Reading: Daniel R. Mandell “Wealth and Power in The Early Republic” in the last tradition of Economic Equality in America
Prompt: What was the historic transformation, or change over time, that the author is describing in thee reading? According to the historian, why and how did this change take place? Did these changes take place gradually or rapidly.
The reading “Wealth and Power in The Early Republic” by Daniel R. Mandell focuses on how wealth can be obtained in the United States. The United States was very young nation that was still developing its economy and laws. The people of this nation were very excited for the opportunities this nation can provide. In the reading it says “Most saw sufficient equality in the opportunities offered by the new country’s rapidly changing economy, easily available land and lack of titled nobility” (Mandell 80). This quote explains the mentality of many people that lived in the United States. They did not want a nation where wealth was based off of nobility and classes, like It was in Great Britain. Things such as education became more accessible to people so they can have a better opportunity to obtains wealth and land. This view would slowly change throughout the years as the wealthy became more and more powerful. The wealthy would do several things to gain more power and influence, while preventing others from doing so.
Many people had a fear of an aristocracy forming again in the United States. A aristorcracy would have went against the idea of equal oppurtunities that many believed in. There were many attempts by the wealthy to form a aristocracy throughout the early years of the United States. Elections were a way for the wealthy to persuade people were not as educated to elect people to power that would benefit them. Writers such as Herman Husband saw these attempts and tried to inform the population. In the reading it says “In past elections, husband mourned, districts were so large that voters knew little about the candidates running for office and so were persuaded by the flattery of men in power and possessed of wealth that only the well known, rich and immoral tavern keepers, merchants and lawyers could get elected” (Mandell 84). This is was one tactic used by men in power to elect specific people into power. Another way individuals who had wealth and power tried to form an aristocracy was from war debt. Wealthy merchants and farmers benefited greatly from wars, while the heavy taxes had a impact on the middle and lower class.
Another way the wealthy tried to form an aristocracy was through the bank of North America in 1781. This bank had a big impact on people of a lower status. In the reading it says “Interest rates on bank notes increased rapidly, making them unaffordable to all but a few. These circumstances generated more wealth for holders of notes and stocks” (Mandell 90). Only the wealthy who had money to back the banks would be benefitting from this. People such as farmers were forced into foreclosure because they were unable to pay off their debts. Even as many Americans were struggling the wealthy were becoming richer. When America first gained its independence many people believed in equal opportunities and the ability to gain wealth. Over time the wealthy would make it very difficult for others to do the same.
Your first sentence reads almost as though Mandell’s book is a how-to on how to get rich! But your post improves from there… It sounds like you get his major points about what he says were widespread fears of a new aristocracy and a general consensus that the U.S. was characterized by a relative equality of property as well as social mobility… but what is surprising about the arguments he makes here, as opposed to how we usually think of the United States in the Early National/Founding period (think “capitalism on the first ships,” the “Protestant ethic,” etc.)? In other words, what is his intervention?
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, while it’s true that men of “property and standing” played an outsize role in the early nation’s politics and the shaping of its economic system, and doubtless some used that power to enrich themselves, is it also possible that they genuinely believed that men like themselves—the educated, the well-off, the successful—were best qualified to put the nation on a path to economic stability and success?