Customer Reviews

Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution

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

 

 

The author uses Pennsylvania as the lens through which to examine the causes of the Revolutionary War, the ideals that backed the move for independence, and how those ideals were subsequently limited and contained in the adoption of new state and national constitutions.

In years leading up to the revolution, both the gentry and the common people came to embrace a broad conviction that democracy is everyman's right and that concentration of wealth was incompatible with democracy in the long run. Of course, by everyman's right, they meant to exclude women. And everyman also excluded every man that wasn't white. Still it was a powerful ideal, enough to inspire a successful revolution.

But something funny happened along the way. The gentry, seeing an active democracy up close, didn't like what they saw. And officers of our army got used to luxury and privilege from hanging out with French officers.

The book points out the key role of debt, credit and availability of cash in leading up to the revolution. Much of the impetus of the war was driven by the effort by the British to raise funds through taxes in a time when circulating cash was very limited (due to poorly conceived policies limiting paper money) This lead to boatloads of bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced farm auctions.

During the war, the colonies financed the rebellion with borrowed money. Soldiers were paid with IOUs. Farmers provided grain and horses in exchange for IOUs. Then for over a decade the colonies refused to pay up on these IOUs. As the cash strapped farmers and soldiers were pressed to pay up on their own debts, they sold off their IOUs at deep discounts. Speculators bought up these IOUs for pennies on the dollar.

Then came the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government assumed all the colonial war debt and then paid it off at face value, not the deeply discounted amounts that the speculators had picked them up at. They taxed the common people to raise the funds to pay off the speculators, and when they couldn't pay up, there were boatloads of bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced farm auctions.

The federalists knew that the common man wouldn't support this. So how to get it adopted? It makes for some eye-opening reading. Some of our founding fathers weren't above a few dirty tricks. Bouton then chronicles how the common folk fought back. They were largely unsuccessful as measured by their aspirations. But their efforts did help to add a Bill of Rights to our constitution, so it wasn't for nothing.

One thing I enjoyed about the book was that the author can clearly envision a different outcome. But the revolution inspired a level of local empowerment that was inconsistent with the modern notion that the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I suspect that much of the `dialing back' of revolutionary ideals happens at the end of every successful revolution, or else the revolution moves on to break the polity into smaller parts. A good read. I recommend it.

Bouton's book Taming Democracy is Not a casual read (for me, anyway); it calls for thought & contemplation. Semi-professionals or professional historians may have quibbles with the conclusions/suggestions that the author proffers, but he does give us a lot of facts with info that was previously just below the surface for many casual historians.
IMHO, Bouton centers his work on the social economic aspects of the revolution, but also mentions the religious angles.
I don't have to agree 100% to recognize this book as top-drawer.

Democracy, that is, the empowerment of the common man, and elitism are usually simply not compatible, especially when great disparities in wealth are involved. But in the face of an extended crisis that threatens the entire social order, those incompatibilities can be set aside. Such was the case in the colonial decade of 1765-75, when the economic policies and practices of the British were so egregious and oppressive, that the colonial gentry did join with and accept the legitimacy of farmers and artisans in shrugging off British rule. However, in the ensuing social unrest of the War and in the following years, newly emerging elites asserted their economic and political dominance, much to the consternation of those who had seen so much promise in the new order. The author takes a close look at the state of Pennsylvania as a good example of the diminishment of democracy in America in the two decades after the War of Independence.

With the new state constitutions in the mid-1770s, owning property often ceased to be a requirement for voting rights, thereby making most white males eligible to vote. But as the author repeatedly shows, romantic notions of "the people" acting in concert in the political process to ameliorate economic conditions are more myth than reality. The organizing difficulties across geographic, ethnic, religious, and class differences to achieve a coherent political voice are exceedingly formidable, not to mention the immense pressures that elites can bring because of their control of needed resources.

The economic landscape of the 1780s reflected the reassertion of elites, and was especially unfriendly to the average man: rampant speculation in land and currency supported by favorable tax policies; cash scarcity as a result of hard money policies; paying gov-issued, heavily discounted wartime IOUs at face value at taxpayer expense; money supply controlled by a select few private banks, etc. The devastating effects of these policies and practices were quite obvious, yet the people's political efforts repeatedly came up short in countering any of them.

The outrage of average citizens at the economic situation and towards elites is best seen in their extra-legal efforts. Foreclosing and the seizing of property to pay debts were rampant in the 80s. Yet tax collectors, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and the like often refused to enforce judgments or hear cases. Citizens frequently enforced no-bidding at auctions with severe consequences to non-compliance. And citizen groups were willing to resort to violence to discourage zealous enforcement against cash-strapped farmers.

Eventually elites adjusted to such non-compliance. PA's new state constitution in 1790 changed the way officials were elected or appointed and strong penalties were imposed for failure to perform. The US Constitution was part of the same trend to roll back the democratic expectations unleashed by the Revolution with an assortment of checks and balances practically guaranteeing that the people's initiatives would be blocked. Also, the federal government became far more inclined to suppress citizens' actions as the author shows in its quick putdowns of the so-called Whiskey Rebellion in western PA in 1794 and another disturbance in eastern PA just five years later.

The myth of democracy is long enduring in America. This book is a sobering reminder that elites have been immensely powerful in this nation since its inception. It has been a real struggle, often unsuccessful, for average citizens to muster a sustained and effective challenge to elite rule in the US. Current times are certainly a reminder that elite excess in both the economy and government have profound consequences for the average citizen, yet the people have been unable, for the most part, to organize a viable opposition and in many circles to even understand the origin of their difficulties. This book is interesting, colorful, and somewhat detailed, yet fairly easy to read. Add it to the list of countless books that lament a lessened democracy in America.

Terry Bouton's "Taming Democracy," is a deeply flawed work. Stemming from a belief that the masses are right and good, and those with money are by nature corrupt, the book makes a series of twisted arguments against the ultimate outcome of the American revolution; that is, a system where democracy is significantly checked. The argument is ultimately unconvincing - replete with orphan-quotes, and various proofs that are not explicit or complete in their nature, it reveals itself to be truly poorly constructed. One such poor example follows, in reference to Pennsylvania's early land-bank: "In this way, the system was 'calculated for the good of the province in general, and of the necessitous borrower in particular.' It allowed ordinary people to live with dignity rather than having to beg from 'usurers and exactors.' " Nowhere in this bloc of text, anywhere, is the source of the quote identified; though indeed it is sourced in the bibliography section, the reader is wholly unaware of the legitimacy of that claim as being representative of the populace, or of anyone worthy of consideration. Furthermore, the writer's bias is made abundantly clear: "ordinary people to live with dignity rather than beg" is not a direct quote of the original source, but instead, a rather presumptuous insertion by the author. One can easily quote anyone in such an unclear manner, to prove anything; this does not make the claim any more true. One would wonder what the author's opinion of the French Revolution is, in comparison; indeed, the checks on democracy - which the author sees as tantamount to hijacking the revolution - may have saved the young nation from the chaos and mob-rule experienced across the Atlantic.

Overall, a poorly framed historical work. If you seek a fuller, less biased history, do not buy this book.

This author wants to equivocate the meanings of "taxes" and "rebellion" by ignoring the difference between taxes without representation (Stamp taxes, Townshend duties) and taxes by the consent of the governed (post-1776). He wants to take the tragic mess of debtor-creditor relations in the wake of the inflation from the Revolutionary War and build that into the old assertion that the revolution was hijacked by the rich when the people adopted the Constitution in 1787-1788. It doesn't fly.