temperance – Popular Politics in Early America

November 11, 2013

The (anti)feminist movement?

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

I have encountered a surprising number of people in my life who hold that they, belonging to a certain ethnic, national, cultural or religious group, have permission to make jokes that deride members of that group. This idea has a certain inherent logic to it: someone who belongs to a group probably lacks the malice or bigotry against their group that someone from the outside might have. Yet, I think that, more often than not, we have learned to internalize cultural bigotry against our own groups, and that a demeaning joke is demeaning no matter who delivers it.

I believe that the effective female advocates of the Female Moral Reform Society in Utica suffered because of their lack of prescience to see that an argument which pushed women into a separate sphere for purposes of sexual purity, would necessarily push them into a separate sphere in other ways. The joke-telling rule echoes the Society women’s mistake, in that both did not or do not see that crafting a certain vision of a group will create an identity for that group in the populace’s mind, and those identities are not easily shifted. Perhaps, however, some of the women of the FMRS intended that they should eventually be separated, once they enforced some level of social discipline on alcoholic or licentious behavior.

Ryan begins her piece with a discussion of contemporary historiography in an effort to illumine the political implications of her own writing in history. The time during which she wrote (1979), there were efforts to shows the suffering that women experienced at the hands of male-dominated societies, but there were also efforts to acknowledge women’s agency within the course of historical events. Then, others countered with criticism that to do so puts the responsibility for their treatment on women’s shoulders. Her examination seems like a perfect exposition of the truth: that disfranchised groups suffer from their disfranchisement, yet they can also find influence and power in surprising places, despite their oppression.

As often before, women found influence in moral discussions occurring in Utica and elsewhere during the 1830s and 40s. The first item at issue was sexual promiscuity, and though Ryan attempts an empirical analysis, it feels incomplete. The only data with which Ryan works is a 1843 survey by the Utica Society which contains 11 acts of sexual offense, and marriage records in concert with birth records of children. As she seems to understand, this is a paltry substitute for actual data and concludes from this that the issue was likely not an increase in the amount of sexual promiscuity, but rather an erosion of the “community’s ability to monitor and regulate such behavior” (71). Lack of control then, instead of an actual problem, precipitated concern over morals.

David Sierra writes that “The revivalist Presbyterian church provided them with the framework to build their own associations and the pre-industrial economy made a population density more conducive to a more even distribution of influence”(74-5). Though I recognize the enormous significance of the church, I think that other elements were just as essential in the growth of the women’s organizations, such as McDowall’s Journal, the network of charitable middle class women already established, and the organization of women in nearby polities before Utica.

November 5, 2013

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

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

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.

October 31, 2013

Religion: Yea or Nay

In Chants Democratic, Sean Wilentz discusses the formation of the working class in the late 18th to early 19th Centuries. In the midst of the Second Great Awakening, a divide is created between “religionists” and “free-thinkers”, the rich and the poor, capitalists and socialists. Wilentz discusses these developments in great detail, providing an account of how certain evangelical movements led to the inclusion of morality in debates of politics, economics and of course, religion.

Along with much of what we had discussed earlier in Shopkeeper’s Millennium, a huge shifted transpired in the work relations between employers and workers in the 1820s as the temperance movement assumed an integral role in the New York. The motivations behind the temperance movement included both paternalistic moral reasons but also concerns of the effectiveness of workers with drinking tendencies. The employers did not want to be seen as advocates of temperance just so that it “could yield 25 percent more profits” but also to “improve their souls.” These masters walked the thin line between economic interests which would be seen as purely selfish and moral reasons which fit in perfectly with the ideals of wealthier peoples trying to exemplify evangelical benefits. Oddly enough, though, there also seemed to be assertions that helping young men to remove themselves from the drink would allow for more efficient labor and thus foster a more productive, successful country. This provided an interesting incentive of loyalty to the country so that people would work diligently.

A different perspective of morality was introduced with respect to social tensions and the social inequality prevalent throughout New York. The General Society and the Institute of New York City worked to create an environment that would even the playing field between the rich and poor in a system with “aristocratic mercantile abuses” and trying to “awaken the spirit of American Independence.” These institutions saw it as their duty to return the nation to a state of relative egalitarianism where each person’s worth could be measured as a function of their contributions to society and not as a product of how rich their family is. This morality is much differentiated from the one aforementioned problem but it was a very real problem that many saw as needing to be rectified by society. As Wilentz states though, “their fresh interpretation of artisan republicanism in turn fit well with the moral imprecations of the temperance men and the Association for Moral Improvement”, indicating that these two themes of morality and the duty to correct wrongs were very common in different fields during this early stage of American freedoms.

I appreciated the Wilentz’s writing in that provided many sources and quotes to substantiate his argument and the linear progression between different topics such as those I just discussed makes for very easy reading. It is much more satisfying to digest than say Fanning’s article because Wilentz gives each of his claims much evidence and leaves no question untouched. Last week, Eli posted about partial acceptance which seems to relate to the topics I have just written about. As the employers distanced themselves further from their workers and receded into private terms, the workers saw themselves as being accepted as a form of capital but discarded as a potential liability what with their drinking tendencies. The employers had to take the good and the bad with their workers.