sign in sign up
<<
Home , Jacksonian democracy, Sean Wilentz

Sean Wilentz. The Rise of American : Jeferson to Lincoln. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005. xii + 1044 pp. $35.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-393-05820-8.

Reviewed by William Shade

Published on H-SHEAR (August, 2006)

Sean Wilentz, Dayton-Stockton Professor of Appleby, however, is a very good historian and History at and well-known loves both the "splendid detail" and Wilentz's public intellectual, has written a very big book. sure-footed guide through "the labyrinth of Amer‐ However, while time consuming, it is not tedious, ican " of the time. because it is exceptionally well written. In a close- David Herbert Donald praises Wilentz, be‐ knit circle such as H-SHEAR, I will depart from cause he "emphasizes politics, not impersonal so‐ normal reviewing practices and begin with the cial forces" and provides "subtle portraits of lead‐ "blurbs." Of course, they are a bit over the top, but ing men." That he often does quite well. I am not I think they represent what Wilentz intended sure, however, what Donald means by "politics," when he was constructing this book. Since this since Wilentz practically ignores electoral and leg‐ book has already won the , I beg the islative behavior and the intricacies of most of the readers' indulgence for an overly long, overly legislation he discusses. Although he seems to footnoted, and perhaps, overly critical review. agree on many topics with Charles Sellers, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., writes that it is a Wilentz pulls up short of declaring that democra‐ "profound and powerful work" that "casts fresh cy and capitalism are incompatible.[1] and vivid light on the growth of democracy in Wilentz's colleague, James M. McPherson, America and the causes of the Civil War." Phillip compliments him for his portrayal "in dramatic Roth, certainly one of the best novelists in Ameri‐ detail of the contested rise of democracy" that led ca today, says that Wilentz is "among the fnest to the Civil War. That seems to be the author's in‐ writers of history America has produced." The tent. Wilentz, to a degree, rejects McPherson's book is a good read, but does not show an impos‐ ideas about modernization and follows sibly "deep understanding of every last detail of in describing how the North tended to develop a the American political tradition." Novelists are not democracy rooted in the idea of "free labor," historians. The former president of SHEAR, Joyce while the South moved toward what has been H-Net Reviews called "Herrenvolk democracy" based on univer‐ Faulkner in college (as a high school teacher, I sal sufrage for white men in a slave society.[2] had to teach this story from a textbook by Faulkn‐ While I generally think that these "blurbers" er).[5] The Rise of American Democracy is Pro‐ are right, I cannot agree with the Harvard Profes‐ gressive History 101 and it is not "neo," with a sor of Law, Randall Kennedy, who insists that heavy emphasis on class as one might have ex‐ Wilentz has established "himself as a major fgure pected, but rather "retro." The Constitution is, for in all of American historical scholarship." Wow! I Wilentz, a backlash at the democratic forces un‐ agree with much of this praise, but Kennedy sets leashed in 1776. The ideal democracy was Penn‐ the bar too high. I do not think that Wilentz has sylvania under its Constitution of 1776, which had told those of us who study this period anything a unicameral legislature and essentially no execu‐ dramatically new. When Arthur M. Schlesinger, tive. It also discriminated against Quakers and Jr., wrote almost the same story over sixty years various sectarian Germans. I can agree with the ago, he did something new and established a criti‐ standard Progressive idea that the Constitution cal point in the historical debate that hatched a was a step backward on the road to democracy, huge and varied body of scholarship.[3] but Wilentz does not analyze the undemocratic aspects of the Constitution in the way Robert Were I still teaching in the , I Dahl's recent book did. He simply repeats Charles would make my students read this book. In fact, Beard.[6] for my entire career I taught a course for which it would have been a perfect text (when it became Wilentz continues on with this Beardian story available, I assigned a reader that Wilentz edited). as he approaches the frst of his great democratic The Rise of American Democracy is crammed heroes, Thomas Jeferson. He explains the origins with information and I do not disagree with most of the Republican Party in an old-fashioned way of the factual statements. However, there are mo‐ by focusing on the resistance to the Hamiltonian ments where Wilentz is not completely wrong, program. With a few romantic references to the but leaves incorrect impressions. It is a teacher's Democratic-Republican societies and a nod to the dream. One example is the origin of the American Whiskey Rebellion, he is of to a textbook descrip‐ Colonization Society or more properly the Ameri‐ tion of the Jay Treaty fght, the XYZ afair, and the can Society for the Colonization of Free People of Alien and Sedition acts. Wilentz almost complete‐ Color. Wilentz quotes Clay's own extreme empha‐ ly ignores Pennsylvania's local hero, John Fries. sis on his role and notes what Robert Remini says, He devotes most of a chapter to the revolution of slighting the more correct position of Douglas 1800 and 1801, without considering the question Egerton in his biography of Charles Fenton Mer‐ of taxation. One might wonder why someone so cer.[4] Wilentz does note one of Egerton's articles, interested in Bush's tax policy does not note that but does not acknowledge what it shows us. Sim‐ the Federalists raised taxes and the voters re‐ ply put, Clay did not create the American Colo‐ belled, as Jeferson himself said. Wilentz also nization Society. But this is a minor point, al‐ plays down the efects of the Three-Fifths Clause, though Wilentz uses the story as part of his at‐ which made Jeferson President. The 1800 elec‐ tempt to demonize Clay. tion was manipulated in the state legislatures, in‐ cluding the least democratic of them, South Car‐ What does this very big book say? Wilentz olina. shuns analysis and has written a narrative histo‐ ry, which tells a relatively familiar story for those The problem with this narrative of the Revo‐ of us who grew up on David S. Muzzey's high lution of 1800 is that which plagues the rest of the school text and were assigned Harold Underwood book. Wilentz tells the reader his version of the

2 H-Net Reviews

"true story" of democracy's emergence in the Ear‐ Wilentz does not develop this point. Certainly he ly Republic without (even in the endnotes) con‐ cannot mean the tremendous increase in the fronting those historians who disagree with him number of internal improvement corporations or the contradictions inherent in his own argu‐ and banks that characterized the era, which he ment. He does not acknowledge that in some Re‐ seems to dissociate from democracy. This is an publican states there were less liberal laws con‐ historiographical chestnut that he does not want cerning seditious libel than the Sedition Act. Nor to crack. He refuses to deal with the entire litera‐ does he refer to the fact that there was a possibili‐ ture grounded by Louis Hartz.[12] Nor can he re‐ ty that the militias of Pennsylvania and ally be thinking about the food of entrepreneur‐ might be called out to insure Jeferson's election. ship and individualism that Appleby traced in In‐ History is not something written in stone, but an heriting the Revolution, which, for similar rea‐ ongoing debate. Wilentz has opted out. And he of‐ sons, does not seem to ft with his views.[13] It fers no real analysis of what was a true political also was not all "good news." The Republicans in realignment in Congress. At this late date we are New Jersey took away the vote from the few wom‐ left with the economic/sectional analysis of Man‐ en that possessed it. In time the Jefersonian/Jack‐ ning J. Dauer in The Adams Federalists (1963). sonian Republicans would take away the vote of Wilentz moves on to praise something histori‐ free black men. ans since Beard have called "Jefersonian Democ‐ It is clear--and Wilentz subliminally acknowl‐ racy" by describing some of the things Jeferson edges this--that the emergence of democracy in did when he was President. Everyone on this list antebellum America was an emergence of white is familiar with what Wilentz calls "Jeferson's man's democracy and was tainted by racism. The Two Presidencies." Dumas Malone devoted two movement toward wider sufrage, even in his fa‐ volumes to praising his administrations.[7] For‐ vored terrain, New York, was not partisan. As rest McDonald mildly criticized them in a slim Chilton Williamson showed a half-century ago, in volume.[8] Anthony F. C. Wallace savaged Jefer‐ American Sufrage from Property to Democracy, son's Indian policy.[9] Leonard Levy gave Presi‐ 1760-1860, a "democratic sufrage philosophy was dent Jeferson low marks on civil liberties.[10] Re‐ not the monopoly of either of the two great par‐ cently, Roger Kennedy has questioned the demo‐ ties" in the Jefersonian era.[14] Several of the cratic implications of the Purchase.[11] leaders of the reform movement in the New York Wilentz defects the criticisms of Jeferson for his constitutional convention of 1821 became Whigs, views on slavery and race, and sanitizes his re‐ and , Wilentz's sometimes hero, sponse to the Haitian revolution, but conveniently was, at best, a moderate on sufrage expansion. ignores these other matters. Since Jeferson is by Since the book is centered on New York and defnition a great democrat, what he did in his especially Gotham, it is interesting that Wilentz two presidencies must have contributed to the dismisses in a footnote, Lee Benson, who was his rise of American democracy. All of this "rise" teacher as well as mine.[15] Thus he does not seems mystical, since Wilentz never makes clear have to explain the "wheels within wheels" that how Jeferson's actions as President, however ad‐ characterized New York state politics in the 1820s mirable in many respects, actually expanded or deal with the handful of scholars, other than "American democracy." Benson, who disagree with him.[16] Even Charles The "action" related to the rise of democracy Sellers described The Concept of Jacksonian during these years was in the states. But other Democracy as a "major breakthrough in our un‐ than cherry-picking a few rhetorical examples, derstanding of American political history."[17]

3 H-Net Reviews

Benson's arguments, which are crucial to the sub‐ and accepted by James Monroe, was a Republican ject of this book, should be confronted rather than measure. ignored or trivialized. He seems unwilling to admit that Jeferson In the chapter on the "Era of Bad Feelings," was more conservative on this matter than Clay. Wilentz develops his ongoing opposition to Henry The grumpy old man of these years, although he Clay and everything he touched. I doubt that this still wanted constitutional reform in the Old Do‐ diatribe is deserved and think that in most ways minion, was neither the democrat of 1776 nor the Prince Hal was as democratic as King Andrew-- advocate of the land policy that led to the North‐ perhaps more. He was a constitutional democrat west Ordinance. In fact, Jeferson opposed what in his youth and a key fgure in the Jefersonian would become by the 1840s Wilentz's ideal of Republican Party during the administrations of democracy on this issue. Wilentz acknowledges James Madison and James Monroe. Jeferson was that Jeferson did not like Jackson, but does not always Clay's hero. Clay's attitudes about the explain how one led to the other. (He later admits emerging South American republics were far in that came into politics to attack advance of most of his own party and without ever really connecting the two in Jackson's supporters. His speeches indicate a Bill relation to the book's theme. In fact, Lincoln is the Clinton-like wonk on questions of fnance. most problematic of Wilentz's democratic heroes. Wilentz focuses on what he calls the "aristocratic" He was never a member of the Democratic Party.) of 1825 at several points, al‐ So let's get to General Jackson and "Jacksoni‐ though most historians are not sure if it even hap‐ an Democracy." It is unclear exactly what this pened. Wilentz constantly misinterprets the elec‐ term means, although the party did call itself "The tion of 1824 as "negating the people's will" (p. American Democracy" in 1840 and Schlesinger 513.) The sham election of 2000-01 was not like has made the best possible argument, within a the constitutional election of 1824. Jackson re‐ paradigm of the New Deal, for its existence. ceived 11.5 percent of the votes of white adult Wilentz continues his textbook narrative of the males. Wilentz knows this, but chooses to ignore administrations of the Old Hero following Benson's brilliant article that pointed out that Schlesinger's lead. He recites what happened in nearly half of Jackson's popular vote came from some detail, although he never addresses the poli‐ three slave states, which were basically interested cy implications of Jackson's attack on the Ameri‐ in the Indian question.[18] can System. What did Jackson do as president to As with Jeferson, Wilentz does not analyze further the rise of American democracy? The an‐ Jackson's actions and assumes that since the Old swer is practically nothing. Schlesinger ignored Hero was a great democrat, what he did must that Jackson made the central have encouraged the rise of American democracy. goal of his frst administration. Wilentz treats this Those who opposed him, for whatever reason, tenderly. Only one modern historian has defended must have been impediments to the process. But Jackson.[19] Wilentz notes this and then wisely then Wilentz is ambivalent about the Missouri moves on. Compromise, which has been connected to the Using democratic rhetoric, Jackson appointed rise of the Jacksonian party. While he acknowl‐ his friends and supporters to federal ofces. Jef‐ edges Jeferson's misgivings, Wilentz is not willing ferson had done the same and it became normal to see that this political deal, brokered in a great political behavior after Jackson. The studies of pa‐ part by the Virginia Republican James Barbour tronage do not agree that Jackson's appointments policy constituted some sort of democratic reform

4 H-Net Reviews or that it introduced the , as Jackson who have views on the subject, Wilentz is, as usu‐ critics charged. We must remember that the frst al, being selective without defending his choice. usage of the term came from a good Jacksonian as Jackson had hedged on the tarif in 1828, but he defended the system. William Marcy told his seems to have been for moderation and opposed fellow members of Congress that New Yorkers to a protective tarif. I do not know what to say on "boldly preach what they practice.... They see free trade. The classical economists were not real‐ nothing wrong in the rule, that to the victor be‐ ly democrats and most conservative free traders long the spoils of the enemy."[20] have not been either. President was Jackson did not turn out wealthy and well-ed‐ for open markets. My friends across the street in ucated people and replace them with the ignorant the United Steelworkers Union were and are hos‐ poor. As a Southerner, he did appoint more South‐ tile to free trade and would vote for Clay if he erners--slaveholders--than his predecessors. He were running. Wilentz is unclear about the rela‐ did not bring in the common man, except possibly tionship between tarifs and democracy and at the lowest level, where party hacks received seems to approve of the Republicans' response to post masterships. Most were editors and middling the Panic of 1857. class types. Although Jackson was far richer than For Wilentz, the was central to the Adams, there was no real change in the social po‐ development of democracy. Jackson, however, sition of those in the government. was not the kind of activist president that In political terms, General Jackson attacked Schlesinger portrayed. His favorite tool was the the various elements of Clay's American System. veto and he was something like a Roman Tribune. The new president vetoed the Maysville Road bill, Wilentz insists that we should not accept the anti- chosen carefully by Martin Van Buren to embar‐ Jackson literature (that had been there for years rass , and the extension of the charter before Schlesinger wrote) questioning Jackson's of the Bank of the United States, which Jackson democratic credentials. And, of course, Wilentz and most of his supporters associated with Clay. would not have us accept the generation of Like Sellers in The Market Revolution, Wilentz Schlesinger critics or the generation of post- simply repeats Schlesinger and refuses to con‐ Schlesinger scholars. He simply does not deal with front the huge literature on the subject, some of them or their considerable arguments. Like which he cites in his footnotes. Like Schlesinger, Schlesinger, he did not read even the published Wilentz also emphasizes Jackson's opposition to version of 's papers. He mentions Nullifcation, but in the midst of the food of detail Thomas P. Govan, but never addresses his argu‐ does not stop to tease out the meaning of the con‐ ments.[21] For a very smart man, who likes to trast between Jackson's "State of the Union" ad‐ comment on current economic issues, Wilentz dress and the Nullifcation Proclamation, which does not seem to know much about banking in came only a week later. Rather he argues that the the antebellum years. He states his view and then idea really came from the Federalists and not Jef‐ supports it with cleverly chosen quotations. He ferson as John C. Calhoun argued. This is one of draws most of his examples from New York or Wilentz's rare forays into the recent literature. I Pennsylvania and, like Schlesinger, emphasizes have no doubt that he has read most of every‐ the infuence of the Loco Focos. thing I have. He has, however, a tendency to foot‐ Wilentz hardly mentions the slave South, note those things that support his argument and which went heavily for Jackson. In 1832 he re‐ avoid those that do not. Since he ignores others ceived 100 percent of the popular vote in Alaba‐ ma, Georgia, , and Missouri and be‐

5 H-Net Reviews tween 62 and 95 percent in Louisiana, North Car‐ Treasury as a modern central bank. Wilentz olina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Clay won Kentucky might have noted that the 1840 platform of the and squeaked by in Delaware and Maryland, American Democracy represented a cave-in to the where he received four more popular votes than Calhounites, who he sees as the true enemies of Jackson. The Old Hero received two-thirds of the the rise of democracy. Wilentz does acknowledge vote in Indiana and Illinois, which had large pop‐ that some of his radical democrats "played ball" ulations born in the slave states--he did best in with Calhoun, but he never quite explains why. those states' southern counties. But he received His discussion is mostly spin. He does note the only 54.7 percent of the vote nationally--down Gag Rule often, but never quite explains its poli‐ from what he had received in 1828. One gets the tics, since it represented a compromise by his fa‐ impression from this book that the South was vorite Democrats, who rejected the extreme Cal‐ populated entirely by followers of Calhoun and hounite position. state rights Whigs like . Basically the re‐ At this point, toward the end his discussion of gion was crawling with Jacksonian Democrats. the 1830s, Wilentz interjects his interpretation of Wilentz hardly talks about the Midwest. He does what he has elsewhere called "Jacksonian anti‐ not come to terms with the poll book studies of slavery."[23] (Wilentz's views have been more ful‐ Missouri, Illinois and or Ron Formisano's ly developed by his student Jonathan Earle in a book on Michigan.[22] Wilentz's understanding of prize-winning book.[24]) Certainly one of the this area seems, from his narrative, almost as lim‐ main lines of criticism of Jefersonian Democracy ited as his knowledge of the South. He does not and Jacksonian Democracy has been their associa‐ even get into the wonderful exchange between tion with slavery, since both Jeferson and Jackson the Tappan brothers about whether banks or slav‐ were large slave holders and had their ery were more evil (Benjamin Tappan was a base in the South. Gary Wills, somewhat unfairly, Democratic politician from Ohio that everyone on called Jeferson the "Negro President."[25] this list knows and his brother was an abolitionist It is thus very crucial to his theme that from New York). Wilentz puts forward the idea that the really im‐ In his discussion of Jackson's Farewell, portant antislavery voices came from neither the Wilentz emphasizes the opposition to the "money evangelical-rooted abolitionists nor the anti-slav‐ power." He seems to break with Schlesinger in ar‐ ery Whigs, but dissident northern Democrats gen‐ guing that Jackson and the true Democracy were erally associated with Van Buren. Wilentz does dedicated to a specie currency. While he has one discuss, at some length, the contribution to the long endnote on the subject, he really avoids the abolition movement made by black Americans, details of this important fght. But there was much but the thrust of his argument dismisses the aboli‐ more in Jackson's fascinating farewell than his re‐ tionists and emphasizes the contribution of Jack‐ marks on specie--he took more pride in bringing sonian Democrats to the eventual Free Soil move‐ down the pillars of the American System, preserv‐ ment and Republicanism in the 1850s. Schlesinger ing a strict construction of the Constitution, and had made a brief argument of this nature with a establishing a "light and simple" government. handful of examples. Here, as elsewhere, Wilentz Wilentz insists that laissez-faire was not Jackson's does not write anything that is false, but in it all intent and talks vaguely, as did Schlesinger, of fed‐ leaves a totally false impression. While he uses eral government control over currency and cred‐ terms such as "more" or "a signifcant portion of," it, although he fnds no contemporary of Jackson which are quantitative statements, he adamantly who spoke in such modern language. There is no way in which anyone could see the Independent

6 H-Net Reviews refuses to responsibly quantify or use the work of Democratic, was not very democratic causes other scholars who have. Wilentz no problems. When he deals with the f‐ We know an awful lot about who embraced nal of Virginia in 1851, he foot‐ abolitionism and who constituted the softer anti‐ notes my book, but ignores that the Whigs fa‐ slavery supporters in the major parties. From nu‐ vored white manhood sufrage more than the merous historians, like Michael Holt and William Democrats. In other words, in the constitutional Gienapp, whom Wilentz selectively cites; Ron changes of the late 1840s and 1850s, the parties' Formisano, who gets a footnote for an article on positions were not much diferent than what I women and the Dorr War; and Joel Silbey, who is quoted from Williamson.[28] not noted, we know fairly well how people moved In the wave of mid-century constitutional from the parties in the into conventions that included Virginia's, the ques‐ the new parties of the 1850s.[26] It is not as tions were nearly the same everywhere. A Demo‐ Schlesinger or Wilentz have said. cratic measure involved the election of judges, As the story of democracy continues, Wilentz which in theory is democratic, but the way it has trouble with the new-born Whigs--the Demo‐ worked in Pennsylvania was not particularly so. I cratic Whigs as they called themselves, men like am not sure if the Democrats' push for extending Samuel Seward, Lincoln and Horace Mann. He in‐ the executive's veto was more democratic than sists that the Southern Whigs were represented by the Whigs' emphasis on the legislature's preroga‐ John Tyler and the eccentric Henry Wise, who tive. This does not square with Wilentz's equation even Thomas Ritchie did not think was a Whig. of democracy with the Pennsylvania's 1776 Con‐ Wise, described by his biographer as "a good stitution. The Democrats wanted to make govern‐ southerner," conned Tyler into making Calhoun ment small and limit the length of legislative ses‐ the Secretary of State and reemerged as a Demo‐ sions. A popular proposal was that they meet only crat. He was the Democratic Governor of Virginia every other year. The idea that the states should who presided over the execution of John Brown. not charter banks or corporations was completely In this mass of detail, Wilentz seems to have in line with practically having no government at missed that it was Tyler's own congressman, John all and almost everywhere was rejected in favor Minor Botts, who wanted to impeach him, and of "free banking." But New York introduced "free that the editor of the Richmond Whig, John Hamp‐ corporations." Wilentz does not want to get into ton Pleasants, was killed in a duel by Ritchie's son this rats' nest of . over Pleasants' mild antislavery views. Botts actu‐ Following Schlesinger's lead, Wilentz sees the ally voted against the Gag Rule, but Ritchie and antislavery Democrats creating the Republican the true Jacksonians supported it. There is no de‐ Party. I agree with him and with Roy Nichols that pendable information in this book on them. But the F-Street Mess forced Stephen Douglas into re‐ then there was nothing in Schlesinger except pealing the Missouri Compromise.[29] But these Democratic delusions.[27] were Jacksonian Democrats who were doing this, Jeferson's ideas on slavery were not accepted and half of the Northern Democrats voted with in the Virginia that gave Jackson more than two- them. Most favored , which thirds of its vote. And it was not until 1851 that Wilentz thinks is democratic and the Mexican Virginia came into the nineteenth century and al‐ War, about which Wilentz is ambivalent. Some‐ tered its constitution in line with his thoughts on how he wants to read James Polk--"Young Hicko‐ sufrage and representation. That Jeferson's own ry" and the foor manager of the attack on the state, which was clearly Republican and then Bank of the United States--out of the Democratic

7 H-Net Reviews

Party, even though most historians have seen Polk when he wants to make other statements he ig‐ as an extension of the Jacksonian tradition since nores the reality of what Gienapp writes and will his policies were those of Jackson. If he has prob‐ not fght with him. lems with Polk, Wilentz has even more problems Most of the data seems to show that more with Lincoln, a real Whig and a true democrat. In Democrats went through the Know Nothings than the last part of the book, Wilentz has trouble with through the Free Soil movement on their way to Lincoln opposing Polk on the Mexican War, and becoming Republicans. Remember there were taking so long to leave the Whig party. It was as if many Free Soilers who had been Whigs. While we Salmon Chase forced the reluctant Whig, Lincoln, all know that in its early years the Republican into democratic decisions. Party put forth ex-Democrats to get the votes of This is the Progressive historians' old problem Democrats for the new party, any clear analysis with Lincoln, whom they noted was a railroad shows that the Republicans were dominated by lawyer. The centerpiece of this story of the Repub‐ Wilentz's Progressive Whigs, and their policies lican Party is the Dred Scott Case. Andrew Jackson were implemented by the 37th Congress that appointed the Chief Justice, Roger Taney, who "modernized" America. They were also the center wrote an opinion that Jackson would have agreed of the Radical Republican faction that tried to with. We know Taney held very few slaves, but change the racial system of the country and that he was one of Jackson's minions. Jackson did fought against the Democrats who proclaimed appoint one of the dissenters, John McLean, who themselves to be the defenders of the white South. had been in 's cabinet. The There are many questions one must ask about rest of the Court majority were either his or other this book. Since Wilentz never defnes what Democrats' appointees. It is almost impossible to "democracy" is, we never know what he is talking believe that Jacksonian "Democracy" did not lead about. While we both agree that the expansion of to Dred Scott. This poses a huge problem for sufrage and more equal representation are part Wilentz's narrative. of it, I am not sure that either hard money or free Since Wilentz does not believe in quantitative trade is essentially democratic. Higher tarifs and analysis of voters, the U.S. Congress or the state lower tarifs only beneft certain groups. My legislatures, he sometimes gives false impressions friends across the street at the Steelworkers of about past behavior. Yes, there were many Free America want to keep out foreign steel and keep Soil Democrats who became Republicans, but they their jobs. The South Carolina slaveholders and were a small part of the party. He does not do New York merchants wanted low tarifs. Wilentz much with the Know Nothings. Like most tradi‐ does not describe how the Republicans created a tional historians, he is hostile to them. He refuses new national banking system based on the idea of to acknowledge their contribution to the rise of free banking that the Whigs had sponsored. It was democracy, which can be seen in their activity in part of the way that Republicans modernized the states. Most working-class Democrats came to America. It was a neo-American System and a Republicanism through the American party or be‐ turn away from the Jacksonian world. And it was cause of their hostility to Irish Catholics. In the democratic or at least part of a democratic pro‐ "Hidden Depression" of the early 1850s, many gram. sought a friendly home. Over the next few elec‐ Wilentz tells us more than we want to know tions, they did support the Republicans, along and often less--all of us know most of this--and he with those Whigs who no one thinks were there. never gets to the point. What is democracy? Just When Wilentz wants to, he quotes Gienapp, but talking about democracy does not do anything.

8 H-Net Reviews

But if he wants to discuss the rise of democracy at ny, 1991); Douglas R. Egerton, Charles Fenton Mer‐ least he has to explain what democracy is. cer and the Trial of National Conservatism (Jack‐ Historians are citizens and have every right son: University Press of Mississippi, 1989). I am to talk about our public ofcials, and sometimes not saying Wilentz has not read all these books, I they know American history a bit better than our am criticizing his use of them. Essentially I am presidents do. Actually this book seems less politi‐ criticizing his sense of what history is and how it cally motivated than The Age of Jackson. It is a should be written. rousing paean to Jeferson, Jackson, and, to a less‐ [5]. David S. Muzzey, A History of Our Coun‐ er degree, Lincoln, but has nothing to say about try: A Textbook for High School Students (Boston: contemporary politics. It also is hardly post-mod‐ Ginn, 1950 ed.); Harold Underwood Faulkner, ernist as one of Wilentz's critics said about one of American Social and Political History (New York: his articles. This is very well-written traditional F.S. Crofts & Co., 1946); and Faulkner and Tyler Progressive history. It has all the same heroes and Kepner, America Its History and People (New the same plot with which we are familiar. The York: Harper Brothers, 1934). problem with this book is that Wilentz does not [6]. Robert A. Dahl, How Democratic Is the tell professional historians anything they did not Constitution (New Haven: Press, know. More importantly he simply does not care 2001); Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpreta‐ to come to terms and argue with the vast body of tion of the Constitution of the United States (New literature with which he does not agree. His read‐ York: Macmillan Company, 1913); and Economic ers deserve as much. He has criticized President Origins of Jefersonian Democracy (New York: George W. Bush correctly for not having any idea Macmillan Company, 1915). of what democracy in the Middle East might be. [7]. Dumas Malone, Jeferson the President: [30] But here Wilentz fails to tell us what democ‐ First Term, 1801-1805 (Boston: Little, Brown and racy in the Early Republic was or might have Company, 1970); and Jeferson the President: Sec‐ been. ond Term, 1805-1809 (Boston: Little, Brown and Notes Company, 1974). [1]. Charles Sellers, The Market Revolution: [8]. Forrest McDonald, The Presidency of Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 (New York: Ox‐ Thomas Jeferson (Lawrence: University Press of ford University Press, 1991). Kansas, 1976). [2]. Eric Foner: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free [9]. Anthony F. C. Wallace, Jeferson and the Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Americans the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999). 1970); and The Story of American Freedom (New [10]. Leonard W. Levy, Jeferson and Civil Lib‐ York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998). George M. erties: The Darker Side (Cambridge: Harvard Uni‐ Fredrickson, The Black Image in the White Mind: versity Press, 1963). The Debate on Afro-American Character and Des‐ tiny, 1817-1814 (New York: Harper & Row, Publish‐ [11]. Roger G. Kennedy, Mr. Jeferson's Lost ers, 1971). Cause: Land Farmers, Slavery and the Louisiana Purchase. (New York: Oxford University Press, [3]. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., The Age of Jack‐ 2003). Another Yale political scientist, Bruce Ack‐ son (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1945). erman, has made a better argument than Wilentz [4]. Robert V. Remini, Henry Clay: Statesman in The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jeferson, for the Union (New York: W. W. Norton & Compa‐

9 H-Net Reviews

Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy [21]. Thomas Payne Govan, Nicholas Biddle: (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005). Nationalist and Public Banker, 1796-1844 (Chica‐ [12]. This argument was summarized by go: University of Chicago Press, 1959). Robert Lively, "The American System" Business [22]. Paul McAllister, "Missouri Voters, History Review 29 (March 1955). See also William 1840-1856: An Analysis of Antebellum Voting Be‐ G. Shade, "Louis Hartz and the Myth of Laissez havior and Political Parties" (Ph.D. diss., Universi‐ Faire," in Pennsylvania History 59 (July 1992). ty of Missouri, 1976); John M. Rozette, "The Social [13]. Joyce Appleby, Inheriting the Revolution Base of Party Confict in the Age of Jackson: Indi‐ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000). vidual Voting Behavior in Greene County, Illinois, 1838-1848" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, [14]. Chilton Williamson, American Sufrage 1974); and Kenneth J. Winkle, The Politics of Com‐ from Property to Democracy, 1760-1860 (Prince‐ munity: Migration and Politics in Antebellum ton: Princeton University Press, 1960), 181. Ohio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [15]. Wilentz's longest comment on Benson is 1988); Ronald P. Formisano, The Birth of Mass Po‐ in note 36 on page 840. There are several notes to litical Parties: Michigan, 1827-1861 (Princeton: Benson, but Wilentz never addresses his argu‐ Princeton University Press, 1971). Paul Bourke ments. Lee Benson, The Concept of Jacksonian and Donald DeBats, Washington County: Politics Democracy: New York as a Test Case (Princeton: and Community in Antebellum America (Balti‐ Princeton University Press, 1961). more: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995) pro‐ [16]. Craig and Mary L. Hanyan, De Witt Clin‐ vide an extensive bibliography of the studies on ton and the Rise of the People's Men (Montreal individual voting. and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, [23]. Sean Wilentz, "Slavery, Antislavery and 1996); Alvin Kass, Politics in New York State, Jacksonian Democracy," in The Market Revolution 1800-1830 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, on America: Social, Political, and Religious Ex‐ 1965); and Dixon Ryan Fox, The Decline of Aristoc‐ pressions, 1800-1880, ed. Melvyn Stokes and racy in the Politics of New York, 1801-1840 (New Stephen Conway (Charlottesville: University Press York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1965, ed.). of Virginia, 1996), 202-223. [17]. Charles Sellers is cited from his "blurb" [24]. Jonathan H. Earle, Jacksonian Antislav‐ on the paperback edition of The Concept of Jack‐ ery and the Politics of Free Soil, 1824-1854 (Chapel sonian Democracy (New York: Athenaeum, 1964). Hill: University of Press, 2004). [18]. Lee Benson, "Research Problems in [25]. Gary Wills, Negro President: Jeferson American Political Historiography," in Towards and the Slave Power (Boston: Houghton, Mifin the Scientifc Study of History: Selected Essays Company, 2003). (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1972), [26]. Michael F, Holt, The Political Crisis of the 40-50. This article frst appeared in 1957. 1850s (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978); [19]. Francis Paul Prucha, "Andrew Jackson's William E. Gienapp, The Origins of the Republican Indian Policy: A Reassessment," Journal of Ameri‐ Party, 1852-1856 (New York: Oxford University can History 56 (1969), 527-539. Press, 1987). Ronald P. Formisano's, "The Role of [20]. Register of Debates, 22nd Cong. 1st Sess., Women in the ," His‐ 1325. This is often quoted and often changed tory 51 (August 1994), 89-104, is a small dot on the slightly. body of the man's work that Wilentz sometime cites, but refuses to confront. Wilentz ignores Joel Silbey. Of Silbey's many books see The Partisan

10 H-Net Reviews

Imperative: The Dynamics of American Politics before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University press, 1985); and The American Political Nation, 1838-1893 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991). [27]. Craig M. Simpson, A Good Southerner: The Life of Henry A. Wise of Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985); Gene Wise, "Political 'Reality' in Recent American Schol‐ arship: Progressives versus Symbolists," American Quarterly 19 (Summer 1967). [28]. William G. Shade, Democratizing the Old Dominion: Virginia and the Second Party System, 1824-1861 (Charlottesville: University Press of Vir‐ ginia, 1996), 278-279. Wilentz follows what I said. Looking at all the votes, however, the Virginia Whigs favored universal white manhood sufrage slightly more than the state's Democrats. [29]. Roy F. Nichols, The Disruption of Ameri‐ can Democracy (New York: Macmillan Company, 1948); and The Invention of the American Political Parties: A Study in Political Improvisation (New York: Macmillan Company, 1967). This is one ex‐ ample where Wilentz uses an historian when he wants to and ignores him when it is convenient. Nichols was well known for his reference to Jack‐ son as a "caudillo" and his administration as "caudillo" politics. [30]. Larry De Witt, "Should Historians Try to Rank Presidents?" History News Network, May 21, 2006. At the time Wilentz responded with, "Of Course Historians Can Ofer Their Assessment of Bush's Presidency.'' Most historians envy Wilentz's position as a public intellectual writing in , , and Magazine. He has written several articles attack‐ ing Bush, but the one closest to this review was, "Bush's Ancestors" in New York Times Magazine, October 16, 2005, pp. 18-22. I agree with Wilentz's present politics and not his historical analogies.

11 H-Net Reviews

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

Citation: William Shade. Review of Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jeferson to Lincoln. H-SHEAR, H-Net Reviews. August, 2006.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12169

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

12