Governed by a Spirit of Opposition: The Origins of American Political Practice in Colonial Philadelphia by Jessica Choppin Roney (review)

Political historians have long observed that American civil society is animated by robust citizen participation in voluntary associations. Yet scholars have typically begun their discussions of this phenomenon after the American Revolution. Jessica Choppin Roney offers the first overarching study of the activities and evolution of voluntary societies in colonial Philadelphia. Challenging the assumption that the existence of a vibrant voluntary civic culture signals an equally robust democracy, she argues instead that even as volunteerism in Philadelphia facilitated participation for some, it also produced what she considers are undemocratic results, particularly when groups with narrow interests usurped control of public matters without accountability and pursued ends contrary to the public’s will.

Philadelphia’s particular political, geographic, and religious circumstances, argues Roney, caused its denizens to create and use voluntary organizations in unique ways. She provides a deft and creative analogy: There was a “gaping hole” in the city’s political infrastructure “not unlike the one in the city ‘center,’” which was on paper only (58). In the city’s early years, voluntary associations originated to fulfill civic needs that the government could not or would not meet, such as poor relief, education, and fire protection. In the midcentury, the government increasingly relied on voluntary societies to take on civic duties. Some groups, however, overstepped their bounds and interfered in matters most thought should be left to the government. At the Revolution, a voluntary organization—the Military Association—formed ostensibly to resist Britain ultimately overthrew the Pennsylvania government. Rather than unleashing civic participation after the Revolution, Roney suggests that the new state government’s promotion of a unitary civic culture not only stifled dissent, it dampened the once-flourishing atmosphere of voluntary associations.

As exciting as this study is, it would have benefited from precise discussion of the key concepts employed. For example, “democratic” is not synonymous with inclusive (6). Indeed, a particular problem of democracies is that they can create tyranny of the minority or majority, thus excluding portions of the population. The terms “political” and “civic” are conflated without explanation. The book’s title asserts that Philadelphia is the city where “American political practice” originated, but there is no explicit argument to this effect, nor could there be without extensive comparison with other communities and proof that they used Philadelphia’s organizations as models for their own. Philadelphia’s legacy—whether civic or political—to the rest of the country is thus unclear. The borrowed term “civic technology,” used to characterize the function of Philadelphia’s organizations, goes undefined and rings anachronistic. It also suggests a forthcoming discussion of the societies’ inner workings. It seems, then, a missed opportunity when Roney suggests, tantalizingly, that the voluntary societies “used organizational forms not common outside the Society of Friends” (78), but she says no more than that they “emphasized equalitarian and consensual governance rather than hierarchy. In this choice they reflected the influence of Quaker religion and institutions” (77).

Although not as strong conceptually as it could have been, this work is nonetheless essential reading for anyone wishing to understand colonial Philadelphia, as it brings to life in rich detail the concerns and practices of ordinary people. The impressive research base on which it sits and the questions it raises serve both as a model and an invitation for future scholars to undertake similar studies.