Cover image for Party of the people : a history of the Democrats
Title:
Party of the people : a history of the Democrats
Author:
Witcover, Jules.
Personal Author:
Edition:
First edition.
Publication Information:
New York : Random House, [2003]

©2003
Physical Description:
xvi, 826 pages, 16 unnumbered pages of plates : illustrations ; 25 cm
Language:
English
ISBN:
9780375507427
Format :
Book

Available:*

Library
Call Number
Material Type
Home Location
Status
Item Holds
Searching...
JK2316 .W735 2003 Adult Non-Fiction Open Shelf
Searching...
Searching...
JK2316 .W735 2003 Adult Non-Fiction Non-Fiction Area
Searching...
Searching...
JK2316 .W735 2003 Adult Non-Fiction Central Closed Stacks
Searching...

On Order

Summary

Summary

After more than two centuries of sometimes stormy, always intriguing history, the Democratic Party of the United States survives as the oldest political organization in the world. InParty of the People, veteran political chronicler Jules Witcover traces the Democratic Party's evolution, from its roots in the agrarian, individualistic concepts of Thomas Jefferson to its emergence as today's progressive party of social change and economic justice. Witcover describes the Democrats' dramatic struggle to deÞne themselves and shares with us half a century of personal observation of the party through its most turbulent times. First called, oddly enough, the Republican Party but later known as the Democratic-Republican Party and eventually the Democratic Party, this creature of Jefferson and James Madison evolved from an early ideological and personal struggle with the commerce-minded Alexander Hamilton. Seasoned by the populism of Andrew Jackson, the party was nearly undone by the "peculiar institution" of slavery in the South, which led to the birth of the rival Republican Party and to the Civil War. Half a century later, America emerged from World War I under Democrat Woodrow Wilson as a reluctant international player, and from World War II under Franklin Roosevelt as a liberal bastion and global superpower. In the civil rights revolution, the party shed much of its racist past, but subsequent white middle-class resentments and the divisive Vietnam War opened the door to a rival conservatism that effectively demon-ized Democratic liberalism. Defensively, the party under Bill Clinton sought safer centrist ground and seemed on the brink of establishing a "third way," until the disastrous 2000 electoral college defeat of Al Gore left the Democrats shaken and splintered. As the new century emerges, they are debating whether to return to their liberal roots, setting themselves clearly apart from the Republicans, or press on with the centrist pursuit of a broader, less liberal constituency. InParty of the People(a perfect companion toGrand Old Partyby Lewis L. Gould, a history of the Republicans published simultaneously by Random House), Jules Witcover offers a rich and comprehensive popular history of the ideas, struggles, and key Þgures that have deÞned the Democratic Party over the past two hundred years and are now


Reviews 4

Booklist Review

As a Washington reporter (and, later, coauthor of a nationally syndicated Baltimore Sun column) for some 50 years, Witcover has witnessed nearly a quarter of the Democratic Party's history. From the days of Jefferson and Madison through the New Deal and Harry Truman, Witcover's survey draws on the analyses and debates of distinguished historians; for the period since 1950, he adds his own observations--and those of other journalists--to the insightful contributions of contemporary historians. --Mary Carroll Copyright 2003 Booklist


Publisher's Weekly Review

The Democrats are the oldest political party in the world, with a legacy stretching back to the infighting among members of George Washington's administration. Witcover's thick history devotes significant space to the party's perpetual struggle to define itself, with detailed accounts of intraparty rivalries and convention intrigues between geographical and ideological factions, as well as efforts throughout the 20th century to create a "brain trust" leadership. Like Lewis Gould's Grand Old Party (Forecasts, Aug. 11), this is essentially a history of presidents and also-rans with some attention to the congressional record (though House Speaker Tip O'Neill's opposition role during the Reagan years is a surprising omission). The FDR section inevitably serves as a centerpiece, encapsulating all the issues-social reform, government programs, race, international relations-with which the party has wrestled before and since, while underscoring the author's talent for tracking shifting political alliances. Although Witcover has a half-century's journalistic experience, much of it on the Democratic campaign trail, he rarely (and subtly) interjects personal observations, nimbly handling an unavoidable discussion of his own part in getting Thomas Eagleton off the 1972 ticket. The campaigns he witnessed are presented in colorful detail, but then so are those from the early 1800s, showing how the mud slung against Jefferson and Jackson compares to that thrown against Clinton. Between the two party histories, his is more dynamic and, despite the greater length, more readable as well, almost always forgoing overt analysis for illuminating description. 16 pages of b&w photos not seen by PW. (On sale Nov. 4) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved


Library Journal Review

Witcover (political columnist, Baltimore Sun; No Way To Pick a President: How Money and Hired Guns Have Debased American Elections) has covered the American political scene for more than 50 years. In his latest book, he offers a comprehensive look at the evolution of the Democratic Party, from its origins in the earliest days of the Republic, through its many crises and mutations to remain an influential and balancing force in American government. Witcover shows that from Thomas Jefferson through William Jefferson Clinton, the Democratic Party has continually reinvented itself despite perpetual regional conflicts, surviving clashes over slavery, reconstruction, prohibition, racial strife, and various economic philosophies. He offers extensive biographical material on major and minor Democratic leaders while primarily focusing on the national party, especially presidential politics. Witcover relies on published historical, biographical, and news reporting sources, rather than primary source material, for the early historical periods and uses his personal experience and published material for events beginning in the 1950s. Although the book does not reveal new insights or uncover unknown intrigues or alliances, it remains consistent to the theme that throughout the party's 200-plus-year history, it has sought repeatedly to be the party of the "working masses, difficult to reach, more difficult to organize." An excellent resource for political science collections in public and academic libraries.-Jill Ortner, SUNY at Buffalo Libs. (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.


Choice Review

What better time to learn about the history of US political parties than in a presidential election year? In these companion volumes, political reporter Witcover and emeritus history professor Gould (Univ. of Texas) offer straightforward narratives treating, respectively, the Democratic and Republican parties' fortunes since their founding. Because the Democrats have the longer history, Witcover's text, not surprisingly, is substantially longer. Both books rely heavily on secondary sources (in Witcover's case, some embarrassingly outdated) to describe each party's twists and turns. Presidential elections and presidencies are, in both instances, the organizing motifs. Of the two authors, Gould (The Modern American Presidency, CH, Dec'03; American First Ladies, CH, Oct'96) has produced the more authoritative work. His reading in secondary sources is deeper than Witcover's, and in distilling his substantial knowledge of the Gilded Age, Progressive Era, and the 1960s, in particular, his book is especially strong. Witcover, a leading political reporter for more than three decades, is best on post-WW II politics through the election of 2000. Unfortunately, his treatment of the first 150 years of Democratic Party history is pedestrian at best, littered with small factual errors and an occasional interpretive whopper (as when he suggests that Andrew Jackson was the champion of urban workers). Witcover's final chapters draw heavily on his previous books about presidential politics, but they unfortunately convey surprisingly little of the flavor of those excellent works. Neither of these books breaks any new interpretive ground; neither is a page turner. However, both fill a niche, particularly for students and general readers who are coming to this subject for the first time, and both will prove handy reference sources for students and scholars looking to nail down a particular fact or theme from a given era. ^BSumming Up: Both books, recommended. General and undergraduate collections. M. J. Birkner Gettysburg College


Excerpts

Excerpts

Chapter 1 AN UNWANTED PREGNANCY, 1775-1792 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY of the United States, the oldest existing in the world, was in a sense an illegitimate child, unwanted by the founding fathers of the American Republic. They had no intention of bringing about the birth of any such institution, and in fact the first president, George Washington, warned darkly against the conception of any political parties. The American colonies had managed without them through their early political struggle for independence from the British, and in their first efforts to create governing mechanisms of their own in the newly declared independent states. The Continental Congress came and went without party structure, and the Articles of Confederation offered no provision for parties. They were widely regarded as hostile to the pursuit of a harmonious society and were seen as the agents of all manner of special interests. Thomas Jefferson once famously observed: "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." This attitude was not surprising in a young nation that was being shaped out of a European tradition that had also essentially shunned political parties-organizations created to embrace and advance common positions across a broad range of public matters. Rather, it had been the practice for like-minded individuals to come together temporarily to advance specific, narrow interests and to disband upon the success or failure of such alliances. They were usually called "factions" or "interests," never "parties." Americans of the time were conditioned less by internal political differences than by their opposition to the British crown that led to the American Revolution. When independence was won, their most prominent political figures, largely patrician members of the landed and commercial gentry, found themselves engaged together in the heady and positive task of building a new government. Washington, the military hero of the Revolution, stood above politics and was universally recognized as the new nation's unifying figure. But the fierce competition of ideas between two other brilliant men-Alexander Hamilton, the dashing, stylish aristocrat bent on shaping a national government of privilege based on the British model, and Jefferson, the unpretentious defender of the pioneer spirit determined to establish an unprecedented representative democracy-was at the core of the series of events that eventually led to the existence of parties and, ultimately, the Democratic Party of today. Many other men were involved in the fight, most notably James Madison, principal architect of the Constitution, as the chief ally of Jefferson. But in essence it boiled down to whether Hamilton or Jefferson would have his way. Hamilton had a colorful if questionable pedigree. Derided by John Adams in his autobiography as "the bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar," Hamilton was born in 1755 on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean West Indies. His mother was a brilliant and attractive French Huguenot who recognized his talent as a writer as well as his industry and ambition. Sent to America at age fifteen to be educated, he attended King's College (later Columbia), fought in the Revolution, became an aide to Washington and a literary celebrity who gained entry into the world of aristocracy, of which he became an outspoken protagonist. He was short and slender, with reddish hair on a large head of fair complexion. Historian Claude G. Bowers described him as "graceful and debonair, elegant and courtly, seductive and ingratiating, playful or impassioned, he could have fitted into the picture at the Versailles of Louis XV." But he also was, Bowers wrote, a vain egotist "singularly lacking in tact, offensively opinionated, impatient and often insulting to well-meaning mediocrity, and dictatorial. He did not consult-he directed. He did not conciliate-he commanded. . . . He was a failure in the management of men, and only his superior genius made it possible for him to dominate so long." Jefferson was a contrast to Hamilton in heritage as well as political creed. Born in 1743, his mother was a Randolph, an aristocrat, but his father was a middle-class farmer in frontier Virginia, and the son preferred to dwell on that lineage. Dismissively, he observed of his mother's family that it traced its "pedigree far back in England and Scotland, to which let everyone ascribe the faith and merit he chooses." He started school with backwoods classmates, but adjusted easily to the aristocratic ways of the College of William and Mary, while still adhering to his frontier roots. William E. Dodd, in Statesmen of the Old South, observed that it was not difficult "to see how the great principle of Jefferson's life-absolute faith in democracy-came to him. He was the product of the first West in American history; he grew up with men who ruled their country well, who fought the Indians valiantly. . . . Jefferson loved his backwoods neighbors and he, in turn, was loved by them." Jefferson was also a far cry from Hamilton, his junior by twelve years, in appearance, manner and style. He was tall and slender, with red hair tied in back, a man who, in Bowers's description, "dressed conventionally, because men must, and was careless of his attire." He had a look, Bowers wrote, "more of benevolence than force, more of subtlety than pugnacity. Nor, in that day of lace and frills, was there anything in his garb to proclaim him of the élite. . . . His tact was proverbial. He never sought to overshadow or overawe. . . . Considerate of his foes, he never hurt the sensibilities of his friends through offensive methods." Hamilton and Jefferson led the principal factions based on regional interests from which a party system would emerge. Although the party of Jefferson was not the first created-the short-lived Federalists of Hamilton preceded it-it would prove to be the most enduring. By the twenty-first century, it had survived with modifications for more than two hundred years, an existence unmatched anywhere in the world. In chronicling the birth and development of today's Democratic Party, however, it is essential at the outset to review the early dominance of the Federalist faction, opposition to which by Jefferson, Madison and others midwifed their new party and gave it its purpose and direction. Long before the American Revolution, societal forces in the colonies had foreshadowed the existence of a two-party system. The earliest settlers in the piedmont locale of Virginia and other Eastern seaboard regions had established themselves not only in agriculture but also in commerce and trade, and took leading roles in what self-governing existed. Planters of tobacco were among the aristocrats of the time, tied closely to British tradition and lifestyle. Later arrivals, from Maine to Georgia, were obliged to move westward for land and a more primitive agrarian life, and were known-often disparagingly in the East-as backwoodsmen. In colonial affairs, they were underrepresented and overtaxed, more susceptible to Indian attacks and, saddled with debt, resentful of their more comfortable brethren often living in more favorable conditions under the Crown. At first, these settlers of the Western regions were heavily Scotch-Irish who bought or squatted on land of Eastern speculators. They were practitioners of various Protestant religious sects outside the Congregational Church in New England and the Episcopal in the South, but often were taxed to support them, adding to their resentment of the older settlements of the East. The Scotch-Irish focused particularly on Pennsylvania. William Penn's secretary, James Logan, wrote in 1729 that "it looks as if Ireland is to send all its inhabitants hither, for last week not less than six ships arrived, and every day two or three arrive also." Soon German immigrants were also moving west and south into Maryland, the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia. Their commitment to the soil, and local life, and their hostility toward the aristocrats of business and commerce in the Eastern towns, made them natural recruits against any centralized government in the colonies, be it British or colonial. A hundred years before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, some Virginia backwoodsmen fell in behind Nathaniel Bacon, the owner of a frontier plantation ravaged by Indians, and rebelled against Virginia's royal governor, Sir William Berkeley, an exploiter of the Indian fur trade. The so-called Bacon's Rebellion produced more protection and forced some social reforms, but when Bacon died the rebels paid for their behavior at the hands of vengeful piedmonters. The clash between the established settlers and the frontiersmen, between the men of commerce and farmers, in many cases between the wellborn and well-educated and the toilers of the soil, was a forerunner of the eventual factional struggle that was played out in the writing of the Constitution, and in the subsequent evolution of bona fide political parties. Before that could happen, however, the oppression of both segments of the early American society by the British brought them together in the fight for independence. For the six years of the Revolutionary War, 1775-81, men of the seaboard and of the frontier joined forces against the foreign power that increasingly taxed them, intruded on their trade and on their liberties, until independence created the conditions wherein the old domestic factionalism inevitably reemerged. A leading early defender of the backwoodsmen in that competition was William Findley of western Pennsylvania, a Scotch-Irish settler who challenged establishment in his state of the first Bank of North America in 1782, on grounds it benefited only the wealthy propertied class. A group of "Constitutionalists" gained control of the Pennsylvania assembly and threw out the bank. Similar clashes in other states heightened the interest of the propertied classes in establishing a national government that could check development in the states deleterious to them. The Articles of Confederation ratified in 1781 and the Continental Congress it created had proved in their eyes to be inadequate to the task, and pressure built for a stronger political framework among the states. At the time, the new nation had a population of only about 5 million, of which nearly one person in five was black and in slavery. The bulk of all these new Americans lived along or near the Atlantic seaboard, overwhelmingly in rural towns and villages. The largest city was Philadelphia, with about 70,000 inhabitants, with New York next with 60,000 and Boston third with 25,000. Farming and shipping, over woeful roads, were the main occupations, and manufacturing was a minor undertaking. Schools were run by churches or the aristocracy, which also dominated politics. In the 1780s, the Federalists (sometimes called the Nationalists) were the leading faction behind Hamilton, a patriot who nevertheless had a strong residual admiration for all things British, and John Adams of Mas-sachusetts, a bald, portly, vain man of high temper twenty years his senior. The brilliance of Hamilton's mind and cunning compensated for the difference in age in establishing his dominance over Adams in the faction. The Federalists were propertied gentlemen of business and trade from seaboard New England, New York and other Eastern states, along with large landowners, all advocating a strong national government that would defend the caste system. Many had been officers in the Revolutionary army. The Federalists were what the name implied-citizens who wanted greater concentration of power at the national level, with economic, banking, taxation and foreign policies controlled by the federal government, the better to protect their property and wealth. As their leader, Hamilton had what amounted to contempt for the basic concept of democracy, if that meant equality of rights and power between the aristocracy he represented and the common man, on the farm or in the town. He preferred a government on the model of the British monarchy, to the point of favoring a president-for-life with broad and arbitrary powers. The Federalists' opposite numbers, known simply at first as anti-Federalists, were men of agrarian interests largely from the backwoods South, as well as small farmers and business operators, all of whom favored decentralized government. Most foot soldiers in the Revolutionary army found their political home here. The anti-Federalists were more locally oriented farmers and townspeople, often debt-ridden, and defenders of individual and states' rights who looked to a central government as oppressive, much as they had viewed the British crown. They often referred to Federalists as "Tories," after the British party, and after fighting for and winning independence from England, they did not want to come under the thumb of any other national entity. Although Jefferson was a champion of the interests of agriculture and the workingman, and was cool to any Federalist national government benefiting the wealthy and wellborn, he never cast himself as an anti-Federalist. Indeed, he took pains to dissociate himself from that faction, which he saw as merely reactive to the Federalists. He adopted a more positive posture, looking to the sort of democracy that he believed was the goal of revolutionists in France, where he had served with great personal relish as American minister. His purpose in public life, he wrote on one occasion, was to eradicate "every fibre of ancient or future aristocracy." It was easy to see why Hamilton and Jefferson would soon find themselves on a collision course in charting the political framework of the new nation. While Hamilton could be said to have fathered the Federalists as the first American political party, they did not survive as a real force beyond the early 1800s. As for the anti-Federalists, they were pathfinders for, but not the founders of, Jefferson's party, which in its evolution has far outlived not only the Federalists but also such other subsequent parties as the Whigs, the Know-Nothings, the Progressives and a host of lesser entities. By the time of the birth of the Republican Party of today in 1856, what by then had come to be known as the Democratic Party was already seventy-three years old. The post-Revolution competition between the older, landed and commercial interests and the frontier agrarians was at times bitter and fierce. The seaboard mercantile class continued to impose harsh and unjust burdens on farmers, particularly in debt collection that brought with it the threat of squalid debtors' prison. In Massachusetts in 1786, a Revolutionary War officer named Daniel Shays led raids on state courts to disrupt debt judgments against farmers, and tried to seize arms from a Continental arsenal. The raid was put down but what came to be known as Shays's Rebellion did produce some reforms. In the late spring of 1787, both the Federalist and anti-Federalist factions-not yet organized parties in any real sense-became involved in the sensitive labors leading to the writing of the Constitution and its ratification by the original thirteen states. A convention for the purpose was called in Philadelphia with Washington as its president and delegate from Virginia. The Federalists greatly outnumbered the anti-Federalists and took the lead from the start. They had local chapters in key Eastern states, and were experienced in politics through colonial assemblies, state legislatures and town meetings, notably in New England. Excerpted from Party of the People: A History of the Democrats by Jules Witcover All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.