November 2013 – Page 5 – Popular Politics in Early America

November 5, 2013

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Here’s the Drunk History of Oney Judge, Washington’s slave ( Drunk History of Orey Judge )

Chapters 7 and 8 Wilentz have the feel of a parable of greed and redemption. The boisterous lower-class patrons of Bowery Street gain power in the political machine by politicizing their actions, but which spirals out of control in the chaos and loss of the Panic of 1837. It seems that Bowery is the embodiment of the Roman Coliseum and the Elizabethan Round Theatre, except that the top tiers held the prostitutes and not the Patricians. This is what the lower classes did when the upper classes were not around.

Like Ben Hartshorn ’13 and Michael Lamoureux ’14, I was left with the impression that Wilentz hit the nail on the head by presenting Bowery Street as a microcosm of the working class in Jacksonian America. I think this microcosm is more believable as a frame of reference for Northern cities than in “Shopkeeper’s Millennium”. That said, you see some of the same issues with sustaining the temperance movement on Bowery as you do in Rochester. Joseph Brainerd’s Presbyterian Church, which was determined to help workers to better achieve the fruits of their labor, in 1836 was only 37% new members, and of these 87% were women. Overall, very few masters (14.9%) and even fewer journeymen partook (only Frederick Byrd) (280-81).

The great difference between Rochester and Bowery is the role of the Unions in temperance. In Rochester, it seemed that the workers didn’t stay around too long to settle down and join a union. In New York, the Unions found an enemy in the Temperance movement. To the Temperance movement, they had become too similar to the drunken Fire Brigades and “benevolent societies” by creating “foolish nostrums, panaceas, and social hatreds” and meeting in taverns and porterhouses (283).

November 5, 2013

Mean Streets of New York

This week’s readings from Sean Wilentz’s book Chants Democratic has me thinking along the same lines as Ben regarding the many mean streets of New York City, where life took place for the common person. More specifically Ben and Wilentz pay close attention to Bowery Street which served as one of the working class areas of New York City. It is in this account that we become familiar with the theater which served as the hub for activity on the street. Whether it be the throwing of peanut shells and fruit at the actors on stage when the audience was unhappy with the events taking place, or the prostitutes seated throughout the theater; something was always taking place at the theater that represented the makeup of the common person. It is here in the theater that American city life in Antebellum America can be fully understood. However the shift that takes place in America during this time, seen through Bowery Street’s change over time, speaks volumes to the growing state of the working class man’s status.

Wilentz’s account of Bowrey Street at first reminded me of the accounts my grandfather used to tell me when I was growing up. My grandfather served as a New York City police officer on Pitt Street which is known for the Gompers Houses, a housing project located in one of the “roughest areas of the city.” Here my grandfather experienced much of the same experiences seen in Antebellum NYC that Wilentz first talks about, only in the 1960s and 1970s. Streets riddled at night with drunkards and prostitutes created a sense of lawlessness and in many ways excitement due to the unexpected nature of the area. Education amongst the masses at Gompers was next to nonexistent and in many ways if you didn’t look like you “belonged” in the area life would become very difficult for one. Luckily, my grandfather was a Gomper’s kid and knew the language of the streets. It is this idea of looking of sense of belonging that reminds me of Wilentz’s work so much. Wilentz talks about this sense of “native” pride at the theater on Bowrey Street and that is a concept that exists today. People supported “guys from the neighborhood” and more often than not cared less about those living outside of their world. When British actors looked down upon the audience at their show, the crowd didn’t get emotionally worked up because they knew that the guy next to them in crowd would stand by their side in the attempt to stand up for themselves. It is this same concept that my grandfather was molded in, watching out for guys like him. Personally I feel like much of this sense of watching out for “guys like him” was to protect himself from being taken advantage of by the upper/smarter members of society.

However, Bowrey Street (as well as Gompers today) changed due to the actions of the upper class (those with power/wealth). Bowrey Street experienced the setbacks of the Panic of 1837 and the temperance movement caught on with some due to the thought that temperance would lead to more money in one’s pocket. Gompers changed in the 1970s when the government starting pumping resources into the area after widespread riots took place along “rough” city blocks. In both the Bowrey example and the Gompers example ideas to better life of the “common man” are brought to a community that simply can’t afford to suffer more hardship. These ideas impact the makeup of the area quickly but the question that emerges from this is “was the situation taken care of or simply swept under the rug?” Understanding the history of the temperance movement and more government spending in high risk areas it becomes obvious that the issues that the uppers class thought they fixed only made matters worse as they created new problems.

November 5, 2013

Racism, Xenophobia, and Republicanism: A Night Out on the Bowery

Sean Wilentz utilized Chapters 4-5 of Chants Democratic to document the failure of labor to successfully challenge the major political parties in Jacksonian New York City due to the Working Men’s lack of a solidified class-consciousness. However, Chapters 7-8 exhibit the evident consciousness of ethnic, racial, and religious boundaries amongst the lower classes throughout the city. As Alex noted last week, the workers’ employers had “distanced themselves further from their workers and receded into private terms” during the 1820s, largely leaving them to their own social and cultural circles. These working-class congregations were anything but homogenous; workers typically united around their respective neighborhoods and localities. The groups often radicalized around specific issues, such as hyper-patriotism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-abolition. Even trade unionists saw these groups as uncontrollable renegades in need of “a complete transformation of character centered on temperance”. (255) Through the economic turmoil of the late 1830s, Wilentz argues, these radical congregations such as the Native American Democratic Association and the American Republican Party gained immense political power in the city on a platform of xenophobic rhetoric against Irish Catholics, abolition, and “anti-republican” peoples. (268)

After the fall of the Working Men in 1830, disaffected workers hit the streets and formed their own organizations to represent their interests. Volunteer fire groups were a popular source of fraternal bonding and local identity in poorer parts of the city. In the Bowery, known as “New York’s plebian boulevard,” nativist sentiment amongst the working-class was enflamed by newspapers such as the Spirit of ’76, published by the Native American Democratic Association. (257) They argued that Irish-Catholic immigrants were an inherent threat to the ideals and purity of American republicanism by carrying the “papist monarchical” conspiracy across the ocean from Europe and swelling their presence in America. (267) The intellectualism of the Working Men’s Party had been replaced by the macho-nativism and muscle of the freikorps-like street gangs of angry workers throughout the city, and their power, unfortunately, was destined to increase.

In the Panic of 1837, more of a third of New York workers lost their jobs. After public unrest and rioting, it appeared as though the traditional union movement had surrendered to the “street tactics of the Bowery”. (295) As labor competition increased in the city, the nativist circles gained power by labeling immigrants (especially Irishmen) as lecherous job thieves. Wilentz utilizes the street propaganda of these powerful groups (the Native American Democratic Association, the American Republican Party, and the Loco Focos) as primary sources along with the concerned responses from the entrepreneurial classes (the American Institute, the Washington Temperance Benevolent Society, etc). They targeted both major political parties- the Whigs were accused of upper-class preference and the Democrats of corruption and pandering to immigrants for votes. (320) At the height of the nativist furor, the American Republican Party candidate James Harper succeeded in winning the mayor’s office, although he failed to implement a thorough nativist policy.

According to Wilentz, the emergence of Bowery-style politics in the 1830s reveals one major point: there was no Rochesterian revival of religion, temperance, and civility in NYC. The revivalists largely gave up and moved on, and the booze continued to flow without obstruction. However, he never seems to examine why New York resisted the Second Great Awakening. Was it due to the militarism and ferocity of the working classes, or the passiveness of the business elite? Also, he fails to document the perspective of the Irish Catholics and immigrants vehemently targeted by the nativists. How did they react to their persecution? Did they fight back, or just roll over when push came to shove? While he may have covered these topics in different portions of the book, I hoped to gain a better understanding of the underlying causes and consequences of the nativist furor that dominated the city. Fear of global papist dominance (while frightening!) can only convince me to a certain degree.

November 5, 2013

Bowery Street

Bowery Street should have been the title of the second half of Sean Wilentz’s book, Chants Democratic. Wilentz’s detailed description of working class life in Antebellum New York City can be followed through the rise and changes of Bowery Street. Wilentz described the street as a, “plebian boulevard, the workingmen’s counterpart to fashionable Broadway” (257). It is almost seems like the Atlantic City to Las Vegas. It was built in the mid-1820s and by the early 1830s it was a swinging street with food, drinks, dancing, and entertainment. Much of what Wilentz described about Bowery Street, he could use to describe the bigger picture of the working class.

The theater on Bowery Street is the first place where the street becomes an obvious microcosm of working class life. The crowded theatre with prostitutes up in the third acted just as the working class would be expected to. Wilentz details about the crowd, “fortified by drink, armed with an arsenal of peanut shells and rotten vegetables, the Boweryites felt perfectly at home and interrupted the action on the stage at will” (258). This can be paralled with the mobs that form during the Crisis of 1836. Armed with drink, fire, and hundreds of men, the mobs would use systematic violence and symbolic attacks to get their point across. Furthermore, the crowds almost rioting when English actors acted superior and smug on stage ties in nicely with Wilentz’s descriptions of the Nativist views that were prevalent during the coming decade. The racial tensions that took place on stage also offer a look at the views of many working classmen. The set-piece minstrel shows “took racism for granted” and were extremely popular with the lower-class audience. These shows also gave the working class a chance to criticize and laugh at the aristocratic plantation owners and other “dimwitted” upper class leaders (259).

In the next chapter, after the Panic of 1837, the street changes dramatically. The workers have less spending money and struggling to find work. As the temperance push becomes greater, many men are found on Bowery Street and brought to the weekly experience meetings to become sober. The classic Bowery Theater shows that used to be filled with debauchery and partying are moved to temperate theaters as the Washingtonians seem to be taking over the city. Wilentz could have emphasized how this shift in theaters and action on the street symbolized the working class change of life after the Panic. All in all, Bowery Street seems to be a good indication of what the working class is up to at any given time.

Maxwell Paul Reihmann (Cincinnati, Ohio) makes several interesting points about the Washingtonian Temperance movement. It seems like they were able to be so effective because of their acceptance of all religions. Instead of pushing sobriety and religion on their converts, they just stressed a better life filled with steady meals and hope. Max also makes a great comparison with the Women’s Rights Movement later in the century. His point about the outspoken minority is a good one. Another example of the outspoken minority working today is the push for the legalization of gay marriage. A small minority of people feels strongly about it and is pushing our country to change for the better.

November 4, 2013

Temperance: The Impact of the Minority

Much of Sean Wilentz’s analyzation of New York in the 1830’s and 40’s concerns the Temperance movement; a movement that we see often repeated throughout the early history of the American Republic. The revitalization of the Temperance movement noted by Wilentz in the Washingtonian Temperance movement spurred thoughts of a group conversation in class early in the semester. Although I do not remember the specific source we were discussing, the topic concerned the idea of the outspoken minority. We noted that we often hear more about minority radical beliefs because a passionate populace usually brings them to fruition, even though they are a minority and find extreme difficulty for success. I feel that many times the Temperance Movement was such a cause; people became very passionate about it but ultimately failed to achieve their ultimate goals. This can be seen in the early entrepreneurs attempts at temperance in the 1830’s, as they achieved difficulty with their opposition to unions. With the Washingtonian Temperance movement in the 1840’s, however, I feel that enough of the population became involved in order to remove it from this outspoken minority category that we previously discussed. Wilentz notes “temperance reformers could claim with justice that theirs was now the largest popular movement in the city’s history.” (307).

Such a large movement was bound to have a significant impact on society, however it was unfortunate that the Washingtonian’s reason for their success caused opposition from the American Temperance Union. The Washingtonian’s were able to achieve such a significant following by including people from all backgrounds, notably by accepting all forms of religion while denying any relation of their movement to religion. The American Temperance Union, however, was an evangelical organization that saw religious motives behind their temperance movement, denouncing the Washingtonian movement as a result. Although the American Temperance Union did not single handedly destroy the Washingtonians, they were a factor in the decline.

Such organizational issues could also be seen in the eventual Women’s Rights movement later in the 19^th Century. Many of these women were also involved in the Temperance movement, and organization within the Temperance movement and other idealistic ventures caused the Women’s Rights activists to avoid organization in attempt to avoid division. Organization was inevitable, however, and division occurred shortly after.

Interestingly, both the Temperance movement and Women’s Rights movement saw success on a national scale at the beginning of the 20^th Century, with Prohibition enacted in 1919 and women’s suffrage enacted in 1920. This reflects the notion of the outspoken minority that we spoke of in class, as we also mentioned that this outspoken minority often spurs a movement that becomes popular, even if it takes some time. Both of these movements followed this pattern to achieve success, although prohibition was repealed in 1933. We can see, however, that it takes a minority movement to spur action on a greater scale. Success is difficult to come by for these activists, but the possibility of ultimate success if worth the efforts.

November 4, 2013

Another useful map of American politics

Here is another nice visualization of American politics in antebellum America – I especially like how this one shows increases in political participation through voting.

Enjoy!