How VOTING RIGHTS Expanded from 1800 1848 APUSH Review

Okay, so in the period of 1800 to 1848, democracy in America got a big shot of political growth hormones. And while I don't endorse such a practice for human beings, it's never a bad thing to beef up the franchise, so if you're ready to get them brain cows milked, let's get to it. Okay, now democracy, in case you don't know, doesn't expand itself. Now, if a government opens the franchise to more people, it's typically because they're forced into it. And by the way, you'll see that word franchise a lot in this course, and it just means the right to vote, and it's important, so stick that one deep in your brain folds. To be clear, the debate over voting rights did not begin in this period. It was a debate that raged between the earliest political parties, and you had the Federalists in particular getting a little twitchy about expanding the franchise too much on account of they feared the implications of too much democracy. Regardless, let's talk about the two major causes of the expansion of the franchise during this period. First, and arguably most important, was the Panic of 1819. Now, we talked about this in a previous video, but by way of reminder, this was an economic depression directly caused by risky and irresponsible practices carried out by the Second Bank of the United States. And again, to further remind you, this is the national stinking bank for the whole country, like THE bank of the United States. And they were getting all kinds of reckless with their policies in the years leading up to the Panic. Basically, the bank loaned out more money than people could afford to pay back, especially Western farmers. When that speculative gamble failed, it sparked the Panic of 1819, and things got, uh, real bad. Many Western farmers lost their land to foreclosure, as did many Southern farmers. And then Northern manufacturers and laborers suffered as well since they were made to endure a precipitous decline in the export of food and raw materials from the other regions. It was, to use the technical historical term, a stanky economic dumpster fire. But that stank revealed an even deeper stank. Namely, the vast majority of Americans who were hit hardest by this depression could not vote, and therefore could not hold their representatives responsible for the crisis. And so as a direct result of this situation, a growing movement to expand voting rights gathered steam. And the main call to action was to remove property qualifications for voting because whether a person was propertied or not, they could still endure hardship on account of these policies. And hey, before I tell you what happened as a result, let me just mention that if your A-bush grade is a stanky dumpster fire, then you might want to check out my Heimler Review Guide. It's going to help you get an A in your class and a five on your exam in May, and it's going to help you do it as fast as possible. It's got metric buttloads of resources to that end, so if that's the kind of thing you're into, check that link in the description. Anyway, the second cause of the expansion of the franchise was the democratic pattern of the Western states. So the leader of this charge was the Democratic Republican Martin Van Buren, whose passion for democracy was second Anyway, Van Buren led the public charge in New York for universal white male suffrage. And a significant part of his argument, not to mention the many disenfranchised Americans who likewise argued, was that universal white male suffrage was already present in the Western frontier states. And that was true. They organized their territories and then their states on the assumption that every white man had the right to vote. And this was especially important to them since they had lower populations and wanted to attract settlers by dangling that sweet, franchise out in front of their noses. And so by 1825, a majority of states on the Eastern coast had either eliminated or significantly reduced property qualifications for voting, even though such a move was opposed by the property elite who had formerly held the sole privilege of the franchise. And in most cases, this was settled by conversation and debate. But in at least one case, the passion of the common man to gain the franchise nearly erupted into violence as it did in an event known as Doors Rebellion in Rhode Island. Now, Rhode Island was a singular case of a government not having written a new constitution after the Revolutionary War. Instead, they still used their Royal Colonial Charter as a governing document. And that was very on-brand for Rhode Island. Like, they never played by anybody else's rules. Anyway, the Rhode Island Charter only allowed propertied men to vote. But by the 1840s, there were loud calls for a new state constitution that removed property requirements, but the legislature refused to consider it since it meant the possibility of common factory workers and immigrants voting. The horror. But then in 1841, proponents of the expansion of the franchise organized a convention in which they wrote a new state constitution that allowed for universal white male suffrage, and they elected a lawyer named Thomas Doar to become the governor. Now, to be clear, setting up a rival government like this was not in fact legal. And so President John Tyler went ahead and interpreted this development as treason and sent in federal troops to crush the illegal state government. Now, I wish I could tell you that there was a salacious and fantastic battle, but in reality, when the federal troops arrived, Doar's movement fizzled, uh, real quick, and that was kind of the end of it. But the point is, Doar's Rebellion is an illustration of just how deep the passions ran among disenfranchised Americans in the pursuit of voting rights. Anyway, in 1842, Rhode Island ratified a new state constitution, which did indeed expand the franchise, but not as far as many wanted it to. It dropped the land requirements and, in a somewhat surprising move, mandated that all Rhode Island men could vote, black men included, so long as they had at least $134 worth of personal property. However, it's important to remember here that while this expansion of party democracy opened up opportunities for political participation to some Americans, there were plenty of Americans left out of that party. Women, for example, were not included in the franchise, since they were understood to be primarily dependent on men and not their own independent entities. Thanks, cult of domesticity. And then for the most part, neither were black men included in the franchise on account of fears of interracial marrying and the possibility of their electing black leaders to represent them. So even though the North held a significant population of free blacks, nearly all of them were legally prevented from voting since states still had a lot of power to limit the voting rights of their populations. Okay, now let's consider the effects of this expansion of democracy, and the big one here is that there were major changes in America's political party. You see, when you open the right to vote to more people, politicians and political parties have to adjust their platforms in order to appeal to those new voters. And because they have interests that are likely different from all those propertied elite men who used to dominate the voting booth, then, well, you know, parties have to change in order to account for that. Okay, now the last time we talked about political parties, we spent time with the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, both of which emerged at the very foundation of the United States. But by the 1820s, the Federalists were altogether deadseats. And it was their opposition to the very popular War of 1812 that caused them to fall out of favor with the voting public. Like, they really hated that war. They went so far in their opposition that they met at the Hartford Convention and proposed an entire New England secession from the United States. But unfortunately for them, the U.S. won that war and the country was positively foaming at the mouth with nationalism and good feelings and so the Federalists were seen as out of touch with the vibe of American happiness. So that left the U.S. with a single political party, namely the Democratic Republicans. But by the presidential election of 1824, the party was split into rival factions, the Democrats and the National Republicans. Now to be clear, these were not new parties at this point, but the split would ultimately lead that way. Anyway, due to the bitter division in the party, they could not agree on a presidential candidate to put forward for the election of 1824. And so four candidates emerged, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William Crawford. And as the contest revved up, it really became a contest between Adams and Jackson. Okay, so here's where we tie all of it together. Remember that by this time, voting rights had been significantly expanded to most white men, the majority of whom were not elite but rather common folk. And that meant that candidates needed to appeal to this enormous new voting bloc. And here's where I tell you that Jackson understood the assignment and Adams did not. You see, Adams was old school and so relied on the tradition of allowing other people to campaign for him. And they emphasized his rich history of international diplomacy which had But Jackson, on the other hand, appealed directly to the masses and emphasized his record as a war hero. Plus, he represented the growing Western population and branded himself as the anti-elite candidate who shared the concerns of the common man. And so since many more common men were able to vote, Jackson's appeal was by far more popular and he won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote over Adams. However, it's worth mentioning that the growth of slavery played a significant role in Jackson's vote count since the Three-Fifths Compromise ensured more electors to slave states. So Jackson won the electoral college, but not so fast, my dear pupil. It turns out that while Jackson did in fact get the most electoral votes, he did not win a majority. And in that case, the Constitution dictates that the president must be chosen by the House of Representatives. Now, Henry Clay, who was never a serious contender for this election, was nevertheless the Speaker of the House and he urged his supporters to back Adams. And they did so and Adams was elected over the much more popular Jackson. And if that wasn't suspicious enough, Adams made a real PR mistake and appointed Clay as the Secretary of State. And at that, Jackson and his supporters cried foul and called this election a corrupt bargain, and he went to work getting ready for the next election. Anyway, in the end, Adams didn't make many notable achievements while in office since he was opposed at almost every turn by a Congress controlled by those who disagreed with him. And that brings us to the election of 1828, which was a rematch between Adams and Jackson. And the tensions generated in this race created the conditions for the formal split of the Democratic-Republicans into two new parties. The Democrats were led by Andrew Jackson and the National Republicans were led by Adams at first and then later by Henry Clay. Now, the National Republicans would be short-lived and soon replaced by the Whigs, but I'm going to tell you about that in another video. Anyway, again, Adams really didn't understand the assignment when it came to campaigning in the era of new expanded democracy. He took the old posture of waiting to be asked to serve his country, but Jackson again took his arguments to the masses and campaigned for himself to become President. He held massively popular rallies all over the country where he spoke directly to the people. And his campaign team even branded Jackson as old hickory to communicate to the masses that he was tough, just as his war record suggested. And with a significantly expanded electorate filled not with elites but with common men who were wage workers and farmers, Jackson's strategy won the day and he became President. And this was significant in many ways, not least because he was the first President that was not from Virginia or Massachusetts, but rather from the West, which indicated the shifting nature of national politics during this period. Okay, you can click here to watch my other videos from Unit 4, or you can click here to grab my A-Push Heimler Review Guide which has everything you need to study as fast as possible. I'm glad you came around and I'll catch you on the flip-flop. Heimler out.