Jacksonian Aristocracy: Class and Democracy in New York, 1830-1860 (review)

BOOK REVIEWS89 whereas whites thought in terms of property relationships, will arouse speculation . Strong though this book is, it has some weaknesses, which the autiior himself knows. General readers will perceive the danger in his ideas on government and the success of Cape Fear Republicanism; such notions can justify any regime which survives. Scholars of North Carolina reconstruction who know the military, Freedmen's Bureau, and civil court records, who have worked through the Governors' Papers, and who have read the dissertations and writings of Otto Olsen, Horace Raper, Richard Zuber, and this reviewer will know how much Professor Evans needs to leam and how much his judgments on the military, the Conservatives, and the Republicans need revision. They will desire a more critical bibliography. They will, however, appreciate the careful proofreading, the well-constructed index, the valuable economic appendices, and the accurate footnotes, recorded at the bottom of each page. They will also confidently expect some solid work in the future from Professor Evans. Kenneth E. St. Clair Tarkio College Jacksonian Aristocracy: Class and Democracy in New York, 1830-1860. By Douglas T. Miller. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967. Pp. xi, 228. $6.00.) In the early nineteenth century Americans were consciously, almost aggressively , equalitarian. Even their class-consciousness was equalitarian. Classes were regarded merely as the rungs on the ladder to success, existing only to measure one's initiative and industry. Though no one was guaranteed success, all were guaranteed the chance to succeed. In a society of small farmers, small merchants, and artisans, committed to constitutional democracy and blessed with economic abundance, that kind of equality was sufficient. The citizens of New York state shared this ideology and social structure until the 1830's, when "the revolutions in industry and transportation radically altered the relatively homogenous middle-class society of the early nineteenth century." The accumulation of "great wealth" gave rise to "a new plutocratic aristocracy clearly set off from the masses." Industrialization and immigration "greatly increased the size of the laboring class while reducing the workers' social mobility and general position." By 1860 the stage was well set for the class conflicts of the century's later decades. So runs the central thesis of Professor Miller's well organized, clearly written essay. Miller recounts how transportation improvements and mass production industries undermined the independence of the skilled craftsman and forced him to seek employment as an unskilled or semiskilled factory hand. In the 1840's and 1850's economic slumps and the influx of low-wage Irish immigrants created a labor surplus, driving wages downward and forcing the workingman into tenement-house districts where 90CIVIL WAR HISTORY greedy landlords ground him further into poverty and degradation. By 1850 the existence in New York of a permanent working class was so well recognized that trade unions were foresaking programs of radical social reform for the tactics of "pure and simple unionism." While the workers were changing in status and outlook, their employers were busily outfitting themselves with the trappings of a "new aristocracy." Shoving aside the standards of birth and culture that had identified the genteel Knickerbocker elite, the new aristocrats were creating an upper class noted for "palatial mansions, lavish furnishings, collections of European art, regal equipages, real or feigned titles, costly parties, and various other forms of display . . . ." The dull plutocracy was on the march. No one can quarrel with this description. Miller has shown conclusively that plutocrat and proletarian emerged in New York's social order well before the Civil War. Miller's work, however, has its flaws. He seems unsure of the general significance of his findings. "What is questioned, however," he states in his preface, "is the assumption that throughout this period democracy meant social and economic equality as well as equal political rights." By declaring that "New York is both representative and prophetic" of the changes in American society, he appears to challenge assumptions about the social structure of Jacksonian America. By the end of the book, however, he offers the milder estimate that "within a decade after Jackson retired from the political scene, this democratic faith stood distinctly challenged." This latter statement, by far the sounder, does not challenge...