Capitalism and a New Social Order (Anson G. Phelps Lectureship on Early American History) (Paperback)

by Joyce Appleby (Author)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

In 1800 the Jeffersonian Republicans, decisive victors over what they considered elitist Federalism, seized the potential for change in the new American nation. They infused in it their vision of a society of economically progressive, politically equal, and socially liberated individuals. This book examines the fusion of ideas and circumstances which made possible this triumph of America's first popular political movement.

When the Federalists convened in New York to form the "more perfect union" promised by the new United Sates Constitution, they expected to build a strong central government led by the revolutionary members of the old colonial elite. This expectation was dashed by the emergence of a vigorous opposition led by Thomas Jefferson but manned by a new generation of popular politicians: interlopers, émigrés, polemicists—what the Federalists called the "mushroom candidates." They turned the 1790s into an age of passion by raising basic questions about the characters of the American experiment in government.

When the Federalists defenders of traditional European notions of order and authority came under attack, they sought to discredit the radical beliefs of the Jeffersonians. Although the ideas that fueled the Jeffersonian opposition came from several strains of liberal and libertarian thought, it was the specific prospect of an expanding commercial agricutlure that gave substance to their conviction that Americans might divorce themselves from the precepts of the past.

Thus, capitalism figured prominently in the Jeffersonian social vision. Aroused by the Federalists' efforts to bind the nation's wealthy citizens to a strengthened central government, the Jeffersonians unified ordinary men in the southern and middle states, mobilizing on the national level the power of the popular vote. Their triumph in 1800 represented a new sectional alliance as well as a potent fusion of morality and materialism.

About the Author

Joyce Appleby is Professor of History at the University of California, Los Angeles. She is the author of Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England which was awarded the 1979 Berkshire book prize.

Product Details

• Paperback: 122 pages
• Publisher: NYU Press (August 1, 1984)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0814705839
• ISBN-13: 978-0814705834
• Product Dimensions: 8.7 x 5.7 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #655,973 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The triumph of democracy in 1800 explained, May 10, 2001

By	One Man's View (Lawrenceville, GA USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)

Appleby's book demonstrates that the ascendancy of the Jeffersonian Republicans in 1800 was in itself perhaps as revolutionary as the War for Independence. The classical republican ideas of rule by virtuous elites, adherence to tradition, deference to superiors, etc all subscribed to by the Federalists were attacked as being contradictory with the aims of the Revolution.

Appleby argues very persuasively that the rise of market relations was also very destabilizing to hierarchical social and economic relations. Throughout the 18th century the idea that an economic system in which individuals acted in their own self-interest would yield a result most beneficial to the greater public gained widespread hearings. In the Republican view such a system required property-owning men free from such restraints as tariffs, excise taxes, and any other market interferences which was contrary to the mercantilist ideas of the Federalists.

The French Revolution was a catalyst in the formation of Republican political societies in the 1790s where Federalist policies were roundly attacked. Even the successful prosecution of several Republican newspaper editors under the Federalist-backed Sedition Act of 1798 could not stem the attacks on Federalist ideas of privilege and elite control. The author contends that the rise of the Republicans was nothing less than the triumph of an idea of the essential equality of all men.

The commercial enterprise in which most colonials were engaged was the production of foodstuffs for the European market. Other enterprises arose to support this increased production by farmers. This very short book ends with the election of 1800 before the rise of industrialism and such distinctions as employer versus employee. A concluding chapter would have been most welcome that addressed the Republican response to a more complex economic world. I did enjoy the book but I do believe that not examinig its ideas in the context of the 19th century is a shortcoming.

5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Important But Flawed, September 12, 1999

By	William J. Murphy (St. Louis, MO) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Although this book is seriously burdened with deep mistakes and mischaracterizations, it is very important for its fundamental analysis of the Jeffersonian Republicans. In sharp contradiction to the works of "Civic Humanist" republican revisionists such as J.G.A. Pocock and Lance Banning, Appleby portrays the Republicans as Lockean liberals who support natural rights and flourishing commerce. Although she mistakenly attributes these ideas solely to Locke, she is right on the mark. The thrust of this argument comes at the tail end of the work, and much of what precedes it is not worth your time. Despite the fact that she rebuts one application of the falacious Pocockian "republcan" paradigm, she does not have the background to realize that quite it is the theory itself that needs to be disregarded, not simply its applications. For instance, she accepts Pocock's absurd assertion that John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon were "classical republicans," revealing that she obviously did not examine their actual works, as they are loaded with very Lockean concepts of natural rights and individualism. In addition, she also accepts the silly idea that the civic humanist tradition prevailed in America until well into the Revolution itself. To contradict this view, it is only necessary to read the works of Bernard Bailyn, which she cites, but appears not to have read in their entirety. Lastly, she delves rather deeply into the evolution of English society and economic thought, something which might seem odd if not for her previous work on the subject. Althought much of this is interesting, she ends up setting forth a narrative that presses the social and economic influences of the age farther than is warranted. Nevertheless, this work is one of the sole pieces that can be found with an accurate and reliable account of what the Jeffersonians really stood for. Hopefully it will open the way for more work on this sadly abused subject.

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An Attempt to Explain the Origins of American Capitalism, April 28, 2000

By	Dennis R. Hidalgo "Working for a Better World" (Garden City, NY) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Jeffersonian democratic faith was sabotaged by the Second Great Awakening and by an unparallel industrial growth: the Awakening cut dry the secular faith in human order and the industrial growth further divided workers from employers. This is what Joyce Appleby nostalgically perceived that happened after the glorious victory of American new Republicanism powerfully emerged in 1800. Her attempt to jointly explain the economic and ideological transformation experienced in the U. S. at the turn of the century have the tendency to present the two opposing political orientations as highly cohesive in themselves. In 1790s the Federalists defended the traditional concept of society of distrust in the human being in which laws are to maintain a certain social order and in which virtue was the quality of unselfish concern for community. The Jeffersonians, in the other hand, promoted the idea of limiting government and engendering egalitarian goals. One of Appleby's main contributions is the idea that the Jeffersonians were open to economic development. Indeed, economic development and political democracy complemented and reinforced each other.

Appleby's assertion rejects traditional American history. Advanced economic development has usually been portrayed as encouraged by the elitist Federalist Party for the benefit of a small socio-economic elite. The democratic Jeffersonian Republicans, on the other hand, have traditionally been identified as agrarians and as inheritors of an English country tradition. It is against this backdrop of historiography that Appleby's works makes more sense and appears to contribute. To make her point forcibly understood, Appleby make it clear that Englishmen did not "travel lightly" when they left their English ports toward America. They carried with them the ideas of a conservative society. The ideas that motivated colonial leaders were ancient ones going back to classical texts of politics. Classical theory emphasized the fragility of society; that society was composed by the talented few and the ordinary many. Appleby asserts that there were indications of strong Europeanization: to lose one's access to property at a time of rising land prices and the consequently breach among classes. And it was not until their idea of being an Englishman differed from the one held in Britain than Americans were forced to defined theirs separately. Their idea of an unselfish virtuous man evolved into the concept of self-interest benefiting society by the natural balance of collective interest. The advanced ideas of free trade that would provide the foundation for American capitalism were at the base of this Jeffersonian utopia too. Undoubtedly, Appleby's book reflects a movement against the fascination of modern liberals for the civic unselfishness of Classical Republicans.

Despite Appleby's well-organized lines of arguments, even the non-expert may notice some inconsistencies. First, the reader may be struck by the ideological (and emotional) unity Federalist had in 1790s, as presented by Appleby. How could a politicized group of leaders felt completely pessimistic about the future of their new nation at once? My understanding of James Madison's attitude toward the future was not a bright one. He believed that excess of population would lead to large numbers of poor landless, and this does not seem to compliment Appleby's Jeffersonian positivism. Secondly, even Jeffersonian positivism was not monolithic since John Taylor of Caroline was fearful of the minority self-interests. Thirdly, Jeffersonian strong opposition against the national bank and to the growth of national economy is not convincingly reconciled with their acceptance of national capitalism in Appleby's book.