William G. Shade. Democratizing the Old Dominion: and the Second Party System, 1824-1861. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1996. xvii + 365 pp. $49.50, cloth, ISBN 978-0-8139-1654-5.

Reviewed by K. R. Constantine Gutzman

Published on H-SHEAR (October, 1997)

William G. Shade is known as a practitioner its adoption of the second party system. It resem‐ of the "New Political History," and with Democra‐ bled them very closely in its political culture by tizing the Old Dominion, he has done what had 1861. European visitors thought Virginia a repre‐ never been done before: put Virginia politics in sentative state (pp. 4-5). It is Shade's goal to de‐ the context of the antebellum (Jacksonian, if you scribe these phenomena, and he does so well. will) extension of the "political nation" to include When I asked several historians of my ac‐ all white men. His book is obviously heavily infu‐ quaintance for information relating to the old enced by Joel Silbey and Michael Holt, both of chestnut that Virginia was in economic decline in whom he thanks in his preface and each of whom the Jacksonian period, Michael Holt told me I has fngerprints all over this work. Although I should take a look at Shade's new book. Avery have my quibbles with the book, it is certainly a Craven's slim volume on soil erosion in the Chesa‐ nice contemporary attempt at what hasn't been peake seems to have been the last serious work to done since Charles Ambler's still-infuential work take up this problem, and I had found its treat‐ on sectionalism in Virginia nearly a century ago, ment generally inadequate. Sure enough, Shade which is to trace Virginia's politics from the pin‐ provides a wealth--I might say a mind-numbingly nacle of the Old Dominion's infuence to its sec‐ detailed wealth--of information concerning the ond declaration of independence. crops and stock produced in each Virginia county, "This study draws back the curtains," writes organized by region, during the period under dis‐ Shade, "and portrays the commonwealth as less cussion. What I failed to fnd, though, was any exceptional and more commonplace than either comparison of Virginia's agricultural output in its hagiographers or critics [sic] have conceded" this period to that of earlier days. In other words, (p. 3). Virginia was typical of its regions--the up‐ I still do not know whether Virginia agriculture per South and the "eastern seaboard"--in its rate really was in decline. of economic development and the chronology of H-Net Reviews

Readers of Shade's book will have a very clear times whose case is obviously the stronger. Oppo‐ conception of the regional variation in Virginia's nents of both these positions, who happen to be economy, though. They will also realize that it was the same set of men, are "particularist," and their similar to those of states to the Old Dominion's objections to "the lighthouse of the skies" and all north, and growing more so. William Freehling's the rest are simply beneath consideration. An il‐ depiction of Gulf Coast secessionists worried that lustration of this tendency is to be found in Virginia's slavery-based society would eventually Shade's description of the Virginians' response to go the way, was already going the way, of New Andrew Jackson's removal of the deposits. What‐ York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware is supported by ever one may think of the economic issues, Jack‐ what one sees here. son's action--as two secretaries of the treasury Ambler pointed out in his classic tome that told him--was fatly in contravention of the rele‐ Virginia had gone through successive stages of vant statute. Shade says, "For most Virginians, sectionalism, and Shade's accomplishment is to Jackson's actions represented an arrogant abuse put economic and ideological fesh on the political of executive power and posed a matter of essen‐ bones of that assertion. Shade makes clear that tially constitutional, rather than economic, policy" economic interests, highly correlated with the de‐ (p. 167). That seems inadequate to me. gree to which slave agriculture had penetrated a Shade adopts the position of Drew McCoy in given region, drove political alignments. Whatev‐ The Last of the Fathers that was er visitors to Shirley Plantation may think, Whig‐ the arbiter of the true meaning of the "Virginia gery in Virginia was not the rich man's afliation. Doctrine" and, like McCoy, he belittles those (in‐ Still, he is at pains to show that neither party was cluding ) who disagree. At the "slavery party," either. one point, he has , William Thomas Jeferson's belief that a "natural aris‐ Branch Giles, and Jeferson (respectively the Vir‐ tocracy" would and should run the Old Dominion ginia House sponsor of the Virginia Resolves of is shown by Shade to have been mistaken. "De‐ 1798, the Virginia Senate sponsor of those Re‐ mocratization" of Jeferson's state involved the de‐ solves, and the author of the draft Kentucky Reso‐ cline of the planter class, and especially of the old lutions) agreeing with the main body of Virginia families. (This is not to deny that the names Ma‐ politicians regarding those "Principles'" content. son and Randolph, for example, remained politi‐ Still, it seems obvious to Shade that Whiggery, cally prominent in 1861. A far smaller proportion which has enlisted old man Madison's support, of planters sat in the General Assembly in the has the better of the argument (see, for example, 1850s than in the 1790s, and many members of p. 13). As I have noted elsewhere, I am unpersuad‐ that assemblage in the 1850s had no ties to agri‐ ed; Madison valued the union more highly than culture at all.) It also involved the ascendancy of did his fellows, so he had changed his position. In men from cities, who proved just as uncommitted advancing the notion of a conspiracy of anti- to state rights and limited government as he had Madisonians, Shade ignores Mills Thornton's arti‐ expected. cle in the VMHB some years ago questioning the very existence of the "Richmond Junto." If it did For Shade, it is those who support the "limited exist, it would be nice to see a refutation of Thorn‐ nationalism" of and his branch--the ton. dominant branch--of the Whig party who are the farsighted ones. It is those who would jettison the In his opening chapter, "Notes on the State of original structure of Virginia's republican govern‐ Virginia," Shade says it is "ironic" that Virginia ment in favor of one more in consonance with the was among the last states to adopt the type of con‐

2 H-Net Reviews stitution Jeferson had proposed in his work of shoal on which Old Virginia would run aground. that name. Of course, it was not ironic at all, for The arguments on both sides are well treated, and while other Virginians found Jeferson's views the progress toward disaster is deftly handled. Of concerning the federal constitution congenial, his special interest is his treatment of the American contemporaries, to his dismay, rejected his calls Colonization Society's history in Virginia, where for constitutional reform consistently. Their con‐ Taylor, Randolph, and were all high- stitution of 1776 was the culmination of their ranking ofcers at various times. The only con‐ colonial constitutional tradition, and they were sensus was Henry Wise's toast: "Slavery--whatev‐ not ready to jettison it the moment it was written. er diferences of opinion may exist among us Vir‐ Shade's account of the slow reform of that initial ginians on this vexed subject, we are unanimous American constitution follows the path laid down on one point, a positive determination that no one by Robert P. Sutton in his Revolution to Secession shall think or act for us" (p. 212). by assuming, as noted above, that every move to‐ I am not sure what the intended audience of ward the Jefersonian ideal was self-evidently this book is. When Shade refers to Herrenvolk positive and that all opposition was based on self- democracy without defning it, he gives the im‐ interest. pression that he has a solely academic audience Shade is easy on Jeferson's memory, too, in in mind. There are several such glitches. (For ex‐ associating calls for reform of the slave system ample, "a truly Weberian fashion," p. 123; "Pinck‐ with it. As Paul Finkelman and others have ar‐ ney's third resolution," p. 216.) Yet, his debt to gued at length, Jeferson was often hesitant to do such as Silbey is often only tacit, and one wishes anything much about slavery within Virginia it‐ he would deal with their arguments more directly, self. Antebellum Virginia Whigs who moved to re‐ whether by saying "Virginia was part of the gener‐ form it surely deserve to be allotted whatever al phenomenon he describes," by saying "here's credit is due them in their own right, not as heirs what made Virginia diferent," or by noting that to a Jeferson who never was. Shade does a nice "Silbey explained this long ago." (See, for example, job explaining how the issue of slavery reform pp. 103-4.) He does the same thing when referring came to be tied to sufrage and apportionment re‐ to stereotypical notions of antebellum Virginia. form within Virginia and to states' rights doctrine The fact that Dan Crofts, Freehling, and others in the federal realm. Leaders like Abel P. Upshur have portrayed Virginia diferently than the and early convinced stereotypical way adds to the confusion about his their fellow easterners that the various "reform" intended audience. initiatives were of a piece, and Herrenvolk In sum, Shade's book is a nice overview of democracy was a long way away. Virginia's development into a typical American "The Slave Question," Shade's chapter on the state in the period 1824-1861. Readers of Jack P. disputation of slavery, is perhaps the fnest in the Greene's Pursuits of Happiness may think it un‐ book. Here we have all the fascinating characters, surprising that the typical society should eventu‐ including Jeferson, Upshur, Randolph's brother ally have a typical constitution and political sys‐ Nathaniel Beverly Tucker, Thomas Jeferson Ran‐ tem; Shade does a good job of showing how this dolph, Thornton Stringfellow, Thomas R. Dew, and predictable outcome came to pass. Antebellum all the rest, and the story of Virginia's slide into Virginia, which has been too much neglected, has "Slavery Now, Slavery Tomorrow, Slavery Forev‐ her chronicler. er" is nicely told. Here, too, is the split with Whig‐ Copyright (c) 1997 by H-Net, all rights re‐ gish West Virginia on permanency, the tragic served. This work may be copied for non-proft

3 H-Net Reviews educational use if proper credit is given to the au‐ thor and the list. For other permission, please con‐ tact [email protected].

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-shear/

Citation: K. R. Constantine Gutzman. Review of Shade, William G. Democratizing the Old Dominion: Virginia and the Second Party System, 1824-1861. H-SHEAR, H-Net Reviews. October, 1997.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1404

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

4