Politics, Parties, And Elections In America - John F. Bibby
23
In the two decades that followed Jackson's reelection in 1832, the Whigs and Democrats were engaged in an intense struggle for the newly expanded electorate. They engaged in popularized campaigning-torchlight parades, rallies, picnics, campaign songs, and slogans like "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." Both parties organized state and local parties and ran full slates of candidates under a party label. In this atmosphere of partisan mobilization, voters began to see themselves as either Whigs or Democrats." Unlike the Federalists, who had been reluctant to court popular support, the Whigs did so with zeal. As the national minority party, one of their favorite techniques was to run military heroes with an appeal above part for president. They did this four of six elections and were successful twice-in 1840 with William Henry Harrison and in 1848 with Zachary Taylor. In nine of eleven elections, however, the majority Democrats won control of the Congress.
Both the Democrats and the Whigs were truly national parties which engaged in relatively close competition not only at the national level but also in each region and in most states. For-example, such old bastions of Jefferson's as Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee divided their support quite evenly between the Whigs and Democrats as did the Middle Atlantic States. Ladd has observed that in the 1835-1852 period, the "United States had less regional variation in voting than at any other time in history."10 This lack of sectionalism in American politics was a tribute to the skills of Democratic and Whig leaders in balancing the interests of farmers, manufacturing and mercantile interests, nativists, immigrants, Catholics, and Protestants. Both parties were broad coalitions which sought backing throughout the country, with Whigs attracting proportionately more support from manufacturing and trading interests, planters, and old Protestant stock, while the Democratic did well among newly enfranchised voters, western farmers, Catholics and new immigrants.
The absence of highly salient issues that might have divided the nation along sectional lines also contributed to the ability of the two parties to compete in all regions. However, when the racial and slavery issues reached crisis proportions in the 1850's the Whigs and Democrats were confronted with a nation divided along sectional lines. This national schism was reflected in the parties which split on a North-South axis because neither was able to satisfy both regions. America then entered its Third Party System.
23
In the two decades that followed Jackson's reelection in 1832, the Whigs and Democrats were engaged in an intense struggle for the newly expanded electorate. They engaged in popularized campaigning-torchlight parades, rallies, picnics, campaign songs, and slogans like "Tippecanoe and Tyler too." Both parties organized state and local parties and ran full slates of candidates under a party label. In this atmosphere of partisan mobilization, voters began to see themselves as either Whigs or Democrats." Unlike the Federalists, who had been reluctant to court popular support, the Whigs did so with zeal. As the national minority party, one of their favorite techniques was to run military heroes with an appeal above part for president. They did this four of six elections and were successful twice-in 1840 with William Henry Harrison and in 1848 with Zachary Taylor. In nine of eleven elections, however, the majority Democrats won control of the Congress.
Both the Democrats and the Whigs were truly national parties which engaged in relatively close competition not only at the national level but also in each region and in most states. For-example, such old bastions of Jefferson's as Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee divided their support quite evenly between the Whigs and Democrats as did the Middle Atlantic States. Ladd has observed that in the 1835-1852 period, the "United States had less regional variation in voting than at any other time in history."10 This lack of sectionalism in American politics was a tribute to the skills of Democratic and Whig leaders in balancing the interests of farmers, manufacturing and mercantile interests, nativists, immigrants, Catholics, and Protestants. Both parties were broad coalitions which sought backing throughout the country, with Whigs attracting proportionately more support from manufacturing and trading interests, planters, and old Protestant stock, while the Democratic did well among newly enfranchised voters, western farmers, Catholics and new immigrants.
The absence of highly salient issues that might have divided the nation along sectional lines also contributed to the ability of the two parties to compete in all regions. However, when the racial and slavery issues reached crisis proportions in the 1850's the Whigs and Democrats were confronted with a nation divided along sectional lines. This national schism was reflected in the parties which split on a North-South axis because neither was able to satisfy both regions. America then entered its Third Party System.
23
في العقدان التاليتين بإعادة إنتخاب جاكسن في 1832، الويج Whigs وديمقراطيون شغلوا انفسهم في كفاح حادّ لتوسعة جماعة الناخبين الحديثة . شغلوا انفسهم في ترويج الحملات - استعراضات علي نور المشاعل ، إلحشود ، متعة التنزه ، أغاني الحملة، وشعارات مثل "تيبيكانوي وتيلر أيضا." نظّمت كلتا الحزبين حفلات في الولاية والاقليم وأدارت قوائم كاملة من المرشّحين تحت شعر الحزب . في هذا الجوّ من التعبئة التحزبيّة، بدأ الناخبون برؤية أنفسهم كأمّا ويجز أو ديمقراطيون." على خلاف الفدراليون ، الذين كانوا ممانعين لمراودة الدعم الشعبي، انجز ويجز اعمالهم بالحماس. كحزب الأقلية الوطني، أحد تقنياتهم المفضّلة كانت أن تدير أبطال عسكريين بنداء فوق الحزب للرئيس. عملوا هذا في أربعة من ستّة إنتخابات ونجحوا مرّتين -في 1840 مع وليام هنري هاريسن وفي 1848 مع زكري تايلور. في تسعة من أحد عشرة إنتخاب، على أية حال، سيطرت الاغلبية الديمقراطية في الكونجرس.
كان كلا الديمقراطيون والويجز احزابا وطنية حقا التي شغلت في المنافسة القريبة نسبيا ليست فقط في المستوى الوطني لكن أيضا في كلّ منطقة وفي أكثر الولايات. على سبيل المثال، مثل هذه المعاقل القديمة لجيفيرسن كجورجيا، كارولاينا الشّمالية، لويزيانا، وتينيسي قسمت تأيديهما تماما بانتظام بين ويجز والديمقراطيون كما فعلت الولايات الأطلسية المتوسّطة. لاحظت لاد بأنّ في فترة 1835-1852 ، "الولايات المتّحدة كانت لديها إختلافات أقل اقليمية في التصويت مقارنة مع أي وقت أخر في التأريخ" 10 هذا الافتقار للفئوية في السياسات الأمريكية كانت تقدير لمهارات زعماء الحزب الديمقراطي والويجز في موازنة مصالح المزارعين، مصالح التجارية والصناعية ، المواطنين ، المهاجرين، الكاثوليك، والبروتستانتيون. كانت كلتا الحزبين إئتلافات واسعة التي ناشدت التأييد في كافة أنحاء البلاد، وكان ويجز يجذب التأييد أكثر بشكل متناسب من أصحاب المصالح الصناعية والتجارية ، الغرّاسون، والسلالة القديمة البروتستانتية ، بينما الديمقراطي عمل بشكل جيّد بين اصوات الناخبين الجدد ، المزارعون الغربيون، الكاثوليك والمهاجرون الجدّد.
غياب إلى حد كبير قضايا البارزه التي لربّما قسّمة الأمة على طول الخطوط المقطعية ساهمت في قدرة الطرفين أيضا للتنافس في كلّ المناطق. على أية حال، عندما وصلت العرقية وقضايا العبودية الي أزمة حادة في 1850 ، عندما واجهت الويجز والديمقراطيون بأمة قسّمت على طول الخطوط المقطعية. هذا الإنشقاق الوطني عكس علي الاحزاب التي إنشقّت على محور الشمال -الجنوب لأن لم يقدر احد منهما إرضاء كلتا المناطق. بالتالي أمريكا دخلت نظام الحزب الثالث.
No comments:
Post a Comment