Paul Johnson – Popular Politics in Early America

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

As many in this class can attest, I possess borderline ignorant qualities regarding my stubbornness and argumentativeness (that’s a word). I like to be right. And I like to argue…just to argue. When in the course of human events, however, it becomes necessary for one to readjust his thinking for truthiness and justice. This I have done.
In class Tuesday, I defended the point that Rochester, New York was a relatively appropriate location for Paul Johnson’s book, but I would have preferred a comparative model with another city going through similar changes. Maybe Pittsburgh, PA? Or Wheeling, VA (West Virginia after the Civil War)? Or a southern city like Nashville, TN? I change my mind. I now believe, along with many of my esteemed colleagues, that Mr. Johnson nailed it. While I cannot bring myself to proclaim Rochester as “The Heart and Soul of the United States”, I will acknowledge its “melting pot” atmosphere that supposedly makes America, America. Rochester was an American microcosm. Although the city grew rapidly, Johnson alludes his readers to a strong and dignified (albeit brief) history of the area by describing the first land owners, their prominence, and the reform of government. Additionally, as we stated in class, Rochester was a sufficient blend of country folk and city dwellers. The farmers and shopkeepers combined to give Rochester the beliefs and interests of both kinds of people. Furthermore, “Clinton’s Big Ditch”, enabled the city to stay connected with major sea ports and the areas west of the Appalachian Mountains. Rochester was a byproduct of the Erie Canal (Since Ian gets to talk about hometowns, my hometown’s creation and usefulness is similar to that of Rochester. The Virginia and Tennessee railroads linked at Roanoke, and the “Star City” was born). Charles Finney accrued a mass following to believe his teachings of revised Christianity. The white collar increase amongst grocers, lawyers, and boatsmen is an incredible jump from the number of religious men in these professions merely seven years earlier. I also like Johnson’s claim that wealthier men went to church as a political move. I imagine that these men saw a rising interest in religion and wanted to show their constituents that they were part of this good behavior as well. Furthermore, women were given unintentional rights as they were allowed to pray with the men. Finney does mention some of the more traditional church goers were against this practice of intermingling men and women, but as they came to find out, men and women can pray together without satan breathing a fiery wrath upon them. Yet, this step allowed women to gain more respect and “helped to transform [their husbands] into nineteenth century husbands.” (108) The nineteenth century husband swore off alcohol, did not abuse his family members, and continued to work hard. Most of these husbandry social norms continue to this day. his, I have done.

My disagreement with Johnson is that he rarely mentions blacks. He mentions them briefly when describing the barrel making process, a violent encounter with a police officer over gambling, and the African Methodist Church. Johnson does not make a claim (unless I missed it) about an increase or decrease in black religion revival. Maybe this is due to a lack of surviving sources. I think to truly capture an American city, Johnson should have studied the reaction of blacks if possible. This would have been especially interesting because all slaves were freed in New York in 1827 with a majority of them having been freed with the gradual abolition Act of 1817 in the wake of the War of 1812. This new emancipation was an experiment in and of itself, much like Charles Finney’s sermons on initially radical religious teachings.

I believe that Paul Johnson’s decision to use Rochester, New York as his focus case study was an excellent decision for many reasons. First, as Dr. Shrout mentioned in class, it is illogical and inconvenient to do a detailed and lengthy study like this with multiple communities. The records that Johnson uses are specific to the locality, and therefore he would have had to travel often to do a study with multiple communities. I like that Johnson admits that Rochester may not be the most representative community for the subject of the great awakening. Rochester is not the typical revival story, but it is such an extraordinary one that we can learn so much from studying it.

Another reason Rochester is a smart place to study is because Charles Finney spent so much time there. The Second Great Awakening took place all over the United States, but what I remember about the revivals from high school history textbooks is the burned-over region in New York and Charles Finney. Using a place that Finney preached at for so long makes sense to me because I view him as the most famous and accomplished Second Great Awakening minister.

Rochester was also a blend of so much of the rest of the country. It was the first major inland city. Yet, the canal kept it connected to the powerful cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and even London. At the same time it was connected with the country side. There was also a large amount of diversity in wealth and professions. You had the wealthy land owning farmers who gave Rochester its name and beginnings and there was the growing intercity community that consisted of master workers and shopkeepers along with a fluid and ever-changing group of journeyman craftsmen. Johnson gives us insight into all the different types of people living in Rochester so that we are able to see the diversity and how each class of people made their religious decisions.

Paul Johnson also did a good job balancing specifics with generalizations. He gives individual stories of families that began the city (like Colonel Rochester’s family) and of poor, orphaned men who became the extremely wealthy in Rochester (like Thomas Kempshall and Abelard Reynolds). He balanced this with good statistics and charts that allowed him to make broader generalizations. On the religious side, he gave specific examples of converts with charts of profession and percent change (of church membership). This allowed him to make inferences about why groups of merchants, master shoemakers, doctors, or lawyers did or did not convert with Finney. I found that most of the inferences that he made, I bought. For example, Johnson wrote about the reasons that so many master workmen converted, yet these reasons did not explain why lawyers also had a high conversion rate. Johnson explained this high conversion rate with details about Finney’s past as a lawyer and how most lawyers were politicians that could not resist the church. Overall, I thought that Johnson did a good job using specific details from his research in Rochester to make generalizations and explain some of the reasons for the huge revival in the city.

Price makes several great comments in his blog this week. The only part I disagree with is his criticism of Johnson’s generalizations and simplifications. While I do agree that some of Johnson’s statements may have oversimplified things, I think that it is alright to do that in a historical paper. It is impossible to study every single person in the town. Johnson studied a few specific people and statistics, and then this allowed him to make broader generalizations. The nature of historical studies will not account for every example. Price argues that Johnson didn’t take into account all of the nuances of the town. I see his point, but I believe that the nature of this topic and history itself doesn’t allow for Johnson to view all the nuances.

Tag: Paul Johnson

A non-thinker having rethought

Rochester Was the Right Choice