Afterward for Contours of Class in Early Republic:

How the development of capitalism and class distinctions lay the groundwork for Abolitionism

By Kristina Kelleher

In seminar on Monday we discussed the historiography questions raised in this week’s readings extensively. Therefore, I am going to focus my afterward on how the articles read and discussed this week can enhance our understanding of the development of capitalism and class during the early 19th century in American history. (To do this in the space constraints here, I will focus my analysis on the articles by Gienapp and Bushman.) I hope in doing this I will help us begin to think about how these developments lay the groundwork for the rise of abolitionism, our topic of discussion for next week’s seminar.

First, if we look to Gienapp’s article on Seller’s class based history of Jacksonian America, we can see that Gienapp makes a strong argument for how widely “capitalists attitudes were diffused in American society” (page 246) during this time period and were becoming more so. Gienapp argues that part of how the market system was able to triumph so quickly in comparison say to Britain was because there was “Probably no country were capitalist attitudes more firmly entrenched or widely distributed throughout the population before industrialization began than in the United States.” (page 248) As we discussed in class and Gienapp discusses on page 247, “resistance to the market and its values was generally weak” in Jacksonian America.” Gienapp points to much evidence of this widespread acceptance of the capitalist market driven mentalities throughout this period including, on page 247, the wide distribution of clocks. (For more on how capitalist notions of time even took root on Southern slave plantations during this time see Mastered By the Clock, Mark M. Smith) The entrenchment of these capitalist mentalities changed society drastically, particularly in the area of class development.

Gienapp’s article also brings our discussion back to evangelilcialism seen last week in Southern Cross, and in particular, Gienapp argues that the spread of evangelicialism “strengthened capitalist values among workers and farmers.” (pages 245-7) It is even a story of a Methodist minister, Peter Cartwright, on page 246, that Gienapp uses to bring out the development of the idea of “Domestic Respectability” during this time period. Particularly this idea focuses on the time’s movement towards gendering of American labor responsibilities that are tied so closely to the division occurring between the workplace and home (which Bushman discusses.) American women are painted of being particularly guilty of “indulging in this emphasis on fashion and status through consumption and appearance” (page 248) that the capitalist market system brings and that the development of the idea of respectability requires.

The development of the idea of “respectability” and its connection to the Gentility development is further discussed Bushman’s chapter on Culture and Power. The idea of “respectability” became necessary during this time of rapid growth in capitalism and therefore for global trading market economy based on trust and quick assessments of possible business partners. Bushman ties this development to the destruction of traditional communities at the time, when “people were cast adrift, status and identity lost” (page 404) (this search for belonging reminds me of how Hellenistic religions of salvation became popular in the Roman Empire.) And further explains the development of the necessity for a way to judge one’s “respectability” by stating that this is when: “established hierarchies dissolved, and strange faces replaced familiar ones. Strangers had no preconceived idea of each other’s places in the word, especially in the flux of the city. They could only judge by appearances and manners.” (page 404)

Another interesting issue we discussed but did not take as far as we could have in class from Bushman’s article is how this culture of gentility is transmitted and how it interacts with the “American democratic instinct.” In Bushman’s article we see many descriptions of how it is transmitted through culture, particularly written culture such as Griswold, in a top down fashion though less is discussed if there is something to discuss about cultural movement from the down upwards socially. I think it would be worthwhile to consider how Bushman’s and our own thoughts on that topic connect to Johnson’s ideas on Agency and how perhaps giving agency to groups that truly lack power is hurtful because it fails to appropriately respect and communicate the nature of the power dynamics at the time. What’s also often lacking from discussions around the development of this idea of respectability for the upper and middle classes (which Bushman actually does address) is how “by fixing standards of polite conduct for the elite, gentility marked humble people just as distinctly, with their contrasting disheveled clothes, rough houses and coarse manners.” (Page 420) In addition, how the creation of a middle and upper class that could occasionally claim to share some aspects of culture of the gentility ideal also redefine lower social classes. In light of our discussion next week, I think it would be particularly pertinent to look at how this develops alongside the shift during this time where the spectrum of positions of social coercion and “un-freedom” become fewer with clearer distinctions, such as between “free” and “slave” labor.

Print this post