For those seeking to comprehend contemporary American politics, historical parallels and insights are frequently consulted. Do the current current divisions resemble those that came before the American Revolution or the Civil War? Were the social and political forces evident today a result of the dramatic events of the 1960s? Do historical examples offer insights into how periods of significant political unrest eventually diminish?
TL;DR
- The Gilded Age (1876-1896) saw intense political division, close elections, and frequent shifts in congressional control.
- This era grappled with immigration, racial inequality, economic instability, and political unrest, mirroring some modern challenges.
- Divided government led to critical problems festering, with legislation on issues like railroads and civil service delayed.
- Political violence, including anti-immigrant riots and suppression of Black voting rights, marked this turbulent period.
In my capacity as a scholar of American politics and the presidency, I contend that one particular era in American history warrants special re-examination during these unsettled times in the U.S.: the two decades of turmoil spanning the presidencies of Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley during the latter part of the 1800s.
The period from 1876 to 1896 is typically recalled as an era where Eastern cities prospered while the West remained untamed, characterized by a “Gilded Age” in New York City and frontier gunslingers.
During this period, Americans also grappled with challenges concerning immigration, racial inequality, trade tariffs, technological advancements, economic instability, and political unrest.
A president, Grover Cleveland, who occupied the White House for two separate periods, was even present, marking the sole occasion this occurred prior to Donald Trump's presidency.
In the elections involving Grant and McKinley, the nation was closely divided. During those years, no president – not Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Cleveland, or Benjamin Harrison – completed two full terms in a row. No presidential candidate secured over 50% of the popular vote, except the Democrat Samuel Tilden. And Tilden, after winning 50.1% of the ballots cast in 1876, lost in the Electoral College. The same event recurred in 1888, during Cleveland's initial bid for a non-consecutive term, secured more individual votes but lost the Electoral College election.
The narrow victories that characterized presidential politics in the 1870s and 1880s were matched by constant shifts on Capitol Hill. In the 20 years between Grant and McKinley, there were only six years of unified government, when one political party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the remaining 14 years, presidents encountered opposition in Congress.
The U.S. Has the same kind of divided politics today.
Politics heat up, stakes rise
President Bill Clinton had two years of unified government; President George W. Bush had less than that. Barack Obama, Donald Trump in his first term and Joe Biden all came into office with party majorities in the House and Senate, and then, like Clinton, their parties lost the House two years later.
Divided politics, with close elections and neither party in power for very long, make partisanship more intense, campaigns harder fought and the stakes sky high whenever voters go to the polls. That’s part of what produced instability in the second half of the 19th century and part of what produces it today.
Divided government is, of course, one of the most powerful “checks” in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Intense competition between political parties can prevent the national government from making rash decisions and serious mistakes. It can sometimes generate compromise.
However, this comes with a price. Political division can also allow critical problems to fester for far too long. The dramatic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution after the Civil War were not seriously addressed in federal legislation until the Progressive Era early in the 20th century.
In the second half of the 19th century, Congress raised or lowered tariffs – depending on which party controlled the White House and Capitol Hill. The nation debated immigration but only once passed meaningful legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A long list of issues connected to railroads, banks, currency, civil service, corruption and the implementation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ignored or only partially addressed.
When major legislation was passed in 1883 to create a merit-based civil service – reforming the spoils system of political appointments – it passed because Garfield’s 1881 assassination by a disgruntled federal job seeker temporarily pushed the issue to the top of the national agenda.
Migrants, lies, and unrest
Political violence accompanied the period of closely divided national elections in the 1870s and 1880s.
In the 1880 presidential campaign, both candidates – the Republican, Garfield, and the Democrat, Winfield Hancock – called for restrictions on Chinese immigration to the United States. Neither supported the complete ban that many Westerners wanted.
But just before Americans went to the polls, newspapers across the country printed a letter, allegedly written and signed by Garfield, that endorsed an open border to Chinese immigrants. Before anyone could learn that the letter was a fake, there was public uproar. In Denver, an angry mob burned down all the homes in Chinese neighborhoods.
There were more incidents of political violence: anti-Chinese riots in Los Angeles in 1871, in San Francisco in 1877 and in Seattle in 1886.
Throughout the 1880s, anti-immigrant nativists targeted immigrants from Italy and sometimes vandalized Catholic churches.
Political violence in the South successfully suppressed Black voting rights and reestablished white control of state and local politics.
For those seeking to comprehend contemporary American politics, historical parallels and insights are frequently consulted. Do the current current divisions resemble those that came before the American Revolution or the Civil War? Were the social and political forces evident today a result of the dramatic events of the 1960s? Do historical examples offer insights into how periods of significant political unrest eventually diminish?
In my capacity as a scholar of American politics and the presidency, I contend that one particular era in American history warrants special re-examination during these unsettled times in the U.S.: the two decades of turmoil spanning the presidencies of Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley during the latter part of the 1800s.
The period from 1876 to 1896 is typically recalled as an era where Eastern cities prospered while the West remained untamed, characterized by a “Gilded Age” in New York City and frontier gunslingers.
During this period, Americans also grappled with challenges concerning immigration, racial inequality, trade tariffs, technological advancements, economic instability, and political unrest.
A president, Grover Cleveland, who occupied the White House for two separate periods, was even present, marking the sole occasion this occurred prior to Donald Trump's presidency.
In the elections involving Grant and McKinley, the nation was closely divided. During those years, no president – not Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Cleveland, or Benjamin Harrison – completed two full terms in a row. No presidential candidate secured over 50% of the popular vote, except the Democrat Samuel Tilden. And Tilden, after winning 50.1% of the ballots cast in 1876, lost in the Electoral College. The same event recurred in 1888, during Cleveland's initial bid for a non-consecutive term, secured more individual votes but lost the Electoral College election.
The narrow victories that characterized presidential politics in the 1870s and 1880s were matched by constant shifts on Capitol Hill. In the 20 years between Grant and McKinley, there were only six years of unified government, when one political party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. In the remaining 14 years, presidents encountered opposition in Congress.
The U.S. Has the same kind of divided politics today.
Partisan heat, rising stakes
President Bill Clinton had two years of unified government; President George W. Bush had less than that. Barack Obama, Donald Trump in his first term and Joe Biden all came into office with party majorities in the House and Senate, and then, like Clinton, their parties lost the House two years later.
Divided politics, with close elections and neither party in power for very long, make partisanship more intense, campaigns harder fought and the stakes sky high whenever voters go to the polls. That’s part of what produced instability in the second half of the 19th century and part of what produces it today.
Divided government is, of course, one of the most powerful “checks” in the constitutional system of checks and balances. Intense competition between political parties can prevent the national government from making rash decisions and serious mistakes. It can sometimes generate compromise.
However, this comes with a price. Political division can also allow critical problems to fester for far too long. The dramatic changes brought on by the Industrial Revolution after the Civil War were not seriously addressed in federal legislation until the Progressive Era early in the 20th century.
In the second half of the 19th century, Congress raised or lowered tariffs – depending on which party controlled the White House and Capitol Hill. The nation debated immigration but only once passed meaningful legislation, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A long list of issues connected to railroads, banks, currency, civil service, corruption and the implementation of the post-Civil War constitutional amendments were ignored or only partially addressed.
When major legislation was passed in 1883 to create a merit-based civil service – reforming the spoils system of political appointments – it passed because Garfield’s 1881 assassination by a disgruntled federal job seeker temporarily pushed the issue to the top of the national agenda.
Immigration, fake news, riots
Political violence accompanied the period of closely divided national elections in the 1870s and 1880s.
In the 1880 presidential campaign, both candidates – the Republican, Garfield, and the Democrat, Winfield Hancock – called for restrictions on Chinese immigration to the United States. Neither supported the complete ban that many Westerners wanted.
But just before Americans went to the polls, newspapers across the country printed a letter, allegedly written and signed by Garfield, that endorsed an open border to Chinese immigrants. Before anyone could learn that the letter was a fake, there was public uproar. In Denver, an angry mob burned down all the homes in Chinese neighborhoods.
There were more incidents of political violence: anti-Chinese riots in Los Angeles in 1871, in San Francisco in 1877 and in Seattle in 1886.
Throughout the 1880s, anti-immigrant nativists targeted immigrants from Italy and sometimes vandalized Catholic churches.
Political unrest in the South significantly impacted curtailed the voting rights of Black people and reinstated white dominance state and local governance.
Restructuring
The political divisions prevalent in the latter half of the 19th century generated more issues than resolutions. What were the circumstances and timing of their conclusion, or their diminishing intensity?
Political scientists refer to this straightforward explanation as a “realignment,”, signifying a significant alteration in the country's voting trends.
In 1893, the inaugural year of Cleveland's second presidential tenure, the country experienced a financial downturn leading to a deep economic slump. Consequently, McKinley secured solid victories in 1896 and 1900 and forged a Republican alliance that held sway in presidential elections until the contest in 1932 of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
A significant economic downturn or any sort of crisis could easily disrupt a nation's political landscape, which is currently characterized by a narrow division of opinions. However, that's a difficult method for fostering greater national unity.
Is it possible when a significant number of voters become deeply exasperated by persistent problems, the constant back-and-forth in Washington, contentious elections, and escalating political unrest?
Perhaps.
Regardless of the approach, whether it's addressing a crisis or witnessing a public shift in sentiment, it underscores that citizens hold the final decision-making power in a well-functioning democratic system. Elections today, much like in late-19th-century America, carry significant weight. They might continue the division or guide the country toward a fresh, possibly more cohesive, path.
Robert A. Strong, Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia
This piece is reissued from The Conversation with a Creative Commons permit. View the original article.
Restructuring
The political divisions prevalent in the latter half of the 19th century generated more issues than resolutions. What were the circumstances and timing of their conclusion, or their diminishing intensity?
Political scientists refer to this straightforward explanation as a “realignment,”, signifying a significant alteration in the country's voting trends.
In 1893, the inaugural year of Cleveland's second presidential tenure, the country experienced a financial downturn leading to a deep economic slump. Consequently, McKinley secured solid victories in 1896 and 1900 and forged a Republican alliance that held sway in presidential elections until the contest in 1932 of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
A significant economic downturn or any sort of crisis could easily disrupt a nation's political landscape, which is currently characterized by a narrow division of opinions. However, that's a difficult method for fostering greater national unity.
Is it possible when a significant number of voters become deeply exasperated by persistent problems, the constant back-and-forth in Washington, contentious elections, and escalating political unrest?
Perhaps.
Regardless of the approach, whether it's addressing a crisis or witnessing a public shift in sentiment, it underscores that citizens hold the final decision-making power in a well-functioning democratic system. Elections today, much like in late-19th-century America, carry significant weight. They might continue the division or guide the country toward a fresh, possibly more cohesive, path.
Robert A. Strong, Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia
This piece is reissued from The Conversation with a Creative Commons permit. View the original article.