Customer Reviews

American Revolutionaries in the Making

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

In American Revolutionaries in the Making, Professor Charles S. Sydnor examines the political structures and processes in Virginia prior to the American Revolution. His goal is to understand how those structures and processes brought forth the large number of highly capable leaders who were key to the formation and leadership of the United States in the revolution and early days of independence: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and John Marshall, to name only the most prominent.

Professor Sydnor describes three steps along the pathway to power in colonial and revolutionary Virginia that brought these men to the top:

1. Justice of the Peace: The first public office held by almost all of these men was Justice of the Peace in their home county. This office was quite different from anything in the current age. Each county had from 10 to 30 Justices, who collectively formed the County Court. This court not only heard cases of civil and criminal law but also constituted the primary governing body of the county with executive and legislative as well as judicial powers. Justices were commissioned by the Governor, usually based on nominations from the current members of the Court. The Court was, therefore, a self perpetuating body not directly subject to popular control. The only avenues of recourse open to the public were petition to the Governor or the House of Burgesses, colonial Virginia's elective legislature, to which each county elected two members. The County Courts typically chose their nominees for Justice of the Peace based on talent and promise from aspiring members of the land-owning gentry. Selection was not based on popular opinion, campaign promises, or oratorical skills. Once commissioned, a new Justice embarked on a practical education in all aspects of county government and relations with Governor and House of Burgesses under the guidance of the senior justices.

2. Election to the House of Burgesses: A county's members of the House of Burgesses were the only elected officials of any significance in colonial Virginia. The Governor was appointed by the King (prior to 1776) or by the House of Burgesses (after 1776). The election of Burgesses was democratic, based on the limited franchise of the day: White males who owned a requisite number of acres of land in a county could vote in that county. This qualification led to several results that seem strange today. A man was qualified to vote in every county in which he owned sufficient acreage. However, to exercise his multiple votes, he had to physically present himself at the county seat of each county on election day; the physical demands placed a practical limit on multiple votes. A voter could also seek election in any county in which he could vote, regardless of his residence. George Washington was elected to the House from Frederick County, 50 miles west of his home in Fairfax County. The restriction of the vote to the land-owning gentry appears at first glance to favor the wealthy classes. However, in practice, this restriction denied the vote to the adult sons and employees of the land-owner unless they owned land in their own rights. This practice was intended to, and in fact did, limit the influence of the land-owners. Voting was conducted by public statement of the voter's preference to the county sheriff, usually in the presence of all candidates, who would typically bow and thank voters for their support. Candidates were expected to provide "treats" for voters, consisting of lavish food and drink. However, the "treat" must be open to all voters and not a direct quid pro quo for support. Candidates, by custom, did not directly solicit votes. They stood upon their reputations, which were usually well known by the few hundred voters in the county. Through this electoral process, the voting public exercised their influence over government.

3. Higher Office: Once elected to the House of Burgesses, a new member would be assigned to various committees and to draft documents and speeches. The leadership of the House, the Speaker and Committee Chairmen, thereby gained a sense of the abilities of each member. From 1776 on, the House, guided by its leadership, selected Virginia's governors and representatives to the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, and, later, its US senators. Selection for this third career step was based on demonstrated skills in writing, oratory and leadership.

I reread this book after reading Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom, which examines the nature of liberal democracy today (see my review). The political practices in colonial Virginia are clearly not applicable to today's world for two reasons: It would be impossible to base elections on first hand knowledge of the candidates when the populace has grown to its present size and, more importantly, it would require severely restricting the voting franchise. However, it is useful to remember that limited democracy and the multi-leveled selection process which used different criteria at each level, produced an incredibly talented and effective leadership for both Virginia and the early United States. Can we say as much about today's candidates for high office?

The second appearance of Sydnor's history, the book was badly renamed "American Revolutionaries in the Making." It's original title, "Gentlemen Freeholders," was much more apt.

Aside from using the word "democracy" consistently when he speaks of republicanism - a forgivable offense given the time period of the work - Sydnor theorizes that American democracy is thoroughly indebted to the aristocratic origins of the Virginian legislature. Further, throughout the work, he continually suggests that an aristocracy is superior to that of universal suffrage.

Sydnor makes the case that America would do well to avoid wider spread democracy, and even makes the case that South Carolina, more democratic in the years leading to the civil war, is a prime example of democracy going haywire. Meanwhile, he completely overlooks the fact that not only does Virginia join the Confederate movement rather quickly, but they produce some of it's most prominent leaders from the very line of aristocracy that he praises.

While he is right that Virginia is a colony turned state governed by great men of privilege, he fails in his mission to prove that only men of privilege can effectively govern. He fails to recognize that "all men are created equal" is not the same as "all men are the same," and this simple omission destroys his narrative.

I picked up this book thinking I was to be treated to juicy details about how our founding fathers started on the road to the revolution. After reading the book, I understand the title better, but was disappointed with the content as I did not get what I was expecting. The book explains how campaigning in the 18th century was vastly different than today. Examples include the actions of the candidate, who didn't shake hands and give speeches but relied on their friends to `talk them up'. Candidates were present on election day, since there was only one voting site per county. Newly elected officials were groomed by the veterans to prepare them as they ascended the political ladder. Sydnor also centers on several well known Virginians such as Washington, Madison, Mason, Jefferson, and Wythe as examples of their trek through the political gambit.

Despite not fulfilling my expectations, I was introduced to a deeper level of government before we created our own. This book is a good resource for teaching students about the fledgling democracy as experienced by her founders. I would refrain from assigning it to the students to read directly, as it read like a graduate thesis.

Sydnor's work here is dated and ideologically charged. His research is, by today's standards, minimal and is presented to support passe founding-fathers worship and his own normative approval of aristocratic government. The work is better read as a piece of history itself than a work of scholarship. A much more accurate history is available in John G. Kolp's response, Gentlemen and Freeholders: Electoral Politics in Colonial Virginia (1998).