Democrats continually stressing the supremacy of the individual, clamoring for civil and legal equality  in fact all of their major policies were supposedly subservient to the promotion of the rights and welfare of the individual  while at the same time supporting slavery, in fact actually ignoring the issue as if it was not even an issue. Democrats were not yet overtly supporting slavery by this time, but their silence itself was a great testimony that they had no intention to see slavery abolished. In their massive historical study of the United States, Norton et al. write
Yet when it came to slavery, the national parties often remained silent to keep sectional conflict submerged. Democrats and Whigs held distinct positions on most other issues.

Whigs divided stance on the issue of slavery would of course famously lead to dissolution of the party in the not too distant future, but at that time they too downplayed the issue as much as possible. It may also be noted that the Democrats favored rapid Westward expansion of American territory, but wouldnt this have infringed on the basic rights of many Indian tribes Long back in Ancient Greece, when Aristotle proudly asserted that humans possessed a rational soul, he actually only meant male upper-class Athenians, because according to him women, slaves, and Greeks traditional rivals did not even possess a soul. The Democrats championing of the rights of individuals and essential freedom of human beings too was riddled with double standards.

Andrew Jackson rose to presidency without having any clear political views, and the whole of Jacksonian era was characterized by lack of clarity and logical coherence in political and social outlook, despite the raging debates that used to happen all the time. Unfortunately, this was the first time that the political fever took over the country, and its legacy is far-reaching. Perhaps the Founding Fathers were correct in not foreseeing the need for a party system because in principle it is not difficult to see the differences between the right things and the wrong things, the logical things and the illogical things, and these leaders must have figured that the government would be always united in its stand in promoting the right things, after reaching to a conclusion through a democratic debate. The Founding Fathers seem to have had hardly any notion of the enormous confusion and hypocrisy that the human mind is prone to.

3.5. Van Buren, Harrison and the Elections of 1840

Though Van Buren could be elected sitting on the shoulders of Jackson, he had a hard time standing on his own as a President. In terms of personality and leadership qualities, Van Buren was the antithesis of Jackson. He completely lacked the charisma which his predecessors had in abundance. People were largely disappointed with the lackluster manner in which he was handling the affairs. In addition, 1837 saw a period of economic setback. It was called the Panic of 1837. Not only Van Burens administration was not able to avert it, they did very little to alleviate it. The Great Depression was alleviated through a massive interference of government. (Incidentally, Roosevelt was a Democrat). Even in the current economic depression, the (Democratic) government has been playing a key role in getting the economy back on track, so much so that in the recent times people had many occasions to wonder whether the American economy could be still called a capitalist economy or did it turn into a socialist one. Economic downturns demand a greater role from the government. However, Van Burens government was tenaciously clinging to the Democratic ideology of minimal government interference and did not have the practical sense to do whatever was needed to uplift the plight of the common man. Van Buren had earlier contributed much to the rise of the Democratic Party. He had been an able political organizer for Andrew Jackson, but the people started feeling that he was completely mismatched to the Presidential position. Whigs made the best use of the situation and began to direct attacks on him in every way that was possible. Perhaps this was the first time that mudslinging was carried out in a systematic and determined manner in American politics.

While Van Buren was diminishing in size, the Whigs top candidate William Henry Harrison was gradually assuming an imposing stature. Harrison was in fact a popular war hero, just as Jackson was. The 1840 elections were the first time in the U.S. history when massive and effective election campaigns were carried out. They were remarkably modern, based on the power of propaganda. The campaign of 1840 was heavy on image-making, less so on substancea harbinger of things to come. However, the Whigs had more things going right for them this time, including widespread frustration and suffering among the common people which is a sure sign that the incumbent government would be brought down. The Whigs also innovated more modern techniques of campaigning. As a result, Harrison was expected to sweep the polls and he did just that.

But unfortunately the Whigs suffered a massive blow when Harrison died within a month after his inauguration. The Vice President Tyler became the President. But he was at odds with Webster and Clay, and thus the big chance the Whig Party had secured through Harrisons victory was sabotaged by fate.

3.6. The Whigs Losing Ground

In the 1844 campaign, Clay stood for Presidency, but lost to James Polk. One of the main issues was the territorial expansion of America. While the Democratic Party was for America grabbing any piece of land it could, the Whigs saw this tendency as being unscrupulous and unprincipled. It was a closely contested election though. Had the Whigs won it, American history could have been different. Clay did not contest in the elections of 1848, this time he was replaced by Zachary Taylor, a veteran of the Mexican-American War. The Whigs wanted to convey a message to the voting populace that they were not against war and territorial expansion, though they still did not take a definite stance.

Taylor was elected  the last Presidential victory for the Whigs  but as fate would have it, this Whig President too died  just after an year of his tenure. Millard Fillmore, the Vice President and a veteran Whig member took his place. By this time tensions between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South reached a high pitch. The Compromise of 1850 dealing with issues of slavery and territorial expansion was proposed by Clay and Fillmore supported it. The passing of this bill was expected to defuse the tensions between the North and the South, but it was a complicated set of propositions and did not work effectively. The Compromise also created a powerful split within the Whig party on the issue of slavery, from which the Whig party could never recover. In the 1852 elections, the Whigs candidate Winfield Scott was thoroughly defeated by his Democratic opponent Franklin Pierce.

The Whig Party lost the Southern vote not only because of its perceived anti-slavery stance, but because of its fundamental belief in stronger government. The Southerners thought that a government strong enough to build roads is a government strong enough to free your slaves.

People both inside and outside the Whig Party were increasingly disillusioned by the growing disorganization and multiplicity of opinions within the party. For example, Abraham Lincoln, who was a leading Whig member in the Illinois State, decided to quit politics for some time and devote his time to the practice of law. As we could note in the nomination of Zachary Taylor instead of Henry Clay, in their desperation the Whig Party was growing more opportunistic. In order to emulate the success of the Democratic Party,  Whigs were gradually abandoning their original stand and were markedly conforming with Democrats, undermining the very rationale of the two-party system The 1852 election essentially finished the Whigs, who had become little more than me-too Democrats on the central issues of the day. While some Whigs were increasingly aligning themselves to the Democrats, others disgusted at this trend were turning their back to the party.

The Whig Party began as a conglomeration of many voices and opinions Clay and Webster could held the party together for some time, trying their best to forge a consensus. But their deaths in the year 1852 were again a blow dealt by fate to the Whig Party. From now on, the Whig Party was rather like the Federalist Party after the death of Hamilton, but it died a quicker death.
Ultimately, however, the Whigs are best understood as an American major party trying to be many things to many men, ready to abandon one deeply held conviction for another in the drive for political power. The party died not because its unique aura no longer appealed to voters but because it could not cope effectively or persuasively with what after the Compromise of 1850 became the great issue of American politics, the expansion of slavery. (Cengage Learning)

The phrase going by the way of Whigs in American political parlance has the meaning of a political party going to dogs.

4. The Rise of the Republican Party

In the decade before the Civil War, the country was divided into the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South. The Democratic Party was predominantly South, though it had considerable support in the Northern States too, and vice versa for the Whig Party. The Democratic Party could survive the changing times by growing stronger in South, but the Whig party could not make a similar shift, instead it got itself divided. The Democratic Party would become seriously fragmented too, though a little later than the Whig Party the Democrats would however be able to reconsolidate themselves and emerge into power once again decades later, the Whig party simply ceased to exist. The anti-slavery leaders of both the Whig Party and the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party which was created in 1854. The Republican Party was the first party in the history of the United States to take a definite anti-slavery stance, though it did not promise abolition before the Civil War. The Republican Party supported many of the original ideals and tenets of the Whig Party. From the Federalists to the Whigs and the Republicans, there is a clearly discernible continuity. With the emergence of the Republican Party, however, the modern two-party system in America was firmly in place with the Republicans on the one side and the Democrats on the other.