What different, I meant didn't notice anything... other than Republicanism is much stronger right now than it was then
These United States: the Story of Two Congresses
- Thread starter President Benedict Arnold
- Start date
What different, I meant didn't notice anything... other than Republicanism is much stronger right now than it was then
Well, since somebody asked I'm going to do this one first.
Please leave any feedback or criticism you may have. I love reading the comments.
Interlude VII: Ideologies of the West
The dominant ideologies of the West at this time, which would maintain prominence until the beginning of the 20th Century are republicanism and monarchism. Republicanism had a storied history, having been conceived as a style of government in the Classical Era. The modern form that currently exists emerged among Protestant nations in between the late 16th and 17th Century and came to prominence in the late 18th Century. Early republics, like the Commonwealth of England and the Dutch Republic had few democratic elements to them and would be unrecognizable to those living under republics in the early 19th Century.
Various ideals and baggage on how a democracy should work grew considerably during the period of time where the Republican Coalition was at the height of its power. It’s easiest to explain through the lense of its critics. I will be quoting from ‘A look at this past century’ by Sebastien Faure, a syndicalist advocate from France: “The issue with the Republican governments were that they had the mentality of a mob, promoted the interests of the wealthy, and were ruled by a strongman. Many see Hoche, Randolph, Tone, Harrison, and Santa Anna as the greatest leaders that their respective countries have ever had, but their judgement is misguided. These men all shared very similar characteristics. They were militarymen meant to appeal to the working man’s imagination of a powerful ruler keeping his house in order and protecting his neighborhood like any father would. They were not looking for presidents, consuls, or prime ministers: they were looking for a nation’s own strict father figure to uphold the law, show off the nation’s strength, and silence any dissent with mockery if not outright violence. This is why these men were so beloved at their times; they made people feel as though disagreement with their elected leader was not just wrong, but would be met with punishment. And while they were men of the people on the surface, their actions were anything but. They used their political clout not in favor of the common man, but in favor of their wealthy friends. Under these men, the tax burden was shifted squarely onto the shoulders of those who could hardly afford it and businesses did not just have free economic reign, they were actively being subsidized. Industry grew quickly in republican countries, not because those countries were better equipped for industrializing or because of something magically special about republics, but because the merchant class was their base while the rest of the world’s monarchies fell back on the aristocratic class.”
The idea of this as a republic would live on well after the deaths of these leaders and the fall of the parties and coalitions they represented. In the coming decades, nearly every consul in France and president in Mexico and the United States would try to model themselves after these strongmen, but to do so was like catching lightning in a bottle.
Monarchism was far older and seems far more straightforward. Historical researchers disagree with Faure’s summary on the nature of monarchy, simply being rulers from tradition and only having to maintain the status quo to keep the aristocracy happy. Some historians have begun to make a distinction that had not previously existed between classical monarchism, like what was seen in Austria and Russia at this time, and a sort of neo-Monarchism that was emerging in Britain. Britain’s monarch historically had very little power compared to his peers, which all changed with King George IV. King George was seen as a pioneer into a sort of monarchy that more resembled the idea of a dictatorship. He did have significant aristocratic connections, being one himself, but a lot of his power was drawn from the military and popular support. His rule, and the rule of all British monarchs following him, was more of a balancing act than anything. He made the military happy by investing heavily into them and not going after Ireland, which would have been a bloodbath to take. It was not like the military did not wish to see action, but estimates suggested that it would take at least half a million British soldiers to invade and subdue Ireland. King George IV focused on easier targets in the Far East, which resulted in easy victories for the military, which came with great rewards. This also pleased the merchant class, who were given unlimited power over the resources of the lands taken, enforced by the military. The people also enjoyed this, believing that Britain could regain its prestige and international standing by carving out a massive empire out of East Asia. Popular newspapers would often publish hypothetical world maps where Britain was shown in control of all of China, Japan, and the lands of Turks, Tatars, and Mongols.
As time would go on, more and more of the European monarchies would follow Britain’s model. This resulted in the resurgence of power and popularity for the monarchs, as government being focused around them reemerged. It would spell trouble for the republican governments, as their main advantage over the monarchies had been their ability to wage total war, with every citizen dedicating themselves to some part of the war effort. With the rise of the neo-monarchies, suddenly kings could call upon the same sort of might from their countrymen. Arguably, this is why the republican revolutions did not encompass all of Europe.
Please leave any feedback or criticism you may have. I love reading the comments.
Interlude VII: Ideologies of the West
The dominant ideologies of the West at this time, which would maintain prominence until the beginning of the 20th Century are republicanism and monarchism. Republicanism had a storied history, having been conceived as a style of government in the Classical Era. The modern form that currently exists emerged among Protestant nations in between the late 16th and 17th Century and came to prominence in the late 18th Century. Early republics, like the Commonwealth of England and the Dutch Republic had few democratic elements to them and would be unrecognizable to those living under republics in the early 19th Century.
Various ideals and baggage on how a democracy should work grew considerably during the period of time where the Republican Coalition was at the height of its power. It’s easiest to explain through the lense of its critics. I will be quoting from ‘A look at this past century’ by Sebastien Faure, a syndicalist advocate from France: “The issue with the Republican governments were that they had the mentality of a mob, promoted the interests of the wealthy, and were ruled by a strongman. Many see Hoche, Randolph, Tone, Harrison, and Santa Anna as the greatest leaders that their respective countries have ever had, but their judgement is misguided. These men all shared very similar characteristics. They were militarymen meant to appeal to the working man’s imagination of a powerful ruler keeping his house in order and protecting his neighborhood like any father would. They were not looking for presidents, consuls, or prime ministers: they were looking for a nation’s own strict father figure to uphold the law, show off the nation’s strength, and silence any dissent with mockery if not outright violence. This is why these men were so beloved at their times; they made people feel as though disagreement with their elected leader was not just wrong, but would be met with punishment. And while they were men of the people on the surface, their actions were anything but. They used their political clout not in favor of the common man, but in favor of their wealthy friends. Under these men, the tax burden was shifted squarely onto the shoulders of those who could hardly afford it and businesses did not just have free economic reign, they were actively being subsidized. Industry grew quickly in republican countries, not because those countries were better equipped for industrializing or because of something magically special about republics, but because the merchant class was their base while the rest of the world’s monarchies fell back on the aristocratic class.”
The idea of this as a republic would live on well after the deaths of these leaders and the fall of the parties and coalitions they represented. In the coming decades, nearly every consul in France and president in Mexico and the United States would try to model themselves after these strongmen, but to do so was like catching lightning in a bottle.
Monarchism was far older and seems far more straightforward. Historical researchers disagree with Faure’s summary on the nature of monarchy, simply being rulers from tradition and only having to maintain the status quo to keep the aristocracy happy. Some historians have begun to make a distinction that had not previously existed between classical monarchism, like what was seen in Austria and Russia at this time, and a sort of neo-Monarchism that was emerging in Britain. Britain’s monarch historically had very little power compared to his peers, which all changed with King George IV. King George was seen as a pioneer into a sort of monarchy that more resembled the idea of a dictatorship. He did have significant aristocratic connections, being one himself, but a lot of his power was drawn from the military and popular support. His rule, and the rule of all British monarchs following him, was more of a balancing act than anything. He made the military happy by investing heavily into them and not going after Ireland, which would have been a bloodbath to take. It was not like the military did not wish to see action, but estimates suggested that it would take at least half a million British soldiers to invade and subdue Ireland. King George IV focused on easier targets in the Far East, which resulted in easy victories for the military, which came with great rewards. This also pleased the merchant class, who were given unlimited power over the resources of the lands taken, enforced by the military. The people also enjoyed this, believing that Britain could regain its prestige and international standing by carving out a massive empire out of East Asia. Popular newspapers would often publish hypothetical world maps where Britain was shown in control of all of China, Japan, and the lands of Turks, Tatars, and Mongols.
As time would go on, more and more of the European monarchies would follow Britain’s model. This resulted in the resurgence of power and popularity for the monarchs, as government being focused around them reemerged. It would spell trouble for the republican governments, as their main advantage over the monarchies had been their ability to wage total war, with every citizen dedicating themselves to some part of the war effort. With the rise of the neo-monarchies, suddenly kings could call upon the same sort of might from their countrymen. Arguably, this is why the republican revolutions did not encompass all of Europe.
Hey, sorry for not posting much. Midterms are kicking my ass.
Also sorry for not having the other interludes out yet. I didn't plan on this coming first but I just had to unwind.
Part XVIII: The President Who Was Never Meant to Be
When the late President Peyton Randolph had selected Oliver Wolcott Jr. to be his Vice President, he had never imagined that the man would take office. Wolcott himself had likely never thought he himself would live in the Seaward Wing of the Presidential Mansion. Wolcott’s ascendency would come with much political support from the mourning of Randolph, which would have great lasting effects on American politics. You see, Wolcott, while being a member of the Republican Party and ally of such figures as Harrison and Calhoun, was always a Federalist at heart. The Federalist Party, which had previously been very marginalized, was brought in far more by his administration, most notably with the rise of Alexander Macomb to the position of Secretary of War. Macomb was notable due to his history of serving in the Army of Patriotic Americans, as well as his personal dislike of Harrison and Randolph. Macomb’s dislike of them stems from a battle outside of Westport during the Irish Revolution, where he had reportedly called for reinforcements from his allies, who were resting in Dunmore before continuing on their northern campaign, but none came. Defeated and embittered, Macomb held a lifelong dislike of the men and would have unprecedented influence for a man of his office in trying to keep the living one, Harrison, out of the administration.
Oliver Wolcott Jr. approached the presidency with two clear goals in mind, a reduction of the power of the Republican Coalition over American foreign policy, and a reduction of the power of the presidency over the operation of the states. Since 1816, the presidency had become far more powerful than anybody could have anticipated. Harrison and Randolph had greatly expanded the de facto power and influence that the president wielded in ways that worked for the Republican Party’s ideology but did not work for a growing number of Americans. They wished to see a time where the Congresses played a far more prominent role in government and the new president shared that sentiment. There had been a strong consensus that lead to the rise of the rather authoritarian military men who had run the country for a little over a decade, and now a powerful reaction against that was beginning.
In the Federalist Party, the traditional ideological pillars had long since eroded away as they became more marginalized and had to adapt to even continue existing. The party had mainly become a coalition of isolationists, laissez-faire capitalists, those who opposed the Freemasons, which made up a significant number of American politicians, and those who feared the Papal influence of the Catholic majority territories taken by the United States in the Caribbean and the former British North America. With its headquarters at the Hamilton Hall in Boston, the party leaders, Governor Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, Representative John Randolph of Virginia, and Representative John Sergeant of Pennsylvania met to discuss President Wolcott and how to use his more moderate positions in their favor. The Federalist Party, making up a minority in the three houses of the two Congresses, had done very little to prevent or even slow their slip from power.
It was at this point, that all changed. In 1827, the Federalist Party began a massive transformation of their structure. They maintained their same political leanings but would take on a more popular message against the international, expansionist, centralized focus of the Republican Party. This is disputed by historians, but many believe they were inspired by the Truest Patriots, panting the Republicans as secret monarchists hellbent on turning the United States into a kingdom.
With all of this in mind, it came as a surprise when the Federalist National Committee overwhelmingly endorsed Oliver Wolcott Jr., the sitting Republican President, for the 1832 election. Wolcott was facing numerous challengers for his own nomination. Many believed that he would get it unless William Henry Harrison stepped up and they were right, Harrison decided not to run that year and Wolcott received both the Federalist and the Republican nominations. The isolationist, small-government dominated Federalist Party was not the entirety of the Federalist Party that remained and two men from this Traditional Wing broke rank with the party itself to run for president against Wolcott, Martin Van Buren and W.P. Mangum. Van Buren, a Representative in the Confederationist Congress from New York and Mangum was a Senator in the Constitutional Congress from North Carolina. Mangum opposed Van Buren and Wolcott, seeing both as destructive to the economic structure of the South. The Traditional Wing of the Federalist Party was supporting Martin Van Buren over Mangum and asked him to resign, which he adamantly rejected doing.
On the campaign trail, Wolcott would call upon support from the mainstream of the Federalist Party and the Republican Party, having people such as William Henry Harrison and Henry Clay endorsing him and even giving speeches on his behalf. In Van Buren’s camp, there was only really James Monroe, who would die of illness before the campaign was over. Mangum only had other Southerners on his side. This election showed the beginning of the political break between John C. Calhoun and Clay and Harrison. Calhoun grew to become more regionally prideful over the past decade and would become even more so following the bitterness of this election and the beginning of slavery becoming a national argument. Harrison, while not openly an abolitionist yet, began to test the waters and campaigned for representatives and local officials who had more anti-slavery leanings. Henry Clay grew into his role of the political moderate of the remaining Republicans and can really be credited with keeping the party and movement united for as long as it was.
The result of the 1828 Election were astounding. The raise turned out to be far closer than expected, especially with the two major parties endorsing one candidate. Wolcott ended up victorious while only winning Virginia, North Carolina, Franklin, and Cuba among the Southern states. Martin Van Buren was only able to pull a victory off in Vermont, losing every other Northern state to Wolcott. Mangum, who had won by overwhelmingly margins in Mississippi and South Carolina, being the only candidate to win over fifty-five percent of the vote in any state. Despite his loss, Mangum benefitted greatly from his presidential run, earning John C. Calhoun as a close friend and ally and being propelled to the national stage, where he would remain for quite some time.
Wolcott’s presidential victory spelled a future much different than what the American people were expecting. The ways he disagreed with what the men before him had established was not as widely known as the ways he agreed and his presidency, although shorter than the ones before him, would be just as important.
Also sorry for not having the other interludes out yet. I didn't plan on this coming first but I just had to unwind.
Part XVIII: The President Who Was Never Meant to Be
When the late President Peyton Randolph had selected Oliver Wolcott Jr. to be his Vice President, he had never imagined that the man would take office. Wolcott himself had likely never thought he himself would live in the Seaward Wing of the Presidential Mansion. Wolcott’s ascendency would come with much political support from the mourning of Randolph, which would have great lasting effects on American politics. You see, Wolcott, while being a member of the Republican Party and ally of such figures as Harrison and Calhoun, was always a Federalist at heart. The Federalist Party, which had previously been very marginalized, was brought in far more by his administration, most notably with the rise of Alexander Macomb to the position of Secretary of War. Macomb was notable due to his history of serving in the Army of Patriotic Americans, as well as his personal dislike of Harrison and Randolph. Macomb’s dislike of them stems from a battle outside of Westport during the Irish Revolution, where he had reportedly called for reinforcements from his allies, who were resting in Dunmore before continuing on their northern campaign, but none came. Defeated and embittered, Macomb held a lifelong dislike of the men and would have unprecedented influence for a man of his office in trying to keep the living one, Harrison, out of the administration.
Oliver Wolcott Jr. approached the presidency with two clear goals in mind, a reduction of the power of the Republican Coalition over American foreign policy, and a reduction of the power of the presidency over the operation of the states. Since 1816, the presidency had become far more powerful than anybody could have anticipated. Harrison and Randolph had greatly expanded the de facto power and influence that the president wielded in ways that worked for the Republican Party’s ideology but did not work for a growing number of Americans. They wished to see a time where the Congresses played a far more prominent role in government and the new president shared that sentiment. There had been a strong consensus that lead to the rise of the rather authoritarian military men who had run the country for a little over a decade, and now a powerful reaction against that was beginning.
In the Federalist Party, the traditional ideological pillars had long since eroded away as they became more marginalized and had to adapt to even continue existing. The party had mainly become a coalition of isolationists, laissez-faire capitalists, those who opposed the Freemasons, which made up a significant number of American politicians, and those who feared the Papal influence of the Catholic majority territories taken by the United States in the Caribbean and the former British North America. With its headquarters at the Hamilton Hall in Boston, the party leaders, Governor Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, Representative John Randolph of Virginia, and Representative John Sergeant of Pennsylvania met to discuss President Wolcott and how to use his more moderate positions in their favor. The Federalist Party, making up a minority in the three houses of the two Congresses, had done very little to prevent or even slow their slip from power.
It was at this point, that all changed. In 1827, the Federalist Party began a massive transformation of their structure. They maintained their same political leanings but would take on a more popular message against the international, expansionist, centralized focus of the Republican Party. This is disputed by historians, but many believe they were inspired by the Truest Patriots, panting the Republicans as secret monarchists hellbent on turning the United States into a kingdom.
With all of this in mind, it came as a surprise when the Federalist National Committee overwhelmingly endorsed Oliver Wolcott Jr., the sitting Republican President, for the 1832 election. Wolcott was facing numerous challengers for his own nomination. Many believed that he would get it unless William Henry Harrison stepped up and they were right, Harrison decided not to run that year and Wolcott received both the Federalist and the Republican nominations. The isolationist, small-government dominated Federalist Party was not the entirety of the Federalist Party that remained and two men from this Traditional Wing broke rank with the party itself to run for president against Wolcott, Martin Van Buren and W.P. Mangum. Van Buren, a Representative in the Confederationist Congress from New York and Mangum was a Senator in the Constitutional Congress from North Carolina. Mangum opposed Van Buren and Wolcott, seeing both as destructive to the economic structure of the South. The Traditional Wing of the Federalist Party was supporting Martin Van Buren over Mangum and asked him to resign, which he adamantly rejected doing.
On the campaign trail, Wolcott would call upon support from the mainstream of the Federalist Party and the Republican Party, having people such as William Henry Harrison and Henry Clay endorsing him and even giving speeches on his behalf. In Van Buren’s camp, there was only really James Monroe, who would die of illness before the campaign was over. Mangum only had other Southerners on his side. This election showed the beginning of the political break between John C. Calhoun and Clay and Harrison. Calhoun grew to become more regionally prideful over the past decade and would become even more so following the bitterness of this election and the beginning of slavery becoming a national argument. Harrison, while not openly an abolitionist yet, began to test the waters and campaigned for representatives and local officials who had more anti-slavery leanings. Henry Clay grew into his role of the political moderate of the remaining Republicans and can really be credited with keeping the party and movement united for as long as it was.
The result of the 1828 Election were astounding. The raise turned out to be far closer than expected, especially with the two major parties endorsing one candidate. Wolcott ended up victorious while only winning Virginia, North Carolina, Franklin, and Cuba among the Southern states. Martin Van Buren was only able to pull a victory off in Vermont, losing every other Northern state to Wolcott. Mangum, who had won by overwhelmingly margins in Mississippi and South Carolina, being the only candidate to win over fifty-five percent of the vote in any state. Despite his loss, Mangum benefitted greatly from his presidential run, earning John C. Calhoun as a close friend and ally and being propelled to the national stage, where he would remain for quite some time.
Wolcott’s presidential victory spelled a future much different than what the American people were expecting. The ways he disagreed with what the men before him had established was not as widely known as the ways he agreed and his presidency, although shorter than the ones before him, would be just as important.
Great story so far. I hope you are able to continue this thread, because it is such an interesting read.
So after a SUPER long hiatus, I have returned to this series for an unknown amount of time.
I'm hoping to at least reach 1860 with it, but I am not certain if I will.
Worst comes to worst, I will do what I did in my "A Better America" thread and post a writeup of all my ideas but I hope I don't have to do that because I think I have some great stuff coming up.
I'm hoping to at least reach 1860 with it, but I am not certain if I will.
Worst comes to worst, I will do what I did in my "A Better America" thread and post a writeup of all my ideas but I hope I don't have to do that because I think I have some great stuff coming up.
Part XIX: “Quite shocking indeed” - Henry Clay
Henry Clay of Kentucky had somehow managed to remain in the center of the political spectrum for the entirety of the Republican Era, up to this point. From the days of the Army of Patriotic Americans, to the presidency of his political allies and personal friends, Harrison and the late Peyton Randolph, Clay never dreamed of being an outspoken critic of a president. As a slave owning man of the Upper South, a supporter of the international agenda of liberty that the Republican Coalition espoused, and a diehard patriot, Henry Clay had nothing but glowing words for the actions that these United States had taken up to this point. His values clearly shown through whenever he spoke to the presses on the subject, how he admired the devotion to liberty that Americans who fought revolutions abroad had taken and how he hoped that someday the powerful beauty of republican government would reach all corners of the globe. His words seem to paint a picture of what some have come to call the Republican Consensus, and President Oliver Wolcott’s break with that consensus greatly changed the tone of American and global politics.
Apart from being the first president to assume office following the death of another rather than an election, President Wolcott is best known for his role in causing the demise of the Republican Coalition. He believed in isolationism and a decentralized structure in government despite being a member of the Republican Party, and although he had left that issue mostly untouched in the year that he served as president following Peyton Randolph’s assassination, it would be his first item of business upon being elected into the office by his own right.
Interestingly, his election came with an unusually large swell of Federalists in all three houses of the two Congresses. In the House and Senate of the Constitutionalist Congress, Republicans lost their previously held large majorities, maintaining only slim margins on the Federalists. Most surprisingly, Federalists are able to take majorities in every single Confederationist state, marking the first time that Dearborn, Arkansas, and Cuba became dominated by Federalists. Perhaps there was a public wave of anti-Coalition sentiment forming, but it if there was, Wolcott pushed for it long before it ever gained traction, not like he needed it.
In his first addresses to the Congresses as an elected president, Wolcott claimed:
“Our America is in trouble. Too often and with too much fervor we throw ourselves into the international stage and ignore issues we are having at home. The previous administrations have been too quick to throw our great nation of states into global war without thinking about the troubles that we are facing at home, without thinking of the consequences of their actions.”
He cited multiple incidents of piracy taking place, mostly along the undefended coastline of New England while most of the national navy sat in the South to defend the Caribbean islands that were recently conquered. He talked at length about groups such as the Defenders of Liberty, who were a widespread group of anti-federal Americans. The Defenders of Liberty and groups like them were often compared to the Truest Patriots as a form of slander, but the ideological comparisons were sound. President Wolcott’s affiliation to the Defenders of Liberty was met with much criticism from his political opponents, but he persisted with it. There were some among the press who even peddled the idea that Wolcott had been affiliated with, or even in charge of the Truest Patriots and had planned the assassination himself.
His address ended with the statement that would mark his presidency as one of great change:
“Despite the good that has come from this large scale alliance, I do believe it is time to put the dream of the Republican Coalition to rest. Its obligations are too strict for America to operate. This group of unelected men from Europe and the Latin South has a hold over our nation’s ability to interact with other nations. The first step in alleviating the suffering within this country is to simply exit this alliance permanently and without hesitation.”
His statements caused quite a stir across the nation and the world. Similar sentiments had been growing in every country, notably in Mexico, Rio de la Plata, and Italy, but none had reached a boiling point like this.
Senator Henry Clay came out strongly against this, saying “I had believed the president’s choice of Alexander Macomb as vice president to simply be a break with party norms in favor of a broader political coalition. I have discovered today that this move was not to broaden the scope of his political allies, but to realign himself. I do believe this to be the wrong move to make by the president, and I certainly do not take criticizing a sitting president lightly. It is quite shocking, quite shocking indeed.”
Even with Clay and his vast number of political allies opposing it, Wolcott was able to break away from the coalition with the support of all three houses of the Congresses. By the end of the year of 1832, the United States had exited the Republican Coalition and set its path for conflict with former allies.
