Monroe's Failed Era of Good Feelings | How He Tried to Kill Political Parties and Failed!
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- President James Monroe undertook a zealous project to finally extinguish the Federalist Party. It was a triumph. Terrifying and ambitious Federalists, fleeing a toxic party label, happily denounced their former party to join Monroe as Democratic-Republicans. In no time, America was a one party state.
It was called the Era of Good Feelings. And it was a disaster. In this episode, we discuss how and why Monroe’s Era of Good Feelings failed.
On their way of the stage, Americas Founding generation got one last chance to test the idea of an Enlightenment republic of high-minded officials without the corruption of political parties. It didn’t work. Instead of working together for the public good, Monroe’s government broke down into corruption, listlessness, and drift. With parties to focus people on a common cause, and without a rival party to cooperate to fight, government officials became free agents unwilling to cooperate at all.
Monroe’s officials sparred with rivals to satisfy their ambition. They indulged in corruption. And the president lacked any leverage to force them to follow his commands. An American republic without political parties simply didn’t work. Nor did it last long.
As soon as Monroe retired after his two terms as president, four ambitious officials sought to replace him. The wild political campaign of 1824 saw the nation break into acrimony. After a messy election that no one won, throwing the result to the House of Representatives, Americans started separating once again into two warring different camps built around two political rivals, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.
A new Second Party System was about to begin, between Andrew Jackson and his Democrats and Adams and his Whigs.
Check out the book: www.amazon.com...
Follow Frank on twitter: @frankjdistefano
Learn more: www.frankdiste...
awesome!
I had no idea about the issues caused by having no parties. (I had originally been on the impression that there was understood to be one party in charge while others simply didn't bother to be in one for several years. Good to know.)
Having no official organized parties and instead just discussing the issues is still a very romantic and appealing idea to me, I must admit.
So I guess I should, though hesitantly, thank you for pointing out the issues that can arise even if that would somehow come about, as unlikely as it seemingly is.
I think the real problem is the Jeffersonians by and large abandoned what got them elected in the first place. Exceptions were the tertium quids, like John Randolph of Roanoke, Nathaniel Macon, John Taylor, and a few others. The republicans had become nothing more than federalists. And the federalists still held tremendous sway in the federal judiciary through John Marshall all the way to 1835.
love your video really informative
Thanks. I really appreciate it.
I still think Monroe was an okay president, even though there was certainly problems like corruption and a economic recession during his administration, he passed the Missouri Compromise which delayed the civil war by around 40 years, and having the Civil War earlier around the 1820's could of led to the permanent secession of the south. His administration also annexed Florida (albiet not entirely by his own design), and continued adding internal improvements to the United States.
sure be nice if the episodes were numbered, like 1..2, doesn't have to be binary to be helpful.
But a multi party system is even better than a 2 party system.
There are pluses and minus to both. Mostly on how stable the coalitions are how quick they are to change. Which can be a good or bad thing depending on the circumstance, on one hand allowing a fast reaction for necessary change but also allowing momentary passions or bad faith radicals to take power in a turbulent moment. But either way, you still end up trending back over time to two big coalitions.
Frank DiStefano but don't parliamentary systems have the unstable coalition issue because the coalition forms the government? In our system where the executive is elected separately and is not a product of a coalition it remains stable, freeing coalitions to develop on a piecemeal basis on the legislative side... although I suppose the leadership rules in house and senate would require the bodies to organize into ruling coalitions. Still I don't see why those rules couldn't be changed under a multi party system. Even if they weren't, our governments would likely be more stable by virtue of not functioning as parliamentary systems.
The bottom line is that a multi party system would require changing our plurality voting system, which itself would allow greater flexibility in our parties. I wish you discussed that in your third party video.