Prompt: How does this reading add to your knowledge of the subject, or challenge or contradict what you previously thought about this aspect of American or global history?
Source: Daniel Mandell, The Lost Tradition of Economic Equality in America, Chapter 4 “Wealth and Power in the Early Republic.”
Answer: Throughout the fourth chapter of Daniel Mandells The Lost Tradition of Economic Equality in America, an extensive political and economic analysis is offered of the immediate post-revolutionary war period and the important debates of the time pertaining to national organization. The chapter itself, titled “Wealth and Power in the Early Republic,” covers the relationship between power and wealth that the young nation experienced. Specifically, whether estates and property rights should give an individual greater say and power within the government, and whether it should allow for a “natural aristocracy” to form. I have previously had very limited experience with the American Post-Revolutionary War period, especially the political and economic aspects of it. This chapter greatly added to my understanding of American history and to my appreciation for how exactly the country that I live in today turned out to be the way it is.
Starting off the chapter, there is a great quote about the egalitarian nature of political expression amongst the Americans, it sets the tone well. It notes that a man, irrespective of class, holds the right to get their opinion across, reflective of the active and equal role that politics played in the lives of citizens. This idea of political courage is familiar to me, what is new to me however, is that this seemingly “core” American principle was a topic of debate when it came to who would run the country in the 1780s-1790s. Mandell offers examples of how the landowning elites at this time benefited greatly from the establishment of national institutions and economic independence, and how this growth in power of the few, was simply seen as a return to yet another regime for many ordinary Americans. Those with resources and influence “…sought state charters for banks, canals, roads and manufacturing centers, many Americans protested that such privileges would enable a corrupt aristocracy of wealth.” (Mandell, p.80) A nation indeed needs all such things, they are essential to prosperity, but allowing private citizens the right to own such crucial facets of a developing country, would have given them immense power, more power than a single vote allows a citizen in any democracy.
On the subject of elections, Mandell quotes a Presbyterian minister, “to maintain the freedom of elections, there should, as much as possible, be an equality among the people of the land.” (Mandell, p.80) Land itself is a symbol of political influence, those who own great amounts of land will always find themselves with a greater voice within society and government than those without it. The way I see it, allowing the elites to form a natural aristocracy would have betrayed the American spirit of sovereignty and equality, rendering the revolution meaningless and once more returning to the European system of rule, which at the time was either that of an aristocracy or a monarchy.
Although the idea of equality among the citizens at this time was afforded mostly to white property owners, going down the path of forming an aristocracy would have been much more detrimental, as it would have created a ruling class which was very comfortable in their positions of power. Staying true to the belief in a republic, the American common man at this time was the beneficiary of a very important and understated political and social victory. Understated because this to me was a crucial fork in the road, where social elites could have seized power based on their wealth and America would have simply become another wealthy Western nation, without the core principles of personal rights and liberty that are afforded to us today.
Excellent post, thoughtful and well-written. Although you’re correct that the ideas about political equality (i.e., democracy) in the post-Revolutionary/Early National period are well-known, the debates about them are not. Even less well understood—and Mandell’s great contribution, I think—are the ideas about equality of wealth and property that he brings to light. What I like about his approach in particular is the way he is able to highlight the debates about the propriety of both political and economic democracy while emphasizing that there was a widespread consensus around the idea of a “rough” economic equality. I agree with you that the United States would have looked quite different had these ideas been absent; but then arguably its economic development would have looked quite different or perhaps been delayed if the agrarian, egalitarian vision of early republican thinkers had triumphed.
Hi professor, thank you for your comment.
I definitely agree that the nations development would have been slowed if the agrarian and egalitarian ideas of the republicans were dominant. But to an extent, is that not what happened? But in a way the opposite effect could be seen (until the Civil War.) That the South, a massive portion of the country became increasingly focused on agriculture, too focused arguably. And contrary to Northern thinking, the crop economy did bring great wealth to the South, at a cost of course. In a way, the Southern plantation owner class could be seen as the “Natural Aristocracy,” the few who gained greatly due to their ownership of land, and that in turn translated to political power for them, enough power to rationalize secession. In retrospect, this obviously hindered the Souths development. Don’t know where I am going with this, I was focused on the post- Revolutionary period, but now looking at the Civil War period, lots of parallels can be drawn.
Very thought provoking! (and sorry for the slow reply)… Northern advocates of “free labor,” including most abolitionists and many northern Democratic Republicans (and later the Republican Party of the 1850s), did argue that the prevalence of slavery retarded the growth of the southern, and perhaps by extension, the national economy. We now know, as you point out, that they were incorrect in viewing slavery as inherently unproductive and unprofitable, although it’s possible to overstate the importance of cotton plantation slavery to the nation overall.
As to the question of whether slaveholders constituted a “natural aristocracy,” those who were inclined to be opposed to concentrations of wealth and power of any sort definitely viewed slaveholders as a kind of aristocracy; but even those northerners who accepted the idea of a “natural aristocracy” of talent may have viewed slavery as a violation of it, since slaveholders achieved their wealth and status by “unnatural” means, i.e., relying on the forced labor of others. Others, of course, including most in the South, viewed slavery as legitimate, and northern Democratic-Republicans (and later Democrats) were often inclined to view slaveowners as “producers” who, like northern farmers and urban artisans, contributed to the nation’s growth and prosperity. Hence slaveowners were an important part of of the Jeffersonian, and later Jacksonian, political coalitions, until the latter began to fracture beginning in the mid-1840s.