Sean Wilentz – Popular Politics in Early America

November 5, 2013

Bowery Street

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

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.

August 29, 2013

Jill Lepore's Historiography

Jill Lepore’s article “People Power: Revisiting the Origins of American Democracy” reads like a brief historiography of some of the more prominent takes on the history of the American Democratic movement. Lepore does a solid job of organizing and chronicling the changes in historical thought about our democracy over time.

Lepore has portrayed the debates and arguments over the American Democracy as becoming much more complicated as time has progressed. The first book, Mabel B. Casner and Ralph Henry Gabriel’s “The Rise of American Democracy,” seems simple in its writing and intent. The play at the end of the book is used to demonstrate the theme that frontier land and hardworking men were largely responsible for the rise of the political system.

Lepore then sets up a contrast between Noah Webster and Thomas Jefferson that is also representative of the conflicting views of the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. As the Federalists begin to lose ground, Jefferson’s beloved farmers gain more power and say in the government. This is something that really ticked off Webster. H believed that he had more to lose than small, poor farmers and therefore his vote should weigh more.

Lepore does a nice job of bringing in Alexis de Tocqueville’s opinions on equality and democracy. Tocqueville is such a widely read opinion that it is crucial for Lepore to include him in this historiography. The arguments made by Frederick Jackson Turner and Sean Wilentz contradict each other on the importance of the West and the frontier struggle to the development of American Democracy. While Turner’s argument glorifying the brave men who trekked out West is noble, Wilentz seems to make a stronger point that urban workers were the most democratic element of Jacksonian America.

Wilentz’s use of major political figures intertwining with less prominent men is a smart way to approach such a broad topic. Wilentz knows that in order to fully understand history, a careful balance of the big and small must struck. If this balance is made successfully, a reader or a student will be able to best learn about the past. They will receive the fullest possible idea of history and how people really lived. This will give us in the present, the best tools necessary to, as Casner and Gabriel wrote, “strive to learn not to repeat these errors. The generations which lived before us left us a heritage of noble ideals; let us hold fast to these” (1).