Gibson 1 Ryan Gibson Dr.

Reeve HIST 4461 25 April 2013

Takings Sides: Were the Politics of Being Dead Center Actually a Bad Thing?

Gibson 2 Discussing the politics of the Gilded Age feels much like discussing the politics of a lost era or a mythical world. Most people have a hard time naming any of the Gilded Age presidents and people know even less about any legislative accomplishments during the period. Scholars of American historical politics often disregard the era completely taking the advice of historians and disregarding the politics of dead center, as Vincent DeSantis would call it. The consensus is that the political parties of the day fought over and accomplished nothing of significance. That they were petty bosses seeking no gain but to themselves and held no real ideological differences. The historiography of the Gilded Age has led us to believe that this is somewhat true, but recent studies have indicated a shift in belief. New scholars argue that we get most of our ideas about the Gilded Age from Progressive historians that immediately succeeded them, and the Progressives did not like the Gilded Age. The new scholars argue that an objective glance at the record indicates significant accomplishment and achievement from 1870 to the late 1890s and that the parties noted similarities might have actually aided success. This academic conflict of ideas is represented best in two articles; one by Dr. Worth Miller The Lost World of Gilded Age Politics, and one by Dr. Albert House Republicans and Democrats Search for New Identities. This Taking Sides article hopes to analyze these diverging articles and guide the argument about whether party similarity was benefit or hindrance to the politics of the era. Dr. Albert House is holding up the traditional notion of politics during the Gilded Age. His article serves as an answer to the revisionism he saw by historian Vincent

Gibson 3 DeSantis earlier.1 He argues that, despite recent research into the era, much of what was said about the era is true and that the politicians of the time were evading issues, making like spoilsmen, and sweeping new national problems under the rug.2 House tries to not put too much of the blame on the inefficiencies of the party, however, by stating that no politician could truly have been prepared for the social and economic changes of the times. House puts a particular emphasis on immigration and population growth, which not only transformed the issues that had to be dealt with but also rapidly changed the electorate. House argues that since both parties attempted to remain in control of the election system they implicitly worked together to limit expanded suffrage3. The parties also tried to find a long lasting strategy to these problems but due to the rapidity of the changes ended up in an extended soul searching largely blamed for the perceived spinelessness of the parties. Thirdly, House argues that party similarity resulted in the emergence of the first major third parties. These would, while bringing in expanded issues, make politics less efficient with apt examples like the Grangers, the Nationals, or the Greenbacks disrupting the balance.4 Lastly, House argues that party similarity led to the internal fractionalization of the parties that only distracted the politicians. 5Worst of all he argues, that since the fractionalization was over patronage, it was over something that was not even nationally purposeful. Worth Robert Miller, opposite Dr. House, leads the argument in favor of Gilded Age historical revisionism. First and foremost he argues that unlike in any point in
1

Albert House, "Republicans and Democrats Search for New Identities, 1870-1890," The Review of Politics, 31, no. 4 (1969): 466, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406595. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., p. 467. 4 Ibid., p. 469. 5 Ibid., p. 471.

Gibson 4 American history the electorate was fully engaged.6 That despite of the fact that we may view their issues as similar, with our hardline liberal and conservative split, that the electorate at the time viewed their party system as starkly different. Miller argues that voters viewed the Republicans as the party of the host culture7 and of federal action, whilst the Democrats were viewed as the party of smaller government, states rights and personal liberties.8 Politics of the era consisted of hours long speeches, parades, barbeques, clubs, and conventions on a scale we could not even fathom. Miller also does an excellent job of expounding upon the many legislative accomplishments of the era. Miller discusses legislative accomplishments such as the Land-Grant College Act, the Federal Elections Bill, and the Forge Bills as examples of success9. Civil service in the era can be viewed as quite the paradox. Miller admits that the era was rife with spoils and patronage but claims that the system worked well for some time. He also argues that civil service reform is often left out as a Gilded Age accomplishment but the Pendleton Act was extremely important in defining American life. Lastly, despite the fact that the era was known for its close elections, Miller argues that because Republicans remained in power for so long there was a stability that was necessary in the period after the Civil War.10 Stability allowed for the aforementioned

Robert Worth Miller, "The Lost World of Gilded Age Politics," The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 1, no. 1 (2002): 50, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144285. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid., p. 51. 9 Ibid., p. 53. 10 Ibid., p. 54.

Gibson 5 successes in legislation and was partly responsible for the rise in political celebrities like Roscoe Conkling and James Blaine. 11 Both articles ultimately share much in common. Both House and Miller contest that the Gilded Age was a much more dynamic and Machiavellian political era than is often given credit to by historians. Miller seems to place more of an emphasis on the people involved in the political process during the era including voters, media, and politicians for explaining his arguments, while house utilizes statistics, context, and scenarios to illustrate his points. To describe the success of party similarity, for example, Miller heavily emphasizes the sporting element of politics of the day. Their hyper-competitive politics for the populace drove them to meet needs and challenges. The politicians were in constant contact with newspapers and did their best to convince the American people of their actions all the time. This served as an important aspect of accountability for them. House, on the other hand, while also discussing the important role of party leaders seems to emphasis the various events like the many depressions that occurred during the era to describe why their politics failed. Their similarity of thought drove them to inconsequential actions for very consequential events. In conclusion, debate on this topic has a long way to go before anything is finalized. This is partly because the debate is concerning revisionism and thus the debate will never truly end. Both sides are well researched and reasoned and any reader could find either an appropriate answer. Ultimately, scholars of American political history will find Millers argument more compelling. To disregard Gilded Age politics because of

11

Ibid.

Gibson 6 misinterpreted similarity would be to render one of the most politically exciting and challenging aspects of our history doomed to obscurity. If more historians take up the mantle of Miller and argue for a more compelling investigation of the era, then not only will scholarship be furthered but we can apply new lessons to our own political present. It is remarkable that many of the same issues and problems that plagued the Gilded Age plague America today and much can still be learned by examining the Gilded Ages answers to our questions. Through further dynamic interpretation, the Gilded age can receive the political attention it deserves and aid historians in academic discovery.

Gibson 7 Bibliography Argersinger, Peter. "The Value of the Vote: Political Representation in the Gilded Age." The Journal of American History 76 (1989), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1908344.

De Santis, Vincent. "American Politics in the Gilded Age." The Review of Politics 25 (1963), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405849.

House, Albert. "Republicans and Democrats Search for New Identities, 1870-1890." The Review of Politics 31 (1969), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406595

Peskin, Allan. "Who Were the Stalwarts? Who Were Their Rivals? Republican Factions in the Gilded Age." Poltical Science Quarterly 99 (1985), : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2150708.

Peskin, Allan. "Election of 1880." The Wilson Quarterly 4 (1980), http://www.jstor.org/stable/40255831.

Riddleberger , Patrick . "The Break in the Radical Ranks: Liberals vs Stalwarts in the Election of 1872." The Journal of Negro History 44 (1959), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2716035.

Robert Miller, Worth. "The Lost World of Gilded Age Politics." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 1 (2002), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144285.

Gibson 8 Annotated Bibliography De Santis, Vincent. "American Politics in the Gilded Age." The Review of Politics 25 (1963), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405849.

This is likely my number one candidate in exploring the issue of whether the all-toofamous party similarity in the Gilded Age was actually a benefit or not. DeSantis, in this article, makes the claim that the reason Gilded Age politics is viewed so negatively is only because historians view it with a modern perception. He points out that if we examine Gilded Age politics through the prism of conservative/liberal, then we miss out on all of the important differences and challenges they did face. That what few these politicians were able to accomplish was quite impressive despite what they faced. And lastly that the influence of the legislative branch often goes unheeded by historians but is extremely important in understanding the Victorian Eras politics.

House, Albert. "Republicans and Democrats Search for New Identities." Review of Politics 31 (1969), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1406595.

In the article, Republicans and Democrats Search for New Identities, Dr. House attempts to answer DeSantis revisionism (he does this in the first sentence of the article). House believes that the parties were neither as unproductive as originally thought of in Progressive Era historiography, but nor were they as outstanding as DeSantis (and especially Miller) suggest. He instead argues that the time period was a time of soul searching after the Civil War, and that society was simply moving too fast for the parties

Gibson 9 to grasp it and understand. He argues that party leaders were constantly searching for a new party line that would last them into the foreseeable future, but neither was truly successful. He somewhat takes the stance of original historians that the Age itself was not productive but blames uncontrollable societal forces, not the lack of good politicians as other historians have done.

Miller, Worth. "The Lost World of Gilded Age Politics." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 1 (2002), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144285.

Dr. Miller presents the most full-throated endorsement of the success of Gilded Age politics. His thesis is that Gilded Age politicians and parties truly engaged the American public on fundamental issues concerning the direction of the nation and the role government should play in national life (50). He claims that the parties were in fact not similar at all to the voters at the time and represented very different governance ideologies. Republicans at one end emphasized nationalized activist government, while Democrats represented Jeffersonian small government. Miller agrees with DeSantis that the period was wrought with national stalemate, but states that the continued dominance of the Republicans provided much needed stability especially on the economic front. Miller then goes on to list a steady stream of legislative successes of the era.

Gibson 10 Peskin, Allan. "Who Were the Stalwarts? Who Were Their Rivals? Republican Factions in the Gilded Age." Poltical Science Quarterly 99 (1985), : http://www.jstor.org/stable/2150708.

Dr. Peskins first article specifically has to do with party factions in the Gilded Age (particularly of the Republican party) and how that affected their politics. In this article, Peskin seems to make quite the argument that similarity and dissimilarity were extremely fine lines in the Gilded Age and because they were, there existed much party in-fighting. This would seem to suggest that Peskin believes party similarity ultimately contributed to ineffective politics. Politics that was more focused on personality and patronage than actual governance. He indicates that small issues like menial civil service reform or tariffs would simply serve as a gateway for powerful politicians like Roscoe Conkling to dominate the chambers of government.

Peskin, Allan. "Election of 1880." The Wilson Quarterly 4 (1980), http://www.jstor.org/stable/40255831.

Dr. Peskins article about the election of 1880 provides a wonderful case study about politics in the Gilded Age and through the use of examples makes many arguments concerning the effectiveness of party. Although conceding some points to to DeSantis and Miller, Peskin focuses more on the words of the extremely critical Lord Bryce (who had very few nice things to say about Gilded Age politics.) His most useful argument for my paper is about the sporting element of politics. He argues that because politics

Gibson 11 provided the most entertainment during the time period, that elections were supposed to stay close to entertain the people. But, because these elections were mostly for entertainment and because the parties candidates were extremely similar, this took away from the overall effectiveness of politics in the age. I think Peskin makes some great points especially concerning the spectacle of politics and how patronage not only hindered the efficiency of decision making but would ultimately end in the death of the President elected in that year.

Summary:

The most vocal academic in favor of similarity being a benefit is clearly Dr. Miller, whilst I feel his closest opponent is Dr. Peskin in his Stalwarts article. Both attempt to give the Gilded Age more political weight than was given to it by its nearcontemporaries, but both varies on how this revisionism worked in the era. DeSantis falls into the category of almost being too academic. While he clearly shares the same approach as Miller, Miller does so more clearly and with ferocity. Peskins other article, while useful, is more of a case study than a theoretical argument. And the last remaining article, by House, is too even-handed in its approach to the topic. Although House makes careful observations about the era, he largely blames its inefficiencies on variables other than political. But because of his negative outlook on the parties, House will provide a good counterpoint to Miller for my paper.