Crucible of American Democracy: The Struggle to Fuse Egalitarianism and Capitalism in Jeffersonian Pennsylvania

This book is a well-focused incursion into several ongoing debates in early American historiography. Anyone who has read academic history about that period in the last thirty years should be aware of the republicanism-liberalism debates as well as the arguments surrounding the development of capitalism in the early republic. Shankman's book focuses on Pennsylvania politics during the years of the Jefferson and Madison administrations as well as the decades immediately prior and after. Pennsylvania had the most advanced and diversified economy of any of the states. For that reason, Shankman believes that the arguments among the various factions of the Jeffersonian party ended up being of great consequence. Much of the rest of the country followed Pennsylvania's lead and the broad consensus that came out of Pennsylvania in regards to the meaning of democracy and the state's role in economic development became the national consensus for the first half of the nineteenth century. Shankman's first chapter is a superb exposition of the development of the opposition to Hamilton's economic policies and to Adam's assertion of national power in reaction to the Whiskey Rebellion and in the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. His exposition is concise and very even handed. On the state level, three strands of Jeffersonians emerged: the Quids, the Snyderites and the Philadelphia Democrats. Shankman delineates their differences and traces those to differences in their geographical origins and social status. As long as they were a party of opposition these three variants were able to work together. With the election of Jefferson in 1800 their differences fractured their alliance. This is the meaning of Shankman's title. The "crucible of conflict" is practically a mantra throughout this book. The idea is that the political debates and electoral conflicts in Pennsylvania drove the Jeffersonian's thought in directions it would not otherwise have gone. In the end, they had to either give up some of their cherished ideals or be brushed aside in state politics as irrelevant. For example, one of the basic assumptions of the thought of the time was the idea of "the people". There was this sense that there was a common interest that united the whole populace. If no one started out from a position of too much relative wealth or political influence and if all were allowed to freely pursue their dreams then no major conflicts could develop among the people. If there was discord, it was due to distortions in the system, e.g., the judges manipulating the judicial system in defiance of the majority (the more things change...) The problem that the Jeffersonians had to face was "the creative endeavors of certain citizens were causing inequality to grow among citizens" (p.168). The eventual solution to the issue of equality and economic development was to allow everyone an "untrammeled right to pursue his self-interest" (p.165). This development is played out in Shankman's t

This is a great read. It is clear and concise, and offers a great look into the time period.