US_Ch1_web-impacts

=**Impacts and Consequences**=

Van Buren's design of a national party organization was meant to keep slavery from becoming a federal issue. In order for his plan to continue to work, there needed to be a Northerner with Southern principles or a Westerner with no ties to slavery in the presidency. His scheme began to fall apart when the House of Representatives developed the Gag Rule in 1836, which prohibited debate or discussion of slavery. When Whigs got control of the House in 1844, the rule was rescinded. This led to one of the first breakdowns of Van Buren's system - the break down of party discipline upon the introduction of the Wilmot Proviso proposed by David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania. As you've learned, the Wilmot Proviso called for no slavery in land received from Mexico, which brought slavery into federal politics where it would stay. Another reason Van Buren's system was breaking down was the issue of patronage or the spoils system itself. The Whigs learned to play the same system and each election came with more jobs proposed.


 * Van Buren's plan was meant to exclude slavery from debates --- arguments over slavery __increased.__


 * His plan was meant to limit national government - power of the national government __increased.__


 * It was meant to keep slavery out of party debate - it __increased__ the likelihood that if a party against slavery got control, then slavery wouldn't be safe.


 * (12)** **Martin Van Buren's intentions may have been good, but the unintended consequences would break the nation apart. What this means is Van Buren had goals - to keep slavery from tearing the nation apart...BUT, there were results that he didn't want to see happen. What increased?**

There would be other unintended consequences from Van Buren's structure. It's important to understand that Van Buren wasn't trying to set up a system based on corruption and power, but rather an organizational structure for the party to work in the levels of national, state, and local. The Tweed Ring in New York City led by "Boss" William Marcy Tweed in Tammany Hall gave money/gifts to anyone who helped the ring stay in power. There was a lot of graft (money obtained by illegal or corrupt means). About 12,000 citizens in NYC relied on the Tweed Ring staying in power. Intimidation kept opponents from getting to the polls and got out the vote of their supporters. Unlike in the age of Jefferson when 80% turned out to vote due to patriotism, duty, and pride, voters in Tweed's NYC were herded like livestock, told who to vote for and used bribes to get more voters. __The Tweed Ring was showing how the spoils system was taking a corrupt direction__.


 * (13)** **How was the Tweed Ring a negative new direction of the spoils system?**

Reform was needed and wanted, but reforms often make matters worse and that would be the case here. Well after the Civil War, the Republican Party had two groups - the Stalwarts led by Roscoe Conkling that favored the spoils system and the Half-Breeds were against the spoils system. James Garfield, a Half-Breed, was elected president in 1880, but a few months into office he was shot by Charles Guiteau, a Stalwart who was upset he didn't get an office job. Chester Arthur, a Stalwart, became president (although Arthur distanced himself from the Stalwarts). This __galvanized the efforts to reform__...


 * (14)** **What event galvanized the efforts to reform the spoils system?**

...and the Pendleton Civil Service Act set up a Civil Service Commission was set up and jobs in the government were no longer gotten or lost due to elections but rather based on competitive exams...based on merit...the most qualified person got a job in government. If you want to say work in the post office, you have to pass a civil service exam. To work in say the FBI, you need a background in criminal justice. In other words, getting a job today is based on qualifications.


 * (15)** **Getting a job in the government today is based on merit, not spoils. What does that mean?**

This actually made matters worse and took the spoils system and patronage to a whole new level. Instead of a few thousand jobs, politicians began promising whole programs and legislation to appeal to large numbers of voters. Such programs would lead to a giant increase in the size of government. For example, workers on an air force base would favor more spending on defense - would support a candidate who favored high defense spending. An Iowa corn farmer would support ethanol subsidies from the federal government. School workers would favor candidates who pledge to spend more money on education. The aspect that changed was that after reform there would be a lot more citizens relying on government "giveaways." No group in America is going to support a candidate who wants to make cuts to their group. An example is Medicare. Any politician who suggests ways to fix the Medicare problem won't get the senior citizen vote, so Medicare remains a broken system that if not fixed won't be around for anyone.


 * (16)** **Today, instead of politicians promising a few government jobs to those who are loyal to the political party, politicians promise whole programs to voters who support them. What did this do to the size of government?**

The Founding Fathers did not like big government and would not have supported handing out jobs or programs for political support. Alexander Hamilton (who mistakenly is often given the big government label) feared that the masses would gain control of the treasury and vote them themselves tax payer benefits.

Van Buren failed to prevent the war he tried to avoid but also led to a structure that led to big government and parties that depended on the delivery of jobs and wealth to supporters.


 * (17)** **Van Buren wanted his party structure to keep America from going to war over slavery. However, it led to big government and party structure we have today. What does this big government and political parties depend on today?**

Back to web quest main page