Enjoy The Birth Of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, And The Election Of 1828 Generated By Lynn Hudson Parsons Contained In Copy

stuff once again I find myself musing that perhaps we should've just let the South go, ed before:

"The author claims that politics as we know it inst century began durings, specifically, altho going back to 'for context.
Both elections were mainly b/w Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, When you start to understand how Presidential elections took place prior to this time, you begin to see how the claim makes sense.


In, there were no official parties, In previous elections, it had been Federalists and Republicans, but the Federalists were on the decline by ', which left Republicans to fight amongst themselves.
Parsons quotes some political propaganda during 'election, and it sounds pretty much like today, A major difference was a lack of negativity against opponents, b/c it was believed the election would be decided by House of Reps, and you didn't want to alienate anyone who might be determining the winner.
But, ideas like ignoring candidate's political career and highlighting aspects that appeal to the mass, suspicion of elitism, and even antiintellectual as a good trait in a candidate were all prevalent especially from Jackson supporters.


Parsons says Adams was the last President to believe the office was above politics, He refused to help his friends w/appointments, and did not fire his political opponents, This would no longer work in America,

Theelection ramped up the partisanship, It also brought the media much more into the process, altho it certainly wasn't left out in prior elections, In fact, Parsons asserts most papers believe being partisan was a part of the job, Pretty much like today, but the claim is that's not the case, Much like today, Jackson's supporters pushed his heroic image, and ignored his stance on any issues of the day, b/c that could only get a man in trouble.
The more people knew where you stood on issues, the more reason they had to vote against you, Jackson's wife was even attacked, being call a prostitute and adulteress,

It's quite interesting to see the difference b/w the Jackson presidency and John Quincy Adams, Really, Jackson was the first of a new generation of Americans, Though Adams was about the same age, having his father such an integral part of the Revolution, and being involved in the govt since his teen years, he really was in much the same vein as the previous line of Presidents.
But not so w/Jackson, especially coming from the frontier Tennessee at the time, After recently reading Jackson's biography, I've realized how interesting this era was, thes throughs, I guess most ofth century is overshadowed by Civil War, I think the Presidency is vastly different now thans, and I think Jackson was the first major sea change in making it what its become today.


In any case, if you think anything about politics is new today, read this book and you'll have a different opinion.
Claims of corruption, of fighting special interests, ""stretching"" the truth, personal attacks, debate over value of political parties, how much the federal

govt is involved in daily life, so many things.
One of the reasons I find history so fascinating, we think today is so unique, " In reading this book, published in, I was struck by how relevant it was to the contemporary political environment, Of course, the author wanted to markas a decisive election, a bit prematurely, but this book is far more useful as a precursor of theelection in terms of its themes and course.
Theelection marked the beginning of the second party system and for that reason the author makes marks it as the period where modern politics was born, and manages to make a strong case for her claim.
Of course, this book will be most enjoyable if you are fond of reading books about American political history, If you are, this book offers a lot of context and quite a bit of detail of how it was that John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson turned from nationalist allies to bitter enemies who could not even stand to be around each other after the bitter election of.
And as our day and age is no stranger to bitter elections, this book is important in reminding of us of what sort of stakes elections get tied up into, and what sort of myths become enshrined in historical memory as a result of their repetition, despite the fact that those who make the lies know them to be false.
This book will show that Democrats have lied about their opposition for a long, long time, as if that needed to be told.


The book is organized in a very nondescript way, with an editor's note talking about various elections recognized afterward as decisive, like,,, to which the author somewhat prematurely putswhich, in retrospect, looks more like the election ofthan, and then six chapters and an epilogue that take up the rest of the The Birth of Modern Politics'spages.
This book has a long buildup, in that it spends a great deal of time talking about the political education of both John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, the former a long set of duties as an undiplomatic diplomat with a passion for furthering American political interests in far off posts like St.
Petersburg and Ghent where he helped negotiate the treaty that ended the War of, and the latter a somewhat corrupt land speculator and autocratic military man who rose to political power on the strength of his populist appeal and his railing against outoftouch Eastern elites.
It is hard not to see the echoes of this particular campaign in the course of theelection, in retrospect, considering that John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson had once been friends before becoming serious enemies.


This book, although it is short, manages to become relevant in the way it describes the growing importance of ambition and the decline of caucuses, where politicians had to appeal to the common person with their antiintellectual prejudices and their tendency to see their progress thwarted by elites and those who considered themselves their betters.
In light of the contemporary political climate, this book gives an indirect but strong warning to those who seek to win high office without being able to show an ability to connect with ordinary people and their concerns, and that the image of being relatable is often more important than the reality of living the same sort of life as one's partisans and constituents.
Thus a slaveowning autocrat was able to appeal to populist desires to throw out an elite that was threatening to dominate the American republic with its intelligencia and its snobbery and its high culture.
Whether we like it or lament it, there has long been a tendency within American politics where those who were flamboyantly intelligent had to to show the more friendly side of their personalities to counteract the perceived coldness of their approach, and that trend was decisive as early as, showing just how slowly a culture changes its fundamental approaches to authority and legitimacy.


See, for example:

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/

sitelink blog/ .