Status and Kinship in the Higher Civil Service: Standards of Selection in the Administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson [Reprint 2013 ed.] 9780674280137, 9780674280120

Citation preview

STATUS IN

AND

THE

CIVIL

A

HIGHER SERVICE

PUBLICATION

FOR

THE

HISTORY

KINSHIP

STUDY OF

HARVARD

OF

THE

OF

LIBERTY

CENTER

THE IN

UNIVERSITY

AMERICA

S,

TATUS AND KINSHIP IN T H E HIGHER CIVIL SERVICE

STANDARDS

OF S E L E C T I O N

ADMINISTRATIONS

OF

IN

JOHN

THE ADAMS,

T H O M A S J E F F E R S O N , AND A N D R E W J A C K S O N

BY

SIDNEY

H A R V A R D

H.

A R Ο Ν S Ο Ν

U N I V E R S I T Y

C A M B R I D G E ,

P R E S S

M A S S A C H U S E T T S

1 9 6 4

©

COPYRIGHT 1 9 6 4 BY THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DISTRIBUTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, LONDON

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER

64-11126

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

T h e C e n t e r f o r t h e S t u d y of the History of L i b e r t y in America is aided b y a grant f r o m the Carnegie Corporation of N e w York.

TO

SELMA,

MY

WIFE

F O R E W O R D

_ Z i Μ Ο Ν G the problems that perplexed the founders ^ ^ of the Republic was that of the character of an appropriate bureaucracy. The abstract criteria derived from their fundamental conceptions of the nature of government stood in sharp contrast to the practical realities they had inherited; and the clash between the two created continuing difficulties well into the nineteenth century. Revolutionary theory frowned upon the placemen who filled the offices of the European capitals. Since government derived from the consent of the governed, all powers were to be held temporarily and in trust and were to be exercised on behalf of the people. "We may define a republic," The Federalist pointed out, as "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." Tenures were therefore to be limited and rotation in office was a positive good. The unpleasant experience with the representatives of the Empire during the Revolution strengthened that view of office.* Yet the only practical precedents available to Americans in the formative decades of the Republic were those derived from colonial experience, in which office had often been regarded as a form of property and as an instrument of political influence. While the actual sale of places was uncommon, families and cliques had commonly held them as possessions in which they had an interest. β Oscar and Mary Handlin, The Dimensions of Liberty Mass., 1961), 35.

( Cambridge,

v i i

FOREWORD

The discrepancy between abstract theory and inherited practice offered Presidents an opportunity to shape their own ideas of the nature of a bureaucracy. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson each held a distinct conception of what republican officeholding should be. Their views were clearly expressed and familiar both to contemporaries and historians. More important, and more difficult to discern, is the extent to which differences in theory were reflected in differences in practice. The federal bureaucracy, even in the early years of the Republic, was large and comprehended many different types of individuals. To investigate the relationship of ideology and appointments, however, it was possible to focus upon the actual composition of a smaller group of elite officeholders during the three administrations. Concentration upon the positions of greatest power and influence has permitted Dr. Aronson to trace the relative weight of various elements recruited into the government service. His careful and perceptive study brings together a large amount of material in a skillful manner to illuminate the whole problem. Oscar Handlin

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

_ J \ i γ debts are many and acknowledgment can only ν (J Vs begin to write them off. Robert A. Feldmesser pointed out the importance of doing a study of early American political elites, read an early draft of the manuscript, and had countless insights about interpretation and organization. My intellectual debt to him goes well beyond this book. Sigmund Diamond was always willing to help work out difficulties dealing with method and sources that appeared in every stage of the research; his reading of several drafts is, I hope, reflected in the final product. I am grateful to S. M. Miller, William J. Goode, and Morris Zelditch, Jr., for the suggestions which followed their reading of the manuscript, and for other helpful suggestions from my colleagues at Brooklyn College, especially David W. McKinney, Jr., and Hans L. Trefousse. Dean Walter Mais helped to relieve me of some of my teaching duties and made typing money available. The Center for the Study of the History of Liberty in America made it possible for all my energies to be put to the work of completing the study and supplied me with notable colleagues. I am grateful to Oscar Handlin, who was always available to talk about my work and who edited the manuscript; his early enthusiasm for my topic helped to sustain me during the years of research. P. M. G. Harris read the final draft arid had much good advice. Paul Murphy and Laurence Towner were wise and willing consultants. A work that seeks biographical information about people who lived long ago depends on the willingness of a great many people — librarians, archivists, registrars, county clerks, descendants i χ

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS — to locate the necessary information. In this connection Jackson T. Main was generous enough to make available his data on the wealth of Virginians in the eighteenth century. Guy Weatherly of the Hall of Records, Annapolis; John D. Kilbourne of the Maryland Historical Society; James Servies of William and Mary College; Doris E. Cook of the Connecticut Archives; Francis L. Berkeley of the University of Virginia; James W. Patton of the Southern Historical Collection, and many others were kind and interested enough to supply material. It was a delight to work at the New York Public Library, Widener Library, and the National Archives. I was fortunate to have three excellent, intelligent, and grammatical typists — Shirley Lehrman, Janice Shapiro, and Marguerite Dodson. Finally, I am grateful to my wife, Selma — to whom this book is dedicated — for her many contributions. Much of her assistance was in terms of typing, drawing charts, proofreading, and many of the chores involved in the writing of a book. But I am especially indebted to her for her willingness to assume many of my familial responsibilities so that I could work undisturbed. S. H. A.

χ

C O N T E N T S

INTRODUCTION

1

I

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

II

THE

SOCIAL-CLASS

COMPOSITION

PRESIDENTIAL HISTORICAL

3 OF

APPOINTMENTS:

SURVEY

AND

METHOD-

OLOGY III IV V

23

AMERICAN SOCIAL

1750-1830

SOCIETY,

ORIGINS

SOCIAL-CLASS

OF

ELITE

POSITIONS

35

MEMBERS OF

MEMBERS

84

VI

THE

EDUCATION

VII

THE

ROLE

POSITION VIII

THE

56

ELITE

OF

ELITE

KINSHIP

OF

ORIGINS

OF THE

OF

THE

COM140

A TRADITION

158

APPENDIX

A:

SCHEDULE

B:

LIST

OF

INFORMATION

ELITE

APPENDIX

C:

ELITE

APPENDIX

D:

EDUCATION

APPENDIX

E:

KINSHIP

APPENDIX

F:

STATISTICAL

OFFICES

APPOINTMENTS OF

ELITE

203 204 205

MEM-

BERS THE

120

ELITES

APPENDIX

OF

IN

MEMBERS

214 RELATIONSHIPS

IN

ELITES

222 NOTE

237

NOTES

241

INDEX

269

χ i

T A B L E S

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

The elites of Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson Estimated occupational distributions, 1750-1775 and 1805 Estimated occupational distribution in 1830 Primary occupations of fathers of elite members Primary occupations of fathers by ranking of occupation Occupations held by fathers prior to assumption of primary occupations Primary and earlier occupations of fathers Other occupations of fathers held simultaneously with primary occupations Social origins of elite members Class I origins by type of status Political positions held by fathers of elite members Local offices held by fathers of elite members Provincial and state offices filled by fathers of elite members Continental and federal offices held by fathers of elite members Colleges attended by fathers of elite members Primary occupations of elite members Primary occupations of elite members by ranking of occupation Other occupations of elite members Financial and promotional activities of elite members Social-class positions of elite members Participation of elite members in voluntary associations Previous political experience of elite members Local offices held by elite members Provincial and state offices held by elite members Federal offices held by elite members Military experience of elite members Generation of origin of elite members Ethnic origins of elite members Geographic origins of elite members χ i i

32 46 54 58 61 64 64 66 68 75 77 77 78 79 80 86 89 93 96 99 100 104 106 106 107 108 111 113 115

TABLES

30. Occupation, social-class position, and education of westerners 31. Educational achievements of elite members 32. Colleges attended by elite members 33. Occupational and social origins of college men 34. Social origins of elite members by type of college attended 35. Professional and apprenticeship training of elite members 36. Elite members related to persons of same and/or previous elites 37. Types of family relationships 38. Social-status characteristics of cabinet members 39. Social-status characteristics of ministers to foreign countries 40. Social-status characteristics of judges 41. Social-status characteristics of territorial officers 42. Social-status characteristics of subdepartment heads 43. Social-status characteristics of elite members by level of position 44. Social-status characteristics of elite members appointed to more than one position 45. Social-status characteristics of holdovers from previous elites 46. Social-status characteristics of original appointees 47. Social-class origins and social-class positions of elites 48. Summary of distributions of social-status characteristics A. Distribution of rank orders on indicators of high status B. Proximity among elites C. Percentage differences among elites on indicators of high status

116 124 130 133 134 136 142 145 165 168 171 173 176 180 184 187 189 191 195 238 239 239

CHARTS

1. 2. 3. 4.

Family relationships within Adams' elite Family relationships within Jefferson's elite Family relationships within Jackson's elite Family relationships between members of Adams' and Washington's elites 5. Family relationships between members of Jefferson's elite and members of previous elites 6. Family relationships between members of Jackson's elite and members of previous elites

149 151 152 153 154 155

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Q U A L I T Y of opportunity for political office was w a primary theme in the early national period of United States history. The goal was important not only because democracy implied widespread participation in government but also because political power was the key to many other values in American life. The colonial tradition of upper-class domination of politics, however, presented a major obstacle to the realization of equality; and the advantages of superior social position in the competition for office remained formidable. Because the idea of free schools for all was not yet accepted, only men of wealth could afford the education and style of life which developed the necessary skills. Legal restrictions on the right to vote and to hold office based on property were superfluous: the middle and lower classes lacked the confidence and ability to seek places. In addition, the rich were more likely to see the relation between the policies of the state and their own fortunes and were eager to influence policy by dominating the government. By contrast the middle classes and the poor, preoccupied with earning a living, were not as likely to perceive the consequences of political action. Social stratification contributed to inequality in still other ways. The solidarity of the family maintained by in-group marriage organized the upper-class community along kinship lines. Filling office with neighbors not only ensured the protection of group interests but also provided employment for kinsmen. The social distance between those in power and the masses of people

ι

INTRODUCTION

made it difficult for talented members of the lower classes to attract attention. Furthermore, colonial tradition had developed a legitimizing norm that made political leadership an obligation of high status. John Adams subscribed to that view. Yet during his presidency the relation between wealth and political power drew criticism and the hope was expressed that office could be allotted on some other basis. Jeffersonian Democrats hoped to fill government posts with men of merit no matter what their origins. Later, when Jeffersonian officeholders seemed not much different socially from Federalists, new grievances were voiced. Jacksonian Democracy recognized that talent, like wealth, was not unrelated to social origins and argued that common men of average intelligence were suitable for political leadership. The process by which ideas fashioned new social structures has rarely been described by history or by the other social sciences. Ideas did not automatically create change. The expression of ideologies promising equality was not enough to break the connections between social class and political power. A study of the relation between the ideas of Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson concerning officeholding and the social composition of their officeholders will not only measure the degree to which their goals were realized but may also provide some clues to the capacity of ideological egalitarianism to end the relation between high status and office.

2

C H A P T E R

THE

I

A P P O I N T M E N T

I D E O L O G I E S

t o η Ν Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson %_β were each associated with a system of ideas about the role of social-class position in political appointments. These "appointment ideologies" implicitly imposed on each President certain imperatives that would influence the social backgrounds of his appointees, if his ideology were the dominant influence in his selection of officeholders. In the case of John Adams, the critical group of ideas were those of the period between 1783 and 1796, which included a defense of the aristoi. It was true that his earlier, more radical views allowed him to support annual elections and rotation of office, just as later he would come to the defense of the monarchic element in government. But the ideas of his middle period were those he took with him to the White House; and, in any case, they were the most congenial to him in his development as the leading political theorist of his generation.1 The dominant emphasis in John Adams' thought between independence and his election was upon upper-class rule. He wanted talent to be the only criterion for appointment.2 But he defined talent primarily in terms of a college education and he realized that education was the privilege of those who could afford it. This meant in the nature of the case that the government must be run by the rich and wellborn. Nor was there any reason for it to be otherwise. At first glance, though, Adams appeared to yield to the democratic trends of his times. He said he wanted offices filled by

3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

a natural aristocracy of gentlemen whose claim to political preferment was based on talent developed by a liberal education. "There is a voice within us," Adams once wrote, "which seems to intimate that real merit should govern the world, and that men ought to be respected only in proportion to their talents, virtues, and services."3 The natural aristocracy — "the brightest ornament and glory of the nation" — did not correspond to the aristocracy of wealth and family which existed in all Western societies. Adams specifically ruled out wealth as the determining factor in competence. Membership in the natural aristocracy was open to all who have received "an ordinary degree of erudition in liberal arts and science," in effect, a college education.4 At another time, Adams wrote that ability — which he equated with a liberal education — could be found among the masses and that, furthermore, it was the President's job to find and use lower-class men of merit "so that the road to preferment is open to the common people." 5 But such excursions were survivals of Adams' earlier, more radical period. For when he went on to elaborate upon the nature of the natural aristocracy and the distribution of talent in society he felt that instances of merit among the common people were rare, and that learning and ability were the exclusive possessions of the rich and "wellborn," a term which he used interchangeably with "natural aristocracy" and "gentlemen." For one thing, the children of illustrious families had greater advantages of education and more opportunity to be acquainted with public figures and major issues than the children of middle- and lower-class families.® And despite previous statements about the random distribution of talent in any society, Adams repeatedly said that education, wealth, and family were found together; thus "The gentlemen will ordinarily, notwithstanding some exceptions to the rule, be the richer, and born of more noted families."7 The fact that only the rich had the 4

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

leisure — as well as the money — to pursue learning also contributed to this upper-class monopoly of education.8 The chance that a gentleman would come from the lower classes was remote because those of lowly origins lacked the opportunity for education as well as the biological and social inheritance necessary for the development of a natural aristocrat. Conceding the possibility that "wise men beget fools, and honest men knaves," Adams felt that instances of the aristocratic father followed by a common son were infrequent. For a major advantage of the rich over the poor lay in the nature of the parental model, since the informal classroom of the family was as necessary as the university in producing talent. How could the poor boy learn to be a gentleman without the influence of example? Little wonder, Adams said, that "in all countries it has been observed that vices as well as virtues very often run down in families from age to age." 9 Nor was it very likely that the social system would widen the opportunities for learning. While John Adams favored the wider dissemination of education, he thought it unlikely that knowledge could be equally divided.10 The wealthy would.always have easy access to education and through it would monopolize the ranks of the natural aristocracy; in effect, this made the boundaries of the rich and wellborn coterminous with those of the natural aristocracy. Given this lack of learning, Adams' argument continued, the ability of the lower-class people was limited. "The proposition that they [the people] are the best keepers of their own liberties, is not true. They are the worst conceivable; they are no keepers at all. They can neither act, judge, think, or will." 11 Adams' scheme of things eliminated the political role of the common people. The fact that judges "should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention" barred the people from the

5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

12

judiciary. Furthermore, Adams excluded the rank and file from the executive branch of the government. He did assign the masses a major role in legislation on grounds that 'liberty in the legislature is more secure in the people's than in any other hands, because they are most concerned in it.' " 1 3 But even participation at this level was limited to selecting legislators from the ranks of gentlemen. Other important elements in the appointment ideology of John Adams had aristocratic tendencies. Once having placed gentlemen in office he preferred not to disturb their tenure. He was not in sympathy with the ideas of short terms of office and rotation which had gained currency during the Revolution.14 Indeed, Adams was of the opinion that if lifetime tenure of office was not sufficient, then offices should be made hereditary. 15 By way of justification, according to Charles E. Merriam, he contended that "the system of hereditary tenure has the sanction of history." 16 To him, the concept of rotation in office — the opposite of the hereditary principle — was pernicious. 17 Lifetime tenure and the direct inheritance of office were the very essence of aristocratic institutions.18 Another element in John Adams' appointment ideology did not necessarily favor the upper class but would not, on the other hand, work in the direction of the democratization of his elite. John Adams felt that appointments should be given only to persons who subscribed to his own political views. His insistence on regularity sprang from the party politics of the 1790's, a period of bitter partisanship. 19 Such was the political climate that President Washington felt constrained to devote a major portion of his Farewell Address to warnings against factionalism.20 By the time of Adams' administration many Federalists looked upon Republicans not as a loyal opposition but as a mob of subversives requiring investigation. There was an inclination on the part of Federalists to substitute generously the term "Jacobin" for "Republican." 21 Adams, suffering from intense 6

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

internal party strife, felt that Washington could have spared him further anguish by being less careless about party affiliations.22 "Washington," Adams wrote, "appointed a multitude of democrats and jacobins of the deepest die. I have been more cautious in this respect." 23 While it is true that Adams won the election of 1796 with strong support from agricultural areas, the Federalist party contained a disproportionate share of rich merchants. 24 Preference for Federalists, then, may have increased the chances of the wealthy in getting an appointment to Adams' elite. In his insistence on men of learning, his awareness that learning was primarily the prerogative of money and property, his denial that the common people had the ability to fill government office at any level, his advocacy of lifetime tenure and the inheritance of office, John Adams' appointment ideology was primarily aristocratic in nature. Adams did place such an emphasis on liberal education, however, that if he had found a man of learning who had overcome the obstacles to education that lower-class membership imposed, he would have appointed him. In the main, however, given the existing class differences in access to education, the overwhelming majority of his appointments to elite positions were likely to come from the upper strata of society. Jefferson's appointment ideology, a system of equality of opportunity in its ideal form, was an integral part of his broader conception of democracy and was intertwined with the pattern of education he proposed. Jefferson knew that in the struggle for positions of power in government the personal characteristics which drew the attention of the appointing officer were largely the consequences of educational advantages that come from being raised in a family of high status. At the same time, he agreed with Plato that a talented father could have an untalented son, but felt nevertheless that social stratification permitted the 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

son to follow in his father's footsteps straight into government office. To correct this tendency one could not simply overlook the claims of office-seekers from among the upper class, because the masses of people, uneducated as they were, provided no better source of officers. What was required was a radical overhauling of the entire social system, and especially its educational institutions. Jefferson's over-all purpose was to promote the common good by establishing a government run by the best minds. In order to achieve this end it was necessary to break the hold of the "artificial aristocracy" of wealth and birth and to replace it with a "natural aristocracy" of "virtue and talents." It was necessary, Jefferson wrote, to end government control by the rich and wellborn because "the artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy." 25 Jefferson once scornfully alluded to members of the aristocracy as "ciphers." 26 At another time he said that permitting the nation to be governed by the artificial rather than the natural aristocracy was equivalent to leaving the government in the hands of the weak or the wicked.27 On the other hand, Jefferson did not propose to turn the administration of the government over to the people. The tasks to be performed by government officials were well beyond the limited capabilities of the mass of Americans. Governmental operations were extremely complex and could not be entrusted to the rank and file.28 Jefferson agreed with Adams that the people — "by which is meant the mass of individuals composing society" — were "unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level." 29 This ruled out the possibility that they could serve as judges, legislators, or executive officers. They were, however, "competent judges of human character" and could choose which Americans were suited for office.30 Their function therefore was not to participate di8

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

rectly in government — except as jurors — but rather to select the wisest, most honest, and best qualified citizens to administer the country; in Jefferson's words, "to separate the natural aristocracy from pseudo aristoi . . . the wheat from the chaff." 81 Jefferson thus eliminated both the elite of wealth and family and the rank and file as sources of government leaders. The intricate machinery of government could be entrusted only to the natural aristocracy, an educated elite. The reasons offered by Jefferson to the Virginia legislature for revising the organization of the College of William and Mary showed the importance he attached to their training: "It becomes the peculiar duty of the Legislature at this time to aid and improve that seminary, in which those who are to be the future guardians of the rights and liberties of their country may be endowed with science and virtue, to watch and preserve the sacred deposit." 32 But Jefferson was aware that insistence on education as the criterion for appointment to office would not break the upperclass monopoly of office until something was done to break the upper-class monopoly of education. To this end he favored equality of opportunity. Lack of talent rather than of money or status would be the only barrier to entrance into the ranks of the natural aristocracy. His Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge advocated a system of education at three levels. The first consisted of elementary schools, the "hundred" schools, open to "all the free children, male and female," who would attend for three years at public expense. The second, the grammar school, would be set up in districts that included several counties. Their student body would be drawn from the elementary schools, one boy from each school "of the best aiid most promising genius and disposition . . . whose parents are too poor to give them farther education." 33 The state would support only the most able young people "raked from the rubbish annually" and further 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

exposed to processes of selection. A final survivor of the competition would be sent annually to the College of William and Mary at the expense of the Commonwealth of Virginia.34 This system would discover the natural aristocracy. Thus the major democratic element in Jefferson's appointment ideology was its desire to use equality of opportunity as a means for entrance into the educated elite. And the primary purpose which this carefully selected natural aristocracy was to serve was the operation of the government of the United States. "It becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance." 35 Thus Jeffersonian egalitarianism was inseparably linked to his system for selecting and training the elite of virtue and talent. Educational institutions would overcome the privileges of high status, for Jefferson felt that native ability was "sown as liberally among the poor as the rich" but would perish if not "sought and cultivated." 36 The schools, drawing students "from every condition of life," were to be put to the work of producing a genuine aristocracy in order to overcome the "competition of wealth and birth for public trusts." 37 Jefferson's college was not a democratic institution, but the "finishing school of the future legislators and experts in the science of government." 38 But, as Jefferson sadly admitted to John Adams, no such system as he had proposed was adopted nor, perhaps, has it ever been. And even though formal education in Virginia and elsewhere during his time was largely a private matter, with its benefits almost wholly restricted to the gentry, Jefferson's appointment ideology never made allowances for differences in i o

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

opportunity and never wavered in its insistence that higher education be the criterion for appointment. 39 Furthermore, Jefferson's requirement of learning as a prerequisite to office applied to every position within the President's authority, the lesser as well as the higher ones. "My wish," wrote Jefferson at the beginning of his first administration, "is to collect in a mass round the administration all the abilities and respectability . . . To give [no government offices] to secondary characters." 40 In describing his selection of a surveyor for southern Tennessee, Jefferson wrote: "In point of science, in astronomy, geometry, and mathematics, he stands . . . second to no man in the United States." 41 Although the central theme of Jefferson's appointment ideology was equality of opportunity based on talent, the fact that he defined talent largely in terms of formal learning enfeebled its egalitarianism because of the existing class differences in education. Another egalitarian element — especially in view of his upperclass origin — was his opposition to the appointment of members of his own family to government office. To Jefferson, nepotism was odious on two scores: the public would never believe that a relative was appointed on grounds of merit alone, and it would be affronted at the disposal of office as family property. This meant that relatives of the President were not treated as well as strangers, but the public good required this sacrifice.42 Absolute consistency in a statesman was not to be expected, however. Elements of a distinctly aristocratic nature contrasted with the idea of equality of opportunity. Most important was Jefferson's tendency to stress family background, wealth, respectability — in short, social status — as the important criteria for appointment. These standards, of course, stood in direct opposition to the egalitarianism of the Jeffersonian appointment ideology. This inclination was supported by the emphasis on higher education. At all times and in all positions Jefferson ι ι

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

wanted experts. The fact that higher education was essentially the prerogative of the upper stratum of society would force Jefferson to turn to men of high status for his appointments. The following statement, with its emphasis on intelligence, learning, and high status, contained many of the elements of his appointment ideology. "I think I have selected a governor for Louisiana, as perfect in all points as we can expect. Sound judgment, standing in society, knowledge of the world, wealth, liberality, familiarity with the French language, and having a French wife." 43 In a letter to his political lieutenant, Albert Gallatin, concerning a candidate for office, Jefferson wrote: "His family has been among the most respectable on that shore for many generations."44 At another time he indicated that he intended to appoint men who had standing in the community and were recognized as gentlemen. "Not only competent talents," he wrote in 1801, "but respectability in the public estimation are to be considered." 45 Thus Jefferson's aversion to nepotism was limited to members of his own immediate family and not to those of men he appointed to office. The high status that came from distinguished lineage extended not only to past but also to the present and future members of the family. Emphasis on such status was thus an aristocratic principle in Jefferson's appointment ideology. Nor was friendship with the Chief Executive regarded as a bar. Jefferson hesitated before appointing his friend Thomas Boiling Robertson as secretary for the Orleans Territory, not because of their close friendship, but because he supposed that the salary of two thousand dollars was "not more than he makes by his profession." 46 When Jefferson was Secretary of State he wished with all his soul that he could have obliged his many friends who asked him for jobs and whom he turned down because of a shortage of vacancies.47 Doing a favor for a friend was second nature to Jefferson.48 He was a member of the landed gentry of Virginia, as were his friends. Such preferences, 1 2

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

therefore, were still another force counteracting the egalitarian elements in his appointment ideology. Jefferson, like his predecessor, John Adams, felt that only members of his own party should receive offices. His unwillingness to appoint Federalists was the obverse of Adams' attitude toward Republicans. Jefferson resisted pressure from members of his party to take on some Federalists as a conciliatory measure. "I have given," he said, "and will give only to republicans, under existing circumstances."49 But these restrictions were temporary and would stop once a more equitable distribution of places had been effected. Then, Jefferson proposed to return "with joy to that state of things when the only question concerning a candidate shall be, Is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the constitution?" 50 The preference for Republicans may have increased the representation in government of the common people. Since Jefferson was the champion of the smaller farmers and the plain people in general it is likely that more of them were Republicans than Federalists. The partisan appointment policy therefore may have improved indirectly the chances that a middle- or lowerclass person could climb into the elite.51 Jefferson's appointment ideology thus contained an admixture of egalitarian and aristocratic elements, but they were arranged in such a way that the latter would theoretically exert more influence on the actual appointments than the former, even though that was not Jefferson's stated purpose. This unintended consequence was the result of the fact that Jefferson, like Adams, placed so much importance on formal education that he was forced also to stress lineage, high status, and wealth, the kinds of social-class characteristics which were highly correlated with learning during this period. To the extent that his ideas about appointments had any effect on actual selections, Jefferson was forced to turn to the upper classes to find the men of erudition whom his ideology stressed. Also related to the question of ι 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

whom to appoint were Jefferson's ideas on the complexities involved in the performance of all jobs under the authority of the President. He was reluctant to turn over any positions to "secondary characters." That precluded any kind of apprenticeship analogous to his system of selection in education through which a man might work his way up through the bureaucracy. His appointment ideology did not do what it set out to do, namely, break the monopoly of men of wealth on government office. The traveler of James Fenimore Cooper's Notions of Americans characterized the Jacksonian attitude on the relation between social-class position and office-holding by calling attention to the difficulties the rich encountered in trying to enter official ranks. "The people," the traveler noted, "are left as much as possible to be agents of their own prosperity." 52 Jackson himself would have been pleased with this characterization except for one fact: he denied discrimination against any single group or class and insisted that equality of opportunity was his goal in filling jobs and that merit was the most important criterion for appointment. In contrast to Jefferson and Adams, however, Jackson defined merit in terms not of qualities monopolized by the rich and wellborn but rather of such as were distributed among all the strata of society: "The road to office and preferment being accessible alike to the rich and poor, the farmer and printer, honesty, probity and capability constituting the sole and exclusive test, will I am persuaded, have the happiest tendency to preserve unimpaired, freedom of political action; change it and let it be known that any class or portion of citizens are and ought to be proscribed and discontent and dissatisfaction will be engendered." 53 Jackson gave the theme of equality of opportunity additional emphasis when he said that as far as he was concerned, all applicants for government positions would receive "an impartial hearing." 54 Jackson's ideology gave some weight to merit; "honesty, ι 4

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

probity and capability" were "the sole and exclusive test" for appointment to office. When William C. Rives was suggested as minister to England, Jackson wanted to know if he was competent. Once Jackson offered Van Buren the chance to appoint a United States attorney in Tennessee, but with the proviso that the man chosen be well qualified. 85 Commenting on a vacancy in the surveyor's office, Jackson expressed the hope that the recommendation of an applicant "be strong and go to his capa[bil]ity." 5e Furthermore, like Jefferson, Jackson insisted that the lesser as well as the higher offices be filled by men of ability. Lesser posts were given the same critical scrutiny as his cabinet selections.57 Other men of influence associated with the President showed a similar concern with competence as a standard for appointment. Martin Van Buren, one of Jackson's chief advisers on appointments, did not feel that it was important for officeholders to "shine in the composition of essays on abstract and abstruse subjects," but he did want them to be "practical, intelligent, and efficient men." 68 The point of view of Jackson and his followers stressed the talents required for the competent performance of jobs. At any rate, Jackson was "very much concerned with the abilities of those men he appointed to public office . . . repeatedly raising the question of the competency of proposed appointees." 59 Efficiency was considered, "though it was made of less importance than in previous administrations and was differently defined." 60 The crucial question therefore is whether merit was defined so as to eliminate the claims to office of common men, as had been the case with Jefferson and Adams. Jackson offered a clue to the answer when he made it clear that, in the discharge of his trust, he would "fill the various offices at the disposal of the Executive with individuals uniting as far as possible the qualities of the head and heart, always recollecting that in a free government the demand for moral qualities should be made superior ι 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

61

to that of talents." Thus merit consisted of qualities of the head, or intelligence, and qualities of the heart, or honesty, integrity, loyalty, and patriotism, with these latter moral qualities more important than intellect. As to the distribution of these attributes among the various strata of society, at no time did Jackson state that the required intelligence was a function of formal education. Indeed, his ideology stood at the opposite pole from the Jeffersonian notion of a natural aristocracy of talent. Instead of a small elite of ability Jacksonianism postulated the equal competence of all.82 American society nurtured those very conditions which made every citizen capable of assuming the responsibilities of office, namely, widespread diffusion of education as well as the flow of communication, stimulated by the existence of a free press. Therefore, the traditional claim to power of the upper classes based on the sole possession of the requisite intelligence needed in the management of public affairs Jacksonians found "too absurd to be entitled to any other treatment than an honest, manly contempt." 63 Moral qualities, the other element of merit, were more likely to be found among the masses of Americans than among the members of the upper class. To Jackson the planter, the farmer, the mechanic, and the laborer were the "bone and sinew of the country." The American laboring classes were superior to their foreign counterparts by virtue of their "independent spirit, their love of liberty, their intelligence, and their high tone of moral character." 64 American farmers held "the first and most important occupation of man" and constituted "a hardy race of free citizens." 65 On the other hand, the "real people" as far as Jackson was concerned did not include men in promotional, financial, or commercial occupations.66 Consequently, in Jackson's appointment ideology insistence on merit as a qualification for office did not adversely affect equality of opportunity. If anything, the qualities comprised in ι 6

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

merit were so construed as to support Cooper's traveler, who was convinced that under Jacksonian Democracy "the rich find the road to high office very hard." 67 Jackson's ideas concerning the nature of the tasks of political office further supported his conceptions of the equal competence of all. Even if talent and virtue had not been widely diffused among the masses, Jackson still would not have had to withhold appointments from the rank and file because the adequate performance of the tasks of office did not require extraordinary ability. In his first message to Congress, Jackson pointed out that "the duties of all public offices are, or at least admit of being made so plain and simple, that men of intelligence may readily qualify themselves for their performance." 68 Any applicant could aspire to any office.69 Jackson believed, of course, that some official positions were of more consequence than others, and therefore called for more aptitude. Specifically, the judiciary, the cabinet, and the diplomatic corps were the most important and thus "required the best talents that the country could furnish." 70 But he implied only that men in these positions must have the required talents in greater intensity than those in lesser posts. The differentiation between the more important and less important jobs left uninfluenced the theme of equality of opportunity. Jackson simply requested that congressmen be eligible for appointment to these offices presumably because many legislators were men of known ability.71 Other elements in Jackson's appointment ideology also facilitated the fulfillment of equality of opportunity. He insisted that the aristocratic practice of direct inheritance of office be discontinued. Jackson objected to the attitude of the veteran civil servant that he had a "life estate" in his office, and, moreover, that "it ought to descend to his children and if no children then the next of kin." 72 Once Jackson received an application for office on behalf of a person whose father had earlier received a ι 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

position. The President sent the applicant away on grounds that his appointment "would have violated the republican rule we have adopted to take but one of a family at a time." 73 Under Jacksonian Democracy, as many different families would be represented in the government as there were offices to be filled. The aristocratic custom of direct inheritance of status and nepotism would be replaced by the widest possible participation of the people in government through rotation in office. Jackson's first message to Congress challenged the idea that lengthy service contributed to competence. "I can not but believe," he said, "that more is lost by long continuance of men in office than is generally tc be gained by their experience." Seniority gave the civil servant no vested right in office; nor was the government obliged to give job security to any officeholder. "Offices were not," he asserted, "established to give support to particular men at the public expense." Removal was not wrong, "since neither appointment to nor continuance in office, is a matter of right." At another time Jackson said, "It is rotation in office which will perpetuate our liberty." 74 Such favoritism as Jackson approved was not in itself egalitarian or aristocratic and neither increased nor decreased the chances of persons of lower status getting into office. Like Jefferson he did not feel that friendship with the Chief Executive disqualified a man from appointment. Jackson did not feel that the President should give preference to his friends, but at the same time he could find no well-founded objection to appointing some of them. "If my personal friends are qualified and patriotic," he asked, "why should I not be permitted to bestow a few offices on them?" 75 It is not clear by any means what the consequences for the social-class composition of his officeholders would have been had Jackson favored his friends. Early historians referred to Jackson as an ignorant general, an illiterate, a barbarian. 76 More recently it has been suggested that during his career Jackson underwent "bourbonization," which transl 8

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

formed him into an aristocrat. Jackson always considered himself to be and was accepted as a member of the upper class, and his style of life reflected this identification. In fact, he represented not the Southwest's "coonskin democrats" but its strange combination of pioneer and aristocrat.77 At any rate, given the wide variety of experiences in the many civilian and military enterprises in which Jackson participated, his friends were drawn from all strata. Favoritism was no advantage to the upper classes. For Jackson, as for Jefferson and Adams, party loyalty was a requirement for appointment. Such discrimination theoretically had the same effect on the class composition of his elite as in Jefferson's administration. Jacksonian Democracy had its greatest appeal for the common man on the farm and in the city. More plain people were Jackson Democrats than were members of the opposition parties. By limiting appointments to Democrats, then, Jackson may have improved the chances of the common man to get into federal office. 78 The central pattern of Jackson's appointment ideology was equality of opportunity based on a merit system, on an impartial hearing to all applicants, on the curbing of family influence by ending direct inheritance of office as well as nepotism, and on widespread participation by the people in government through rotation of office. Furthermore, these elements were interrelated with and supported by Jackson's conception that any man of average intelligence could perform the duties of any office. The effects of the Jeffersonian emphasis on a wider diffusion of all levels of education made possible the Jacksonian belief in the widespread distribution of talent in American society. Not until 1825 had the Commonwealth of Virginia concurred with Jefferson's proposal and authorized the establishment of the University of Virginia. How close to Jefferson's notions the new college was to be could be seen from the provisions that one promising student from each senatorial district should be sent

ι 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

free to the university and that the state would even pay the room and board bills of these scholarship students.79 In the rest of the United States the belief was beginning to spread that the average citizen was entitled to a chance for higher education. There was a mushrooming of schools of all descriptions in practically every state. President Tyler of Amherst — also founded in 1825 — referred to the new schools as "people's colleges."80 Their rate of growth was slightly greater than that of the population.81 But the Jacksonian ideology never held college education necessary for the performance of government jobs. People with common-school training or its equivalent could fill such positions. And free, tax-supported common schools were, except in the South, introduced throughout the country by the end of the Jackson period. Furthermore, the notion that the common people needed merely the elements of education was abandoned for the Jeffersonian ideal of equal educational opportunity.82 The development of adult-education facilities also had important consequences for the diffusion of leadership skills among the common people. In the 1820's "library companies" not only made books available to mechanics, artisans, and clerks, but also offered regular courses of study.83 The lyceum movement, a great educational force, started in 1826, and its debate forums offered excellent training ground for aspiring lawyers and politicians.84 Jacksonians also placed great stress on the role of the newspaper in educating and enlightening the people about the issues facing statesmen. Between 1800 and 1829 there was a rapid growth in the number of papers in the United States. At the beginning of Jefferson's first term there were approximately 242 newspapers of all kinds, with a circulation estimated to be around 200,000. By the start of Jackson's first term there were approximately 1,000, with an estimated circulation of at least 1,000,000. While the number of newspapers increased by about 2 o

THE

APPOINTMENT

IDEOLOGIES

four times and circulation almost five times, the population had gone up by only about two and a half times.85 Thus the beginning of Jackson's administration was characterized by a multitude of new institutions whose sole function was the diffusion of knowledge to the people. Unprecedented growth of common schools, popular academies, public high schools, newspapers, public libraries, and lyceums contributed to the impression that the untutored common man was being transformed into the enlightened citizen a democracy required.86 Jackson, then, had every right to conclude that the common people were getting more knowledge and were learning more about public issues through the new media. Indeed, the widening opportunities for learning afforded the new generation of Americans made it easier for Jackson to affirm the assumptions of his egalitarian appointment ideology. For Adams and Jefferson were of an earlier generation and grew up in American society at a time when it was not expected that the common man could or should govern. Both felt that the good society limited the participation of the rank and file to choosing from among different excellent candidates and both gave an upper-class bias to their definitions of excellence. Jackson's ideas, on the other hand, were largely the consequence of his experience on the frontier and his awareness of changes in the United States which promised to transform the role of the common man in a democratic society. Thus there were significant differences in the appointment ideologies of Presidents Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson. If Adams consistently followed the aristocratic criteria he stressed his appointees would have to be drawn largely from the upper strata of society. The manifestly egalitarian ideology of Jefferson was impaired by its reliance on college men, and this would compel him to continue the appointment policy of his predecessor. Partly as a result of the acceptance in the United States of Jef2 ι

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

ferson's proposals for increasing educational opportunities, Jackson was led to believe that the average man of his day was competent to perform the duties of high office. Jackson's appointments, then, were likely to differ significantly from those of Jefferson and Adams, and to be more democratically distributed.

2 2

C H A P T E R

THE

II

S O C I A L - C L A S S

C O M P O S I T I O N

OF

P R E S I D E N T I A L A P P O I N T M E N T S Historical Survey and Methodology

(ΓΓ

9

m HE scholars as well as the less systematic observers of Λ , American life who have written about the subject have established a consistent interpretation of the social-class composition of the administrations of Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson, although on inadequate evidence. Some, like William Graham Sumner, have been content simply to assert that the public service lost greatly by Jackson's spoils system, without discussion of the whole issue.1 Others, without systematic analysis, have simply grouped together all the pre-Jacksonian Presidents as if they had a single policy. It has been the consensus among historians that Jeffersonian Democracy did not change the social composition of the political elite. Jefferson, they concluded, drew his officeholders from the same class of gentlemen upon whom Adams had called. "Let it be noted," James Parton wrote, "that the first Democratic administration paid homage to the higher attainments of man, and sought aid from the class farthest removed from the uninstructed multitude." 2 As an index of the high social and intellectual standing of Jefferson's selections, Parton asserted that every member of the cabinet had attended college and "every man of them was in some peculiar way identified with knowledge." 3 2 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Later historians did not differ substantially. Hermann von Hoist observed that Jeffersonianism did not "produce the revolution in internal politics which was to be expected." 4 Charles Merriam saw in Jeffersonian Democracy an advance over Federalism but in the distribution of political office found it basically aristocratic.5 The historian most influential in the development of ideas about the civil service, Carl Russell Fish, discovered that with the exception of some "wild Irishmen and French refugees" the majority of Jefferson's appointees "came from the same class of the population as those under the Federalists." 6 More recent historians have not altered these conclusions. Leonard D. White has concluded that the Jeffersonian choices for appointive office "fell upon persons from the same reputable social class of gentlemen upon whom the Federalists had depended." 7 Paul Van Riper agrees that there was little evidence that the Jeffersonians "made any real indentation on the essentially upper-class nature of the federal civil service." 8 There has thus been a general consensus that officeholders during the Adams and Jefferson administrations came primarily from the upper classes. The consensus also discerns a radical change in the civil service after the election of Andrew Jackson. Partons classic biography, the first based on all the available sources, found that the general filled the bureaucracy with the nation's refuse. The typical Jacksonian officeholder was "one of three characters, namely an adventurer, an incompetent person, or a scoundrel." 9 Von Hoist, too, concluded that the American people were being led "by an ever increasing crowd of politicians of high and low degree, down even to the pothouse politician and the common thief." 10 Ostrogorski found that the mob took possession of the government in 1829, while the commercial interests and the "intellectual leaders of the nation, the men in the liberal professions" became indifferent to politics.11 2 4

PRESIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENTS

These historians were hostile to Andrew Jackson primarily because of his role in the development of the spoils system. But Jackson was a beneficiary of both the pro-democratic orientation of the Progressive Era and the even higher value historians set on objectivity. The result was a more favorable interpretation of his administration.12 But the twentieth century description of the relation between social class and political leadership did not differ from the earlier one. For Charles Merriam Jacksonianism was a radical movement which forced the land-holding class to abdicate, and the mass of the people assumed political control: "Office was no longer the monopoly of the few, but was thrown open to all." 13 Furthermore, an institutional change—rotation in office — made it possible for many from the rank and file to participate in government. "Now the general principle was accepted that all offices should be held for short term only, in order that all citizens might have better opportunity to secure a position."14 Edward Channing's estimate of Jackson's civil service emerged from his account of an applicant who asked for any job, with an annual salary of $300 or better, except that of clerk. The petitioner excluded clerking because he did not know how to write.15 Fish and Schlesinger also thought that Jackson's victory "meant the actual transfer of power to the majority" and a swift "redistribution of federal offices."18 With Andrew Jackson, wrote White, "a new class swept in and out of office."17 According to Van Riper, it was Jackson's destiny "to break the monopoly of aristocrats and reconcile Jeffersonian theory with practice." 18 Thus whether historians have been hostile to Jackson or favorable toward him, their interpretations are the same. Most have held that Jackson found his officeholders primarily in the ranks of the people. One scholar has not adhered to this general interpretation. Thomas P. Abernethy's study of political institutions in Jackson's home state, Tennessee, reveals that the rich and powerful ina 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

evitably rose to the top in politics. The slogans of democracy were used liberally but only to hide the true designs of the ruling elite. Abernethy says that the government remained in the hands of the few and that Jacksonian Democracy did not bring about any fundamental change in this respect. 19 This interpretation has relevance to the federal government. Jacksonian Democracy was national in character. Democratization was a result of the fact that the voters — many of whom were newly enfranchised by more liberal voting laws — sent leaders of the people to state legislatures, to the House of Representatives, and indirectly to the Senate. But if the entrenched aristocracy was not dislodged by Jacksonian Democracy in frontier Tennessee, it may not have been displaced on the national level either. With the exception of Abernethy, historians have concluded that Jackson's appointments differed significantly from those of Adams and Jefferson. Jeffersonianism did not end aristocratic control of the civil service, but Jacksonianism did open the government to the common man. This conclusion rests on faulty methods, however, for none of the historians has actually studied systematically the social-class compositions of the officeholders.20 For instance, Parton's analysis of Jefferson's administrations discussed seven appointees — the cabinet members and the minister to France. All were college-bred; one was a glass manufacturer, three were lawyers, and one was a wealthy patron of the arts and sciences. In this group was the president of an agricultural society, the provost of a university, and a donor of a thousand acres of land for the benefit of the Erie Canal. This was certainly not an adequate sample of the hundreds of men then appointed to office. 21 More important, the achievements of the members of Jefferson's cabinet offer no foundation for Parton's contrast with Jackson's cabinet. In the latter group were one paper manufacturer, three lawyers, two college graduates, three United States

2 6

PRESIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENTS

senators who were elected — prior to appointment — for a total of five terms, two state governors, and a judge.22 These were hardly inferior to the appointees of 1801. Parton did mention that one member of Jackson's cabinet had been born in a log cabin of a father who was a "worthy, illiterate man, who cultivated a small farm, and kept a small tavern." 23 On the other hand, he described another who, "inheriting an ample estate . . . lived for many years upon his plantations and employed himself in superintending their culture." 24 Still another "came of a sturdy Bucks County Quaker family," and his father, a physician, "was also a devotee of classical learning." 25 Furthermore, Parton neglected other details about the socialclass positions of the six cabinet officers appointed by Jackson. Four in all either attended or had graduated from college.26 Martin Van Buren and John H. Eaton had been directors of banks; 27 William T. Barry had been a member of Congress, a director of the Lexington branch of the United States Bank, and a professor of law and politics as well as the dean of the law school at Transylvania University, in Kentucky.28 John M. Berrien's father owned plantations in Georgia and a town house in Savannah, and Berrien himself owned 107 slaves and one of the largest plantations in Savannah. 29 And the estate of John Branch's father consisted of 28 slaves and 2,000 acres in North Carolina in 1790 and later included 10,000 acres in Tennessee.30 This is hardly evidence of a major redistribution of offices to the people. Von Hoist's judgments of the social-class composition of officeholders between 1796 and 1837 were also based on a meager sample. He mentioned only one Jeffersonian, the aristocrat Robert R. Livingston, as proof that no revolution took place between 1801 and 1809, and discussed only the administrative abilities of Jackson's cabinet. The only reference to class background came in the case of a member appointed by virtue of his wealth and "highly respectable social position" — hardly 2 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

support for the conclusion that Jackson's appointees were recruited "from the region lying between the limits of society and the house of correction." 31 Nor did the patrician Livingston show that Jefferson continued the aristocratic pattern; Jackson selected as Secretary of State Edward Livingston, Robert's younger brother.32 Only White presented more than impressionistic data about the social-class origins of the Jacksonians.33 He surveyed all of the cabinet members, a total of 76, who served between 1829 and 1861. Only twelve were born in well-to-do families, but many came from families in comfortable circumstances and many acquired wealth. A minority, White said, were born to poverty. It was a surprise to White to discover that 51 of the 76 secretaries were college men, while ten more attended an academy. Also surprising to him was the fact that, in an era when agriculture and rural life were still dominant, 68 of the cabinet members had been admitted to the bar and most of these had been practicing lawyers.34 These surprising educational and occupational achievements did not, however, cause White to question the conclusion that Jackson brought democracy to the civil service.35 Perhaps White interpreted this evidence to mean that the Jacksonians had originated in the lower classes but had achieved high social position. Therefore, by stressing achievement rather than ascriptive criteria, Jackson had democratized the civil service. Or it may have been that White felt that the 20 of the 76 cabinet members appointed by Jackson were too small a sample with which to challenge the traditional interpretation of this period of American history. Historical tradition has held that a strong aristocratic bias characterized the civil service until Andrew Jackson democratized it. In the transmission of this tradition it has made no difference whether the investigator was antagonistic or friendly to Jackson. But the question of whether Adams' and Jefferson's 2 8

PRESIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENTS

appointments were aristocratic in nature and Jackson's democratic has not yet been answered. 36 The question can be answered, in part at least, by examining those officeholders most crucial in the determination of government policy, the decision-makers, or the elite. These covered a wide range. The comptroller of the Treasury, for example, was not responsible for making fiscal policy but rather with superintending all public accounts and providing for the regular payment into the Treasury of all monies collected. His was an important position, but not as important as that of the Secretary of the Treasury, who was a member of the cabinet and had the primary responsibility for establishing fiscal policy. The broad scope of the elite will make it possible to determine whether egalitarian ideologies were put into practice in filling the less important rather than the most important positions, although the number of officials in the lower ranks of the elite is too small for any final answer. To determine whether the social origins and positions of the elite were primarily upper class during the administrations of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but more representative in that of Andrew Jackson, it is necessary to compare the elites with the population at large. That makes it possible to judge whether Jackson's officeholders were more representative of the general population than those of Adams and Jefferson.37 Any definition of the positions comprising the political elite is somewhat arbitrary and invites disagreement. Although some studies of the elite do not distinguish between elected and appointed officials, it was impractical to merge the two types in an examination of the effects of the ideologies of the Presidents. 38 The Chief Executive did not have the final word about the composition of the elected elite. He did when it came to appointed officers. This emphasis on decision-making positions eliminated from consideration men who worked on a part-time basis. Jobs that 2 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

required all the attention of the officeholder were more important and more crucial for policy than those held for brief periods. High military and some judicial offices were also excluded insofar as the President had no power to fill them. The judges he appointed were included; but those appointed by his predecessor he could not remove, so they were not part of his elite.39 Regular army commissions were awarded after physical and intellectual examinations, and promotion was slow and firmly anchored to the rule of seniority. The Chief Executive had only a limited role in both respects.40 The elite thus defined consisted of holders of positions whom the President had freedom to appoint, retain, or dismiss. In fact, the degree of that freedom was an index of the relative importance of the job. Ideas of tenure and seniority did not — except, perhaps, for the beginning of the Adams administration — become associated with the more important posts.41 There was a consistent distinction on this point between the upper and lower levels of the bureaucracy. Both Federalists and Republicans agreed, during the election of 1800, when the decision was thrown to the House of Representatives, that the new President had every right to fill with his own men "offices of high discretion," but that he should leave the "subordinate public offices" undisturbed.42 Even Jackson recognized the notion of tenure in the less important posts, and his famous "proscription" applied most of all to the top positions. His sweep of the civil service was of modest dimensions.43 On the other hand, there was no pressure on the President to retain the top officers of the previous administration. His ideas about appointments thus had freest expression when it came to replacing the old elite; an examination of his choices therefore may provide a measure of the influence of his ideology. The criterion of the importance of a job was whether it in3 »

PRESIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENTS

volved responsibilities affecting the nation as a whole. In the executive branch, the important places involved supervisory responsibilities either of district offices throughout the country or of departments in Washington. Thus the surveyor general of the United States was included, but not such subordinates as the surveyor of lands for the eastern district of North Carolina; the superintendent of [revenue] stamps, but not the warden of the District of Columbia penitentiary; the Attorney General of the United States, but not the United States attorney for the state of Maine. In the diplomatic corps, this criterion made room for the minister plenipotentiary to Spain, but not the chargé d'affaires at Cadiz. Finally, in the judicial branch, the positions of national significance were those of the federal judges. Elite offices were thus defined as full-time, civil positions filled by presidential appointment which involved responsibilities affecting the nation as a whole and which were not guaranteed tenure by the Constitution. 44 It is conceivable, although not likely, that an elite defined on a more inclusive basis would yield different results; or that a study of the social composition of all civil servants in these administrations would diverge from the conclusions reached in this inquiry. The findings, therefore, refer only to the elite as defined above. All appointments to the elite as defined required confirmation by the Senate and all nominations were recorded in the Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States.45 All persons whose names were sent to the Senate by the President — whether they were confirmed, rejected, or later declined appointment — were included in the group to be analyzed. The mere fact that these men were nominated is evidence of the kinds of people the President considered appropriate. Only formal nominations, that is, only those presented to the Senate, were considered. The President, then as now, first 3 ι

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

sounded out the people he sought to see if they would be willing to serve. It would be impossible to compile a complete list of individuals informally offered high government office.46 Included in each group were the men appointed in a previous administration but retained for at least one full year, for in these cases retention must have been due either to the fact that the officeholders possessed the qualities and capacities the President desired or to the fact that he was forced to take into account the objective requirements of the jobs they filled.47 For similar reasons persons appointed in a previous administration and reappointed were also included.48 Table 1 illustrates the way in which each President filled the Table 1. The elites of Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson. Appointment"

Adams

Jefferson

Jackson

Original appointment Retained from a previous administration Reappointed to same position Reappointed to new position

60

73

95

14 8 5

13 2 4

5 7 1

Total elite members Total times elite positions were filled

87

92

108

96

100

127

a Appointments were declined by nine people in Adams' administration, four in Jefferson's, and two in Jackson's. In addition, the Senate rejected four appointees under Adams, two under Jefferson, and eight under Jackson. In John Adams' day it was not yet the custom of the Senate actually to veto presidential nominees; Adams, however, removed from nomination four persons to whom the Senate had taken exception, Clarence E. Carter,

ed., The Territorial Papers of the United States, vol. V : The Territory of

Mississippi, 1798-1817 (Washington, D.C., 1937), 31.

elite offices. The difference between the number of elite members and the number of positions filled indicates the extent to which the same individuals received more than one appoint3 2

PRESIDENTIAL

APPOINTMENTS

ment in a given administration. The fact that some men were favored with high office more than once demands that they be given a proper weighting in the analysis of social origins and class positions. This is especially important with reference to Jackson's elite because it was his custom to appoint the same men to several positions. For most purposes, therefore, some individuals were counted more than once in order to eliminate the distortion of occasional exceptional designations. In effect, appointments rather than appointees were counted. Occupation was taken as the major indicator of social status. The qccupations of the fathers of the elite members served as a measure of social origins; the careers of the elite members themselves were a measure of class position. Fathers' occupations could not be the sole index of social origins.49 People in the same occupation may differ significantly in amount of property and income, yet there were sound methodological and theoretical grounds for using occupation as the measure of social position.50 Such data are far more accessible than those on income, prestige, political power, or any other criterion. Occupation is the index most frequently used in studying social origins and class; and if comparisons among various elites are to be made or if studies are to be replicated, the same index must be used. In any case, there is widespread dependence on occupation as a measure of social status because it is the most decisive element in social-class position in an open society. To a large extent it determines income, prestige, and political power.51 The use of occupation as the major index of status permitted comparisons between the social origins and class compositions of the elites and of the population as a whole. There was no accurate way of estimating the social structure of early America in terms of social status, income, prestige, or political power. On the other hand, fairly reliable estimates of occupational distribu-

33

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

tion make it possible to compare the distribution of the elite groups with that of the rest of the country. Finally, occupation was a better index of social class in earlier periods of American history than later. In the absence of a feudal background, there were few status-bearing titles. Occupation was the means by which Americans identified and placed one another. According to Franklin, they did not ask a man what he was but what he could do.52 "Lawyer or merchant are the fairest titles our towns afford; that of a farmer the only appellation of the rural inhabitants of our country," wrote Crèvecoeur. It takes the visitor some time before he "can reconcile himself to our dictionary, which is but short in words of dignity, and names of honour." 63 Furthermore, the division of labor was relatively simple, the number of occupations were few and known to all and arranged in a widely recognized hierarchy, so that social-class rankings were relatively easy to make. 54

3 4

C H A P T E R

III

A M E R I C A N

1750-1830

S O C I E T Y , 1

η e customary separation of men into the "better, midJ L dling, and inferior" sorts was reasonably accurate for the colonial and post-Revolutionary periods.2 The first colonists were drawn from rigidly stratified societies and there were differences among them in wealth, power, and honor. And the New World did not present conditions for the development of a classless society. Although it enjoyed an abundance of land — the most important basis for high status in Europe — there was not equal opportunity for getting that land. Men of influence received tremendous grants, while the poor and powerless often had to enter into temporary servitude before they could buy or rent a farm. Outside New England, land was concentrated in the hands of the few.3 Three fourths of the acreage in New York, for example, belonged to less than a dozen persons in 1700.4 In Virginia, the average man had a chance to set himself up on an ample farm only in the beginning. Yeoman farming gradually gave way to the plantation system, which rewarded only those who "conceived largely and executed masterfully." 5 The power of the gentry encouraged the policy of lavish grants for the rest of the colonial period. When these tidewater gentlemen had ruined their land through soil-exhausting practices, they moved on to the western part of the state, much of which they owned by virtue of their control of the provincial government; in "west" Virginia in the eighteenth century, seven persons acquired a total of 1,732,000 acres, an average holding of almost a quarter of a million acres.®

3 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

America was the land of opportunity compared to land-poor Europe. The enormous tracts held in the New World by a few men could not be worked by their owners, who often became eager to sell or rent in order to take advantage of rising land values and to avoid tax burdens.7 Alongside the great estates, therefore, appeared the small farms of yeomen and tenants as well as those of squatters, who hoped to take title someday. So many Americans owned and farmed their own land that it was often believed that the emigrants had left social-class distinctions behind them. The image of an agrarian democracy was sharpened by the fact that people of all occupations or professions also were part-time farmers.8 "We are a race of cultivators," said Crèvecoeur's clergyman. "I have composed many a good sermon as I followed my plough." 9 Crèvecoeur expressed the vision of America as a classless society, "not composed, as in Europe, of great lords who possess everything, and of a herd of people who have nothing. Here are no aristocratic families, no courts, no kings, no bishops, no ecclesiastical dominion, no invisible power giving to a few a very visible one; no one great manufacturer employing thousands, no great refinements of luxury. The rich and the poor are not so far removed from each other as they are in Europe." 10 Crèvecoeur lived on a farm in Pennsylvania, a colony that had encouraged wide ownership of land in small tracts. Surrounded by other middle-class farmers, he stressed the lack of differences in American society. But even Crèvecoeur knew of one group that had very little in America: "The chosen race eat, drink and live happily, while the unfortunate one grubs the ground, raises indigo, or husks rice." 11 He was also aware of the existence of upper classes in many colonies. In Charleston, for example, the upper class included planters, merchants, and lawyers. He gave the lawyers first ranking in Charleston society on the grounds that "nothing can exceed their wealth, their power, their influence." 12 Crève-

36

AMERICAN

SOCIETY,

I750-1830

coeur was really not denying that there were privileged groups; he was saying that the common people had something, too. Status distinctions throughout the eighteenth century were patterned on the English model. The landed gentry were at the top of the social hierarchy, except perhaps in New England, where there were few large estates and where wealth was chiefly urban. New York was more typical; there the landed aristocrats settled on large estates along the Hudson and, surrounded by servants and tenants, lived in the pattern of the English gentry. 13 By favoritism and collusion with the ruling cliques, they acquired gigantic tracts. The Livingston Manor, home of Robert R. Livingston, Jefferson's minister to France, and Edward Livingston, Jackson's minister to France and Secretary of State, embraced 160,000 acres in Columbia County. 14 And by the eighteenth century Virginia was dominated by the great planting families, the Fitzhughs, Byrds, Carters, Randolphs, and Harrisons. These gentlemen copied their English counterparts by riding in coaches and eáting off silver inscribed with the family coat of arms. The sure sign that a planter belonged to high society" was the fact that his name was linked with his plantation: once the grandfather of the man Jefferson appointed as minister to Russia was known as William Short of Spring Gatden, he had arrived. 15 To the south in the Carolinas were perhaps the wealthiest gentry in America, the rice and indigo planters, whose estates often ran to several thousand acres.16 Perhaps the best evidence for the supremacy of the landed gentry was the fact that members of other groups always tried to join their ranks as soon as they could afford to do So. Just as the prosperous English tradesman longed to become a country gentleman, so the successful American dreamed of a spacious mansion surrounded by many acres.17 In some places, however, merchants had begun early to challenge the supremacy of the landed interests. In New England, of course, the great traders 3 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

displaced the clerical leaders in the two decades after settlement, and they imposed themselves on the seaboard towns of Massachusetts with force. Their wharves, storehouses, and shops transformed the appearance of cities. They erected elegant houses and invested their money in land not only for speculative purposes but also to move up to the status of gentlemen. Soon it turned out that their position was enough to carry them into the upper class.18 The merchant prince was no middle-class shopkeeper. He owned or rented the ships that carried his goods to the other colonies, to England, the Mediterranean, and the West Indies. Many were extremely wealthy: George Crowninshield, father of the man Jefferson appointed Secretary of the Navy, rivaled in wealth "King" Derby of Salem, who had left an estate of $1,500,000 in 1799.19 In practically every town along the seaboard, the mercantile group gained social ascendancy. In New York the merchant's position was excellent. Philadelphia merchants who had amassed fortunes in the French and Indian Wars began to dominate the Quaker capital by the middle of the eighteenth century. Although no mercantile class challenged the landed grandees in Virginia, the merchants of Charleston were comparable in prestige to those in the North. In none of the colonies did the idea develop—as it had in the Old World — that commercial pursuits were demeaning. In a relatively open and fluid society, money was the most important determinant of status, and the merchants were among the richest men in the colonies.20 Rounding out the upper class were the successful professional men — lawyers, doctors, ministers, surveyors, and, to a lesser extent, college professors and army officers. The exact position varied by colony and period in the colonial era. The first men of quality in Massachusetts were the clergy, where the pastor was often a town's most distinguished citizen.21 New England settlers had been very moderate in the early distribution of

38

AMERICAN

SOCIETY,

I750-1830

farm lots, with the result that landed gentry only slowly challenged the church oligarchy.22 The minister's position in New England remained high throughout the colonial and post-Revolutionary periods, especially in the countryside, where he was frequently the best educated person in the community and a comparatively intelligent medical adviser. The clergy were also held in high esteem in the other colonies.23 At the beginning of the colonial period lawyers both in England and America suffered from the widespread belief that they made their living out of other people's miseries. It was not unusual for a person involved in litigation to plead his own case. So great was the hostility toward the lawyer that in the early years of the settlement of Massachusetts it was against the law for an attorney to accept fees. "We are hated, mistrusted," John Putnam told young John Adams, who wished to be taken on as a law student. 24 However, there was a dramatic change. As settlement spread, land became valuable, commerce increased, and law suits multiplied. At the same time the legal system became much more specialized and disciplined, so that laymen could no longer master the "mystery." As the possibilities for earning a good living at the bar increased, men of greater ability and education entered the profession, and by their learning and competence helped to overcome some of the public hostility toward lawyers. By the eve of the Revolution, leading lawyers were part of the top of the social hierarchy from New England to the Carolinas.25 The history of the medical profession paralleled that of the law. Doctors, like lawyers, made their livelihood from human suffering and were resented on that score. The status of the profession also suffered because of the many unqualified men who called themselves doctors. Very few medical men in the colonies were physicians in the English sense, that is, held the degree of doctor of medicine. Most were trained in the appren3 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

tice system and carried on a general practice which included surgery, dentistry, and the sale of drugs. Colonial practitioners, in short, were a "miscellaneous lot" who, in the words of the eminent physician Benjamin Rush, had only a "slavish rank" in American society.28 In some colonies the rise of the medical profession was as spectacular as that of the law. Several factors were responsible: more stringent licensing requirements, the founding of the first organized hospitals, the opening of medical colleges, greater specialization, and the organization of professional societies. By the end of the colonial period the Philadelphia physicians, many of whom had received their degrees at the University of Edinburgh, had achieved upper-class standing. So high, in fact, had the medical profession reached, that Thomas Jefferson, a planter and lawyer who averaged around $10,000 a year in his legal business, encouraged his grandson Thomas Mann Randolph to become a surgeon rather than a planter on grounds that "farmers . . . are apt to live beyond their income and then be reduced to bankruptcy." 27 Surveying also carried social prestige in the colonial and postRevolutionary eras. In the feverish scramble for land, surveyors were the first to study systematically the frontier and to acquire a knowledge of the areas most suitable for settlement. Such information was immensely valuable; surveyors were able to earn good fees or partnerships in land companies, or they became speculators themselves. Many sons of gentlemen started their careers as surveyors — George Washington is the most familiar example — and built up tremendous landed estates.28 College professors did not make much money in the colonial period, but their status remained relatively high. Part of the standing of the academician was a carry-over of English values, but much of his prestige was a function of New World conditions. Because of their anxiety about an adequate supply of educated religious and civil leaders, the colonists eagerly estab4 o

AMERICAN SOCIETY,

I75O-183O

lished colleges; indeed, no other part of the English-speaking world attempted to provide for higher education so soon after its foundation as the Massachusetts Bay Colony.29 It was not long before Americans came to believe that no community was complete without its own college. The beneficiary, at least in terms of honor, was the college professor, who easily gained acceptance into upper-class circles.30 Much of the high esteem in which army officers were held was also a survival of European attitudes. In the Old World the officers' corps had consisted primarily of the younger sons of noblemen and other members of the upper class whose prospects in civilian life were curtailed by the rule of primogeniture. Colonial American society, especially in the South, also practiced primogeniture, or at least a modified version of it, and many young men from large planting families turned to the army as a career or as a means of locating a landed estate of their own. William Henry Harrison, son of one of the richest planters in Virginia, received comparatively little of his father's immense estate and started his career as a regular army officer. Another illustration of the upper-class tendency in the American officers' corps can be seen in Washington's order governing recruitment during the Revolution: "Take none but gentlemen." 81 Other occupations given high standing were not so much the source as the reflection of status. The men who promoted the new banking, transportation, mining, and manufacturing companies were usually persons who had already achieved wealth and prominence as landed gentry, merchants, or professionals. Most of them participated in the new ventures in their spare time. However, the involvement of men of high status and the economic importance of the firms made the officers of such companies members of the upper class. The leader of American society in the first decades of the nineteenth century was the banker Nicholas Biddle.32 In each colony, the leading gentry, merchant princes, and 4 1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

successful professionals together formed a community united by ties of kinship and marriage. It was customary for the younger sons of the landed gentry to go into counting houses or to train for a profession. The head of Livingston Manor, for example, had always left the bulk of his estate to the eldest son, with the result that many members of this great manorial family became merchants. Intermarriage among the prominent landed, commercial, and professional families of New York and the other colonies was frequent. 33 The middle classes were drawn from farming, manufacturing, commerce, and professions such as teaching. In all the colonies, small planters, yeomen, tenants, and squatters constituted by far the largest segment of the middle-class population. Even in New England, freehold farmers were numerically the most important group in society. In the middle Atlantic colonies the farming population included great numbers of tenants as well as yeomen. The majority of white inhabitants in the South were also independent yeomen. The lesser planter owned a handful of slaves, lived in a frame house, and frequently worked alongside his hands. A notch below him in the social hierarchy stood great numbers of independent yeomen farmers. The overseers who managed the plantations of the rich planters were usually sons of small planters or ex-mechanics.34 The backbone of the maritime population of the seaboard cities was its middle class of men who either sailed the ships of the great merchant princes or provided services for them — sea captains, mates, boatmen, common seamen, fishermen, counting-room and store clerks, storekeepers, and peddlers. Skilled craftsmen built and repaired the vessels — master shipbuilders, shipwrights, ropemakers, sailmakers, and others.35 In the cities artisans' skills met the needs of the people. All the farming communities of interior New England and the middle colonies had little coteries of artisans and craftsmen — the blacksmith, wheelwright, weaver, cobbler, carpenter, house-

4 2

AMERICAN

SOCIETY,

I750-1830

wright — who rendered the towns self-sufficient. Relatively large-scale industries, such as iron manufacturing, were introduced in the latter part of the eighteenth century and attracted European forgers, Brers, hammermen, and coal miners, who had the social status of prosperous artisans. The mechanic arts lan* guished in the South because of competition from Negro crafts* men, the preference of planters for English imports, and the fact that social status was so firmly rooted in the land. 36 Colonial society, which had produced an upper class with a clear conception of how a gentleman should live, stimulated business for artisans. Thus master builders and housewrights benefited from the desire of merchants for elegant mansions. Builders constructed manorial estates for landed gentlemen along with barns and servants' quarters. Men of quality were also good customers for tailors — clothes were the badge of class in the eighteenth century — cabinetmakers, silversmiths, wigmakers, upholsterers, chaisemakers, printers, bookbinders, and limners, as portrait painters were then called.37 Tavernkeeping and schoolteaching were also sources of middle-class membership. Innkeeping was a thriving business in the closing years of the eighteenth century, and landlords of firstclass establishments were men of consequence. The military officer returning from the Revolution frequently capitalized his fame by opening a tavern. The taverner usually owned a farm — a distillery was almost indispensable — and a mill, and some-« times a general store, and thus was substantially better off than most of his customers.38 Outside of New England, schoolteach-. ing did not have high status, and the idea early appeared that really able men would not be attracted to it. The profession seemed to be respectable enough for a young man who was working himself through college or professional training, but it was not work to which one devoted a lifetime. 39 In all the colonies the very bottom of society was filled by Negro slaves and indentured white servants. The white servant

4 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

was very important in the eighteenth century, although he had begun to be outnumbered by the Negro slave. One could not rise to prosperity without commanding the labor of others. In rural New England, where slavery and indentured servitude were less important than in the rest of America, the hired hand supplied the labor.40 The lower agricultural classes also included poor farmers, tenants, and squatters, who worked barely above the subsistence level on plots of poor fertility. In the South, as the great planters increased their productive capacity, some of their poorer neighbors found it almost impossible to compete, and that class of beaten and enervated farmers, the *'poor whites" — "the most degraded race of human beings . . . that can be found on the face of the earth" — emerged.41 In the cities, the "inferior sort" included apprentices and journeymen workers, who hired· themselves out to a craftsman ior a number of years. Of greater importance in the lower class were the day laborers, especially carters, teamsters, draymen, •and porters, the men who carried and transported cargo and freight. There was also a group of domestic and body servants, but these were frequently slaves and indentured servants.42 The colonies did not have the swarms of beggars so familiar to European communities, but they did have their propertyless and jobless poor. Immigrants who had difficulty getting started in the New World, widows and orphans of soldiers killed in war as well as other persons dislocated by the constant shift of the population, caused a relief problem of considerable proportions. Most colonial cities had poorhouses to which the city fathers sent the homeless poor. The rural regions also had some paupers, but they often drifted to the city because agricultural communities were not overly generous with relief.43 The size of the various occupational and social groups in American society between 1750 and 1800 can only be estimated imperfectly in the absence of adequate exact records.44 Censuses usually sought only information on the size of the household 4 4

AMERICAN

SOCIETY,

I75O-183O

and the ages, sex, and race of its members.45 Until the Revolution, there were only five large cities in the colonies, and only 2 or 3 per cent of the population lived in them, for agriculture was the mainstay of the economy even in New England. It is likely that between 1750 and the Revolution almost nine out of every ten Americans were farmers.48 Scattered statistics show that other occupational groups were not important numerically. Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, whose inhabitants numbered approximately 70,000 in 1760, had fewer than 500 leading merchants.41 Men engaged in large-scale mercantile activities away from the major cities were only a small minority.48 There were more professional men than merchants, but they could not have constituted more than a tiny fraction of the population. The proportion of doctors to the population in 1770 was 1 to 600, well under 1 per cent.49 The law was everywhere in its infancy; at the beginning of the Revolution there were less than 100 lawyers in the entire colony of Massachusetts, whose total population was 338,000, and as late as 1782, the Charleston Directory listed only eleven.50 If every community in Massachusetts had its own minister in 1770, there would only have been 300 to 400 ministers, even in the place where religious values predominated. In 1760 Virginia had slightly more than 60 clergymen.51 There, were less than a dozen colleges in America before the Révolu % tion, so that there could not have been many professors.52 AU told, it is doubtful if professional men contributed more thai* 1 per cent to the labor force at midcentury. The artisans and mechanics comprised a somewhat larger proportion of the labor force. This was the second largest occupational group in colonial society; a reasonable estimate would give it about 5 per cent of the labor force.53 Prior to the Revolution there were 33,000 sailors in America, or approximately 2 per cent of the working population.54 It would thus appear that all commercial classes, including sailors, merchants, 4 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

clerks, shopkeepers, and tavernkeepers constituted between 3 and 4 per cent of the population. An estimated occupational distribution for the period from 1750 to 1775 is presented in Table 2. For the closing decades of the eighteenth century the Table 2. Estimated occupational distributions, 1750-1775 and 1805.

Occupation Agriculture Commerce Manufacturing Professional Other"

1750-1775 Estimated percentage of labor force

1805 Estimated percentage of labor force

85-90 3-4 5 1 0

80 6 6 2 6

8 Primarily those Negro slaves who are classified by Blodget as variously employed nonagricultural workers.

occupational distribution for 1805 of the early American economist Samuel Blodget is useful. 55 The economic classes which he had "well calculated" are also presented in Table 2. s e A noticeable decline in agriculture took place between the Revolution and the end of the eighteenth century. The proportion of farmers and planters had dropped to eight in ten by 1805. At the same time the proportions of people engaged in manufacturing, commerce, and the professions had increased. If some of the Negroes listed by Blodget as "variously employed" were in manufacturing and commerce, the increases in these areas would, of course, be larger. Table 2 shows that the professional men constituted 1 per cent of the labor force between 1750 and 1775 and 2 per cent in 1805.57 Of the 3 to 4 per cent engaged in commerce in 17501775 and the 6 per cent in 1805, no more than 1 per cent in either period were merchants. 58 The majority of those in 4 6

AMERICAN SOCIETY,

I750-1830

commercial occupations were middle-class shopkeepers, clerks, tavernkeepers, mariners, and lower-class laborers. The proportion of landed gentry to the agricultural population as a whole was minute. New York and Massachusetts had only a few great proprietors. A total of 100 families controlled much of the wealth in Virginia. In post-Revolutionary Virginia, there were 150 very wealthy planters, with average holdings of 3,000 acres worked by 80 slaves. Below these were 2,000 others whose plantations averaged 1,000 acres and 20 slaves. In the entire Chesapeake society of Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia about 300 families, and in the Carolinas about 200, constituted the aristocracy.59 Even if one adds to the top landed families the fairly prosperous planters and farmers, the merchants and professionals and other stray individuals, the upper classes in colonial and post-Revolutionary society were still a small minority of the population. America in the latter part of the eighteenth century was a middle-class society.60 In Massachusetts 90 per cent of the people were farmers, most of whom owned their own farms; only 2 per cent were agricultural laborers and tenants. Toward the end of the eighteenth century most qualified voters in New York were either freehold or tenant farmers. In Delaware, too, the bulk of society consisted of dirt fanners. The 1,500,000 acres owned by the rich planters in Virginia in the 1780's were only 6 per cent of all the land in that state, and the 16,500 slaves were but 6% per cent of the total; the majority of fanners in Virginia belonged to the middle class. In Kentucky, in the last decade of the eighteenth century, the largest proportion of 143,228 land grants were of 50 to 200 acres. Three quarters of the working population in the South consisted of yeoman farmers, most of whom owned no slaves.61 The agricultural lower class consisted of farm laborers and poor white farmers. The scarcity of free labor throughout the colonial period made it unlikely that they constituted very large 4 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

segments of the population.62 A much larger proportion of the lower-class population consisted of indentured servants. In 1755, almost one person in ten in Maryland was under indenture, and the greatest influx was yet to come; nearly two thirds of the immigrants to Pennsylvania during the eighteenth century were white servants, and as many as 2,000 arrived annually after 1765. More than 250,000 persons fell into this class during the entire colonial period. Although indenture was only temporary, and frequently led one into the middle class, at any given period in the latter half of the eighteenth century a sizable portion of the population were bound servants.83 The proportion of Negro slaves in the population during the eighteenth century remained remarkably constant: in 1750, 220,000 Negroes — mostly slaves — constituted 17 per cent of the entire population; by 1800, of 5,308,000 Americans, 893,000, still 17 per cent, were slaves. There were also 108,000 free Negroes in 1800, or 2 per cent of the population, most of whom were in the lower class.64 In those states and provinces, such as Maryland, where both Negro slavery and indentured servitude were important, over 30 per cent of the population was of the lower class. These occupational differences produced marked disparities in income, wealth, and style of life. Wealthy planters and merchants had fortunes of $100,000 or more. A successful lawyer could earn an annual income of $10,000, while a good doctor averaged $4,000 or $5,000.65 Ministers and professors did not make as much as other professional men, but the ministers had the use of the parsonage farm in addition to a salary of $400 or $500.ββ People at the middle levels did not do nearly so well. Farmers cleared $50 to $100 and suffered continually from the lack of cash, but their real income, of course, was much higher. Schoolteachers could not expect much more than workers, and often received less. A farm laborer made between $100 and $120 a year, a common seaman about a dollar a day, and an unskilled 48

AMERICAN SOCIETY,

I750-1830

worker around eighty cents a day.67 These inequalities in earnings naturally led to differences in housing, education, clothing, and food. One of the major consequences of stratification was the unequal distribution of political power. In a middle-class society the ownership of property was widespread, but property qualifications for voting disfranchised some Americans. The electorate in many states was quite broad after the Revolution, but steep property qualifications for officeholding, the practice of oral voting, and the absence of a real choice among candidates and programs led to widespread apathy.68 The result was that the gentry, merchants, and professionals monopolized most local and provincial — and later — continental offices. Even in New England the voters elected substantial citizens to the legislature, and the merchants ruled politics down to 1825.69 That situation •was also characteristic of the rest of colonial and post-Revolutionary America. "Who do they represent," Josiah Quincy asked about the South Carolina legislature. "The laborer, the mechanic, the tradesman, the farmer, the husbandman, or yeoman? No. The representatives are almost if not wholly rich planters." 7 0 People of middle rank could hope only for lesser posts such as those of constable, assessor, or clerk of the market, responsibilities which the gentry found onerous.71 Upper-class leadership extended to religious, military, and social matters as well. The same men who controlled politics were the elders, vestrymen, deacons, and church wardens who controlled the churches. Of the more than 100 members of the Virginia constitutional convention of 177Θ, only three were not vestrymen.72 Local upper-class control of military affairs was characteristic of colonial and post-Revolutionary America. In Europe war had become the task of the professional soldier, but in the colonies all Americans were part-time soldiers. Military efforts could rarely be centrally directed, so instead consisted of a mass of scattered engagements by small groups of fighters 4 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

acting largely on their own. Just as each community controlled its church, each community organized a militia system commanded by its own leaders. In New England the officers were frequently elected, but with remarkable consistency the same men who were the political and lay religious leaders turned up as officers of the militia. In the South, the justices of the county court appointed the militia officers, and frequently took the higher ranks themselves.73 Finally, men of high status dominated the intellectual and social life of colonial and post-Revolutionary society. Even the scientific organizations devoted to the advancement of agricultural methods, which could be found in almost every province, recruited their membership almost solely from the ranks of gentlemen farmers, who alone could afford to try new processes and materials.74 Less scholarly social clubs were also considered necessary to the upper-class way of life. Particularly in the cities, where social intercourse was easy, the mercantile and professional elite displayed an "unbridled enthusiasm for joining." 75 Land and wealth thus conferred status, which in turn led to political power and leadership. Such was the correlation between leadership in the different institutions in American society that to know that a man was a justice of the peace, a vestryman, a member of an agricultural society, or a high-ranking officer of the militia, was itself evidence of his standing in society. The political changes of the period between 1800 and 1830 which led to the ascendancy of democratic philosophies had less than a revolutionary effect on the social-class distinctions inherited from the previous century. The Republican victory of 1800 was the death blow of the conservative Federalist party, but it did not end status differences. The middle and lower classes soon discovered that the right to vote did not banish social, economic, or even political disabilities.76 The social-class structure remained very much as it had been. Social and economic inequality in rural America during the 5 o

AMERICAN SOCIETY,

I750-1830

early decades of the nineteenth century were largely the consequences of colonial and post-Revolutionary patterns of land distribution. Except in New England, the landed gentry continued to hold vast tracts of land.77 The only important change was the replacement of indentured labor by free labor. Negro slavery disappeared from the North, but it continued to be important in southern agriculture, and slaves still constituted 16 per cent of the American population by 1830. 78 Some trends first noticed in the post-Revolutionary period were accelerated. The shift from the farm to the city continued; in 1800, 6 per cent of all Americans lived in urban centers; by 1830, 9 per cent did.79 Within the city the day of the merchant had arrived; commercial men continued to assert their economic and social superiority. Increased postwar activities widened the business horizons of the merchant-capitalists. They continued, of course, to carry on international trade, but they also expanded their activities in manufacturing, and, utilizing their easy access to credit, they opened factories. As merchants replaced the master craftsman, the term "manufacturer" assumed a new meaning which carried higher status than it had in the previous century. Furthermore, many men who went into manufacturing after having made money in a different field devoted all their energies to their new entrepreneurial roles.80 The typical manufactory in the first third of the nineteenth century was in the home, with only a few workers, but the newer factories broke the old mobility pattern by which an apprentice gradually worked his way up to the position of entrepreneur and craftsman. Samuel Slater's cotton factory in Rhode Island relied primarily on unskilled labor; here the working class, in the modern sense, first appeared. Such laborers occupied a lower status than farmers or artisans, since the newer factory system widened the social distance between the manufacturer and employee.81 Professional groups either improved or maintained their posi5 1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

tion between 1800 and 1830. Sometimes indeed the lawyer, rather than the merchant or planter, was "the first man of the state." Doctors suffered some professional setbacks through poor training, lack of research, and the spread of quackery; but public esteem for the family physician did not decline.82 The status of the clergy remained high. "Be careful how you repeat what I have said about parsons," remarked a New Yorker to a European visitor. "They have more power in the United States than in any other country." 83 More and more Americans moved west. In 1800, only 1 per cent of the population lived in the Northwest, but by 1830 this proportion had increased to 13 per cent; the southwestern states and territories experienced a similar invasion.84 But status differences were not eliminated in the West, and society on the frontier resembled in many respects the social structure of the older, more established areas. Ohio was representative of the new Northwest. Many of the land-hungry people who swarmed into that newly formed state were New Englanders, who brought with them the town meetings, schools and colleges, and the small-farm system based on a mixed agricultural economy. As a result much of Ohio resembled the societies from which the settlers were drawn. Wealthy Virginians, with "their pockets stuffed with land warrants of veterans," also organized settlements in Ohio. By 1815 frontier Ohio, a state for only twelve years, had produced a landed class which rivaled in wealth and style of life the gentry of the East. 85 Every section of the Southwest also combined rich planters and middle- and lower-class farmers. In Kentucky the great speculator-landlords located their estates in the heart of the fertile bluegrass region and, recalling the upper-class pattern of the older areas, proceeded to "affect the English manner." In Tennessee, wealthy Virginians settled near Nashville and "were soon able to maintain a style of life one did not ordinarily expect

5 2

AMERICAN SOCIETY,

I75O-183O

to find on the frontier." Wealthy New Englanders moved to Mississippi, where they apparently had no difficulty in adjusting themselves to slave labor and, using capital often accumulated from mercantile enterprises in the East, soon became part of the flourishing planting elite. The French and British aristocracy of New Orleans was soon augmented by recently arrived planters from the United States.86 Social cleavages also developed rapidly in the towns of the West. On the frontier, urbanités recreated the familiar social landscape they had known in the East. Leadership went to the same groups: merchants, lawyers, doctors and — at some distance behind — teachers and journalists. As soon as any member of the urban upper class could afford to do so he acquired the old eastern habit of buying a country estate. Although western states early adopted universal manhood suffrage, the upper classes took the lead in politics, civic affairs, educational institutions, and charitable work.87 The dominant character of the frontier was middle-class, however. The majority of white people were small farmers living on plots of less than 200 acres. Many in the South owned a few slaves, but the majority did not. In the southwestern states the yeomen farmers existed in much larger numbers than the planters and poor whites. Despite a mythology to the contrary, "The core of the social structure was a massive body of plain folk who were neither rich nor very poor." 88 Similarly, the majority of townspeople in the West were wage earners and shopkeepers. These groups played the same role in the city life of the West as they had in the East. The western towns also had a lower class of unskilled laborers — rough wagon drivers, Mississippi River boatmen — who were largely responsible for the impression in the East that westerners were barbarians. At the bottom of urban society came the Negroes — slave and free — who performed the menial work in manufacturing and trade and who worked as domestics.89 5 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

One is on somewhat surer ground in trying to determine the relative size of various occupational groups in the United States during the years leading up to Jackson's election. Data on occupations were included in the census of 1820, and although they were omitted in 1830 estimates for that year have been computed based on the 1820 and 1840 censuses. The occupational distribution for 1830 — about the time Jackson was forming his elite — is presented in Table 3. Table 3. Estimated occupational distribution in 1830.

Occupation Agriculture Commerce Manufacturing Professional Domestic and personal service

Estimated percentage of labor force 70 3 14 3 10

Source: P. K. Whelpton, "Occupational Groups in the United States, 1820-1920," Journal of the American Statistical Association, X X I (September 1926), 339-340. For the sake of readability the figures have been rounded out to whole numbers.

Although agriculture continued to be the occupation of most Americans in 1830, the decline in the proportion of fanners, which had begun after the Revolution, continued in the nineteenth century. Blodget estimated that eight out of every ten Americans were farmers; by 1830 this proportion had declined to seven out of ten. At the same time there was a marked increase in the proportion of people engaged in manufacturing: whereas Blodget listed 6 per cent of the population as "mechanical artisans" — not counting Negroes who were so employed — by 1830 this proportion had risen to 14 per cent. Finally, the proportion of professionals increased by about 1 per cent be-

5 4

AMERICAN

SOCIETY,

I75O-183O

tween 1805 and 1830, while the proportion of people engaged in commerce was probably the same or larger. 90 Although the basis for such judgments is approximate, tentative, and impressionistic, it is clear that American society between 1750 and 1830 was stratified. The upper class of landed gentry, merchants, and professionals was one of the smallest groups in the social-class structure. Most Americans were middle-class farmers who either owned or rented good-sized holdings. There was a smaller group, which was increasing throughout the period, of middle-class wage earners and entrepreneurs — artisans, mechanics, clerks, shopkeepers, taverners, mariners, and factory workers. A still smaller proportion of free whites were lower-class laborers who did menial work in agriculture and commerce and who were also employed as domestics. In the latter part of the eighteenth century a sizable proportion — as many as 10 per cent in some places — of whites temporarily filled the lower-class status of indentured servant. In the entire period 16 per cent to 17 per cent of the population filled the permanent lower-class position of slaves. From this society, or some strata of it, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson appointed their elites.

5 5

C H A P T E R

IV

S O C I A L OF

T

O R I G I N S

E L I T E

M E M B E R S

are two major problems of classification in the use of occupation to determine the status of persons in the colonial period. Frequent movement from job to job to take advantage of the opportunities of an open society made it difficult to establish the basis for classification. Furthermore the simple division of labor and the relatively slight specialization of colonial American society permitted a man to hold more than one job at a time. In examining the fathers of the elite, each was assigned the occupation which claimed the greater part of his life, or, insofar as it could be determined, the occupation he held while the son was being raised. The job with which he was primarily identified was ordinarily the one that required most of his time. Other employments were generally described as sidelines, but were also analyzed for clues as to origins and social status. The primary occupations of the fathers of elite members are presented in Table 4. Unless otherwise noted the total for each elite refers to the number of appointments made by each President. The percentage figure beside an occupational category refers to the proportion of positions filled by individuals with a particular kind of occupational background. One additional factor had to be taken into account in the analysis of data dealing with the fathers. In four cases under Jefferson and Adams and in two under Jackson, positions were filled by men raised by stepfathers, adoptive fathers, or guardians. Not to have included the foster fathers would have dish e r e

5 6

SOCIAL

ORIGINS

torted the results in those instances. For example, Richard Bassett's father, a tavernkeeper, deserted his mother, and Bassett was later adopted by a wealthy lawyer who made the boy his heir and who left him a legacy of 6,000 acres of immensely valuable land. 1 Yet elimination of the biological father would also distort the social origins in instances in which both he and the adoptive father were important influences in the career of the elite member. Therefore Table 4 includes the occupations of both so that there were slightly more fathers than elite positions. The category 'landed gentry" included southern planters, northern gentlemen farmers, and landed proprietors. Men fell into this category if they were so described by historians and biographers, or if they owned ten or more slaves, the minimum for the existence of a plantation, or if they were referred to as "gentleman," "esquire," or "squire" in the records. 2 No other criterion was used to distinguish the landed gentry from yeoman farmers. Other agriculturists were classified as farmers. In Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, occupation was the only indicator of social class. In Table 4, occupations were classified according to general categories without reference to their ranking. In no elite group were the fathers representative of the entire country. America in the eighteenth century was a nation of farmers. Yet the number of elite positions filled by men whose fathers were farmers was only about half what it should have been in terms of population. However, the underrepresentation of the agricultural classes must be qualified. There were other men in all the elites whose fathers were farmers or landed gentry but whose primary occupation was not agriculture. Merchant princes and professionals often aspired to be lords of great estates, especially since land was the safest and virtually only noncommercial form of investment. 3 The farming population was better represented in the elites of the agrarian democrats, Jefferson and Jackson, than in that 5 7

Ό Φ

o3 s

® SC u Im φ

i o O

00

-4

sä θ . 2 rn

υ

Ä

58

00

t o IM

o ^ • -

tn φ

φ

£a

O

h

>> φ

S - β

> íh 3

S 03 Φ

• 03

^ tí a

o3

a*

φ

CX

Φ

ι φ

ö - S "

O

53

o3

ft

φ

ο . oι**! S

a fe g ^ H

o

00

co

σ> f C-l

Λ CO

o •ψ

o o

r-

o co

IM (Ν ι—ι ( M

tí

00

φ Uh

φ

^

Ο

a

1-1 τ μ ι ο Ο

Ο

£

• ö S , Φ S ) 03 o3 " S -φ a § r^ W

S3

g

~GI ' ~ ft

ö S 0 o CO 1—(

IO O

œ

O ^ ^

φ P4

1 » φ 1-a. Η-a
φ

h S Λ

^ S £ .a1ϊ » Ε ο · β 3 ® • S ^ Q W ^ S P h c e H Ρη

8 6

s.

tj φ

Γ3 .S 3 S fi

o

Sd

ω

-W β ο3

φ j î - S Â φ û) Ç3

(Ν

•ψ

Ο

Ο Ο

]>(Μ

(Μ

Ο

CD

00

Ο ο

o

ο

ο

ο ο

ο ο

Ο

— oä S

PI ΟΙ hC Ό

ώ d

Ii i-s i § I1|l S

h

b

1—1J

- κ

d §

. 9

Ö

«

ri < 1

'i Ph

tí fe o tí

M tí

O H

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

filled from that source, and those not by mechanics, but by a well-to-do paper manufacturer and by a man who owned salt and lead mines.2 Four positions in Jackson's elite were filled by newspaper editors.3 Editors earlier had been considered artisans because they had customarily begun as printers. They had always ranked at the top of the artisan group because of their literacy and because they often owned book stores,4 but by Jackson's time the division of labor in publishing had separated the artisan printer from the writer-editor. The latter therefore have been classified with the professionals in Tables 16 and 17. The occupations were rearranged according to ranking in Table 17, which shows that there was little difference among elites in the proportions of positions filled by individuals holding high-ranking occupations. At least 90 per cent in each elite were thus occupied, and the differences among the Presidents was minute. No elite was representative of the population as a whole. The United States was a middle-class society; yet only 5 per cent of the positions in Adams' elite, 3 per cent in Jefferson's elite, and 10 per cent in Jackson's were filled by men who held middle-ranking jobs prior to appointment. Among the high-ranking occupations, the landed gentry did not contribute their share to any of the elites, although among those who engaged in agricultural activities all but one person was of the gentry; the only bona fide yeoman turned up not in the administrations of the Presidents who admired the independent freeholder, but in that of Adams.5 The men with middle-ranking occupations in Jackson's elite came from two sources: manufacturing and clerical work. Whether or not the manufacturers may be legitimately classified with the middle-ranking occupations in 1830 is problematical, since they were about to join the dominant group of merchants, gentry, and professionals.® The job of clerk, though, was middleranking. Clerks could not have comprised even 1 per cent of

8 8

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

Table 17 Primary occupations of elite members by ranking of occupation. Adams (N = 96)

Occupation High-ranking Landed gentry Merchant Professional

Number

2 16 71 89

Middle-ranking Artisan, manufacturer Clerk, salesman Farmer Professional (editor, teacher) Trader

Unknown

Per cent

Jefferson (N = 100) Number

Per cent

6 13 74 92

93

Jackson (N = 127) Number

Per cent

5 2 107 93

114

0 2 1

0 2 0

2 7 0

1 1

0 1

4 0

90

5

3

3

13

10

2

3

4

4

0

0

96

100

100

100

127

II

5

Totals

the population, yet they alone of the middle groups were overrepresented in each elite. They were likely to be more literate than artisans and farmers and their experience was more pertinent to government office. Clerks were also more strategically placed to catch the attention of people with influence. Although the differences among the elites were slight, they moved in a predictable direction. Men of middle-ranking occupations filled more positions in Jackson's elite than in those of Adams or Jefferson. 89

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

The great majority of the members of each elite held highranking occupational positions. Of course, it is possible that prestigious jobs other than their primary ones gave some higher social class than others. The analysis of the other occupations in Table 18 will reveal such class differences as may have existed among those who shared high occupational status. Information about other jobs was found for men who filled 59 positions in Adams' elite, 53 in Jefferson's, and 73 in Jackson's. Since some of these men had several jobs, the total number of occupations held is greater than the number of positions filled. In contrast to the findings of Table 17, the differences in the proportions of high- and middle-ranking occupations between Adams and Jefferson on the one hand and Jackson on the other are marked. These figures support earlier findings that Jacksonians derived from lower social origins than the members of the other two elites. At the time of appointment Jacksonians differed only slightly from the Federalists and Jeffersonians, but it was more usual for Jacksonians to have held lesser-ranking jobs earlier in their careers. For example, 6 per cent of Jackson's positions were filled by men who started out as apprentices, compared to 3 per cent for Adams and 2 per cent for Jefferson. Seven per cent of the positions in Jackson's elite were filled by former clerks — not counting the 6 per cent from Table 16 whose primary occupation was that of clerk — compared to 4 per cent for Jefferson. Just as many positions in Adams' elite were filled by men who had been clerks in their other jobs as in Jackson's, but not as many had been clerks in their primary occupations. Perhaps the best index of the mobile character of Jacksonians is the fact that 13 per cent of the positions in his elite were filled by men who had at one time been schoolteachers. Their calling was a major means of mobility in this period, since young men frequently thus supported themselves through college or professional training. The relatively large proportion of former teachers challenges statements which im-

9 o

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

pugn the literacy of Jacksonians. That so many of Jackson's positions were filled by former newspaper men also attests to the literacy of his elite. Jackson filled more positions with people who, in their other jobs, had engaged in manufacturing than Jefferson or Adams, but that was not necessarily evidence of middle-class status. Actually, the men included under manufacturing in Jackson's elite were entrepreneurs and industrialists rather than artisans and mechanics. One owned an iron mine, another a woolen factory, and still another was a partner in a shipbuilding firm.7 Others operated sawmills, flour mills, water works, and iron mills. Not only were these activities gaining status in their own right, but most of them were carried on as sidelines. The conclusion of a recent study that there were "few indeed" former wage earners or artisans in any positions of political prominence in the early administrations is not quite valid because it was not applied to later periods. 8 The extent to which men of lower occupational status found their way to Jackson's elite has been exaggerated. Only two former artisans were appointed by Jackson and both were lawyers at the time.9 That persons who had earlier been apprentices, artisans, and clerks did make the Adams and Jefferson elites has been overlooked. The distribution of the landed gentry was unexpected. Jeffersonian Democracy has usually been described in terms of a shift from a mercantile to a planter aristocracy.10 Yet 33 per cent of the positions in Adams' elite and only 24 per cent (Tables 17 and 18) of those in Jefferson's were filled by the landed gentry. The upper-class agricultural interests were better represented in the Federalist than in the Republican elite. Those interests were also heavily represented among the fathers of Adams' elite members. The difference in participation in business organizations was also surprising. Eight per cent of Jackson's positions were filled 9 ι

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

by men who had been presidents of corporations and unincorporated joint stock companies, as compared to 4 per cent for Adams' and only 1 per cent for Jefferson's. Of course, there were many more such enterprises in 1829 than there had been in 1796.11 But the high proportion of presidents of business organizations in Jackson's elite contrasted sharply with his ideology which had stressed the virtues of the people.12 According to Fish, "The aristocracy of finance was as distasteful to Jackson as that of officeholding."13 Yet eight of the ten positions filled by presidents of business firms were filled by former bank presidents.14 Two positions in Adams' elite and none in Jefferson's were held by former bank presidents.15 The data of Table 18, however, show that Federalists had higher social status than either Jeffersonians or Jacksonians. The proportion of landed gentry was greater as was the percentage of officeholders who stood at the very top of the high-ranking occupations. Other financial activities of the elite members also reveal differences in social status (see Table 19). Land speculation was one of the earliest and most persistent of American roads to riches.16 The scarcity of cash restricted such large-scale ventures to the well-to-do, for whom government office often was a necessary adjunct. Appointment made it possible to locate the best lands and pull the useful strings. That Federalists were more often engaged in land speculation than were the members of the other two elites also confirms the higher average status of Adams' appointees. Furthermore, Federalists were more likely to be among the nation's biggest land speculators; the activities of the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians were on a more modest scale. The Adams men were the organizers of land companies which operated on a grandiose scale. Patrick Henry — "who so loved liberty loved goodly acres as well" — was a founder of the 9 2

Table 18. Other occupations of elite members. Adams 59) Occupation High-ranking Army officer Bank cashier College president Dean of law school Doctor Landed gentry Lawyer Merchant Minister President of business firm Professor Secretary Surveyor Totals Middle-ranking Apprentice Artisan Clerk, salesman Editor Farmer Ferry owner Insurance agent Land agent Manufacturer Sea captain Shopkeeper Tavernkeeper Teacher Totals

Number

Per cent

Jefferson (N = 53) Number

Per cent

Jackson (N- 73) Number

0 1 0 0 1 30 0 6 0

3 0 2 0 4 18 3 8 1

0 2 0 2 0 22 3 5 0

4 1 1 1

1 4 2 0

10 3 4 1

45

55

Low-ranking Laborer (cattle drover)

0

Totals

0

56

2 2 4 1 8 1 1 1 5 1 0 0 9

3 2 7 0 7 0 1 2 6 2 1 0 6 37

46

45

35

0

44

8 2 9 9 7 0 0 0 12 0 0 1 17 44

65

55

1

0 0

52

Per cent

0

1

1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Virginia Yazoo Company, which contracted with the state of Georgia for the sale of her western lands.17 Others in Adams' elite involved in the deal were Asher Miller, William Wetmore, and Samuel Dexter.18 Daniel Smith, one of the most active western speculators, was closely connected with the Loyal Land Company, which had received a grant of 80,000 acres.19 Elias Boudinot was a proprietor of the Miami Reserved Land Associates as well as a partner in the famous Ohio Land Company, which meant, among other things, that he owned a half interest in a tract of 40,000 acres.20 Rufus Putnam was a director of the Ohio Land Company and Elbridge Gerry and Winthrop Sargent were also involved in the activities of this company.21 John Marshall and his brother James, both members of Adams' elite, and two other men bought the 160,000-acre Fairfax Estate of Virginia.22 Other big speculators among the Federalists were Egbert Benson, Daniel Clark, William R. Davie, John Gibson, Jared Ingersoll, George K. Taylor, George Matthews — who was governor of Georgia during the Yazoo frauds — Timothy Pickering, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Johnson, Francis Dana, Joseph Nourse, and William McClung.23 These names, in fact, comprise a "who's who" in land speculation in the eighteenth century. There were large-scale speculators among the elites of both Republican administrations also, but there was a difference in the kind of transaction negotiated. Whereas Federalists organized companies which bought and sold on an enormous scale, Jeffersonians and Jacksonians were much more likely to carry on their more modest deals on an individual or partnership basis. The three men in Jefferson's elite who were members of the big land companies were all holdovers from Adams' administration.24 However, some of the individuals appointed by Jefferson were major speculators. Gideon Granger invested heavily in the Georgia Yazoo lands and in Ohio lands.25 It was of Granger that John Randolph of Roanoke said in the 9 4

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

House of Representatives, "His gigantic grasp embraces with one hand the shores of Lake Erie, and stretches with the other to the Bay of Mobile." 26 John Breckinridge owned 20,000 acres in Kentucky as early as 1780 and kept adding to his holdings thereafter.27 Tench Coxe speculated heavily in the anthracite regions of western Pennsylvania, and in order to stimulate the flow of immigration into those regions wrote a book for European consumption entitled View of the United States of America.28 Albert Gallatin invested most of his European inheritance of $20,000 in western lands, as did his friend and elite member John B. C. Lucas.29 William Henry Harrison, who was reappointed governor of the Northwest Territory by Jefferson, participated in one of the most questionable and corrupt speculations in the old Northwest by buying at a fraction of their cost the lands of French settlers frightened by the advance of American Protestants.30 Pierpont Edwards, John Graham, William Hull, James Monroe, Joseph Nourse, William Short, and James Wilkinson were also substantial operators.31 Only one of the speculators in Jackson's elite was a member of a land company: John T. Mason was a large scrip holder of the Texas Land Company.32 Jacksonians also carried on their activities on an individual or partnership basis. In Florida, for example, the cousins and partners Richard Keith Call and George Keith Walker were major operators and members of an informal group known as the "Tennessee speculators."33 Edward Livingston became wealthy in deals in New Orleans real estate and, earlier, in New York City.34 William Noland owned a number of tracts in Virginia and was also interested in western lands.35 Other major operators were William Smith, William Wilkins, Benjamin Johnson, John H. Eaton, William B. Lewis, and Lewis Cass.36 After the Revolution a new kind of gambling venture — practically unknown in colonial America — became important. The introduction of the business corporation and of the unin9 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

corporated joint stock company with transferable shares of stock and the existence of a large body of interest-bearing state and continental certificates of indebtedness encouraged speculation in securities. There was talk of redemption or refunding of these certificates at face value, but there was also a tantalizing uncertainty about the fact, the time, and manner of doing so. The well-to-do not only could afford to wait for the certificates to appreciate but also had surplus funds to invest in them. In fact, by the time of the funding of the public debt during Washington's administration the holders of the public securities were by no means identical with the original purchasers but instead constituted a class of wealthy investors.37 Jacksonians, for the most part, were too young to have speculated in the government paper of the Revolution, and although there were later federal loans, there was less possibility of huge gains from them. On the other hand, Jacksonians had more opportunity to invest in the securities of business organizations, since there were many more such enterprises. Differences between members of the three elites in the ownership of securities (Table 19) also support the view that Federalist social-class position was higher than Republican. Fiftyseven per cent of the places in Adams' elite were filled by men Table 19. Financial and promotional activities of elite members. Adams (N- 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Activity

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Directorship, promotion of business enterprises Land speculation Securities

21 36 55

22 38 57

11 30 27

11 30 27

29 23 19

33 18 15

96

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

who owned either government securities or those of business enterprises, compared with 27 per cent for Jefferson's and only 15 per cent for Jackson's. The extent of speculation in government securities or in business, considered together or apart, showed the same disparity. By contrast, Jacksonians led as directors and promoters of business organizations: 23 per cent of the positions in that elite were filled by such men, compared with 22 per cent for Adams' and 11 per cent for Jefferson's. Even more surprising, 20 of the 22 directors in Jackson's elite were bank directors. This fact must qualify Jackson's own view, as stated to James K. Polk, "Every one that knows me does know, that I have been always opposed to the U. States Bank, nay all Banks."38 The fact that so many bank directors and bank presidents turned up in Jackson's elite suggests that he really disliked one banker, Nicholas Biddle, and one bank, the Second Bank of the United States. Significantly, Roger B. Taney, who as Secretary of the Treasury removed the deposits from the United States Bank, was once director of the Farmers' Bank of Maryland and the Frederick County Bank of Maryland, and a shareholder in the Union Bank of Maryland, as well as its counsel.39 The total pattern of the social status of elite members between the time they left their families and their appointment was also revealing. Weight was given in this assessment to such tangible advantages as gifts or inheritance, to marriage and kinship, and to success at a particular occupation rather than the occupation itself. The elite members fell into three categories comparable to those from which they originated. Class I consisted of the national or local aristocracy or men who achieved outstanding pre-eminence in their professions; Class II included those who were prosperous but who were not as rich or as honored as those in the top stratum; Class III comprised men of average 9 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

means who were not very successful as professionals or businessmen or who had been in relatively low-paying jobs which had nevertheless led to elite status, such as clerkships in the government. There were some in all the elites who were in financial straits at the time of their appointment, but they could not be compared in status with those poor Americans at the bottom of the class structure. Some impoverished elite members indeed ranked in Class I. For example, John T. Mason, secretary of the Michigan Territory under Jackson, came from one of the oldest and wealthiest families in Virginia. His father was a United States senator and his uncle was the famous George Mason of Gunston Hall. Mason went to William and Mary and was one of the few students in this period to stay there long enough to graduate. After law study, Mason moved west to Lexington, Kentucky, was admitted to the bar, and soon had a very large practice. In addition, he became a director of the Lexington branch of the Second Bank of the United States, a trustee of Transylvania University — where he sent his son — and a general of the militia. He was also a member of the landed gentry and his plantation, operated with the labor of fifty slaves, was one of the finest in the state. When President Monroe visited Lexington on his western tour in 1818 he was a guest in the Mason mansion. By 1829, however, Mason had lost most of his money and his plantation. 40 He was nevertheless assigned to Class I, for his status remained high. He was able to appeal to his brother-in-law, William T. Barry, Postmaster General of the United States, who used influence to get him on the government payroll. 41 Such cases showed the importance of recognizing differences between rich and poor Class I elite members. The proportions in straitened circumstances have therefore been included in Table 20. There were few marked status differences among the three elites. Nor were the Jacksonians a microcosm of American so98

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

ciety. The most significant conclusion that emerges from this data is that the Jeffersonians were more akin to the Jacksonians than to the Federalists. Jacksonian Democracy was not a noticeable departure from Jeffersonian but rather a continuation or moderate extension of the earlier egalitarian movement. As their financial and promotional activities indicated, Federalists were of higher social status than either Jeffersonians or Jacksonians, even though the bulk of all positions went to men of high-ranking occupations; Table 20 lends additional weight Table 20. Social-class positions of elite members. Adams (N = 96) Class I II III Unknown Positions filled by men in financial difficulties at time of appointment

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

83 4 1 8

86 4 1 9

74 7 2 17

74 7 2 17

95 9 5 18

75 7 4 14

5

5

10

10

7

6

to that finding. There were virtually no social-status differences between Jeffersonians and Jacksonians at the time of appointment. The only difference is in the proportion of positions filled by men who were in financial difficulties at the time of appointment, but the percentage was higher in Jefferson's elite than in Jackson's. The distribution of elite members in specific activities highly correlated with social honor also point to the continuity of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian group. Membership in nonpolitical voluntary associations (Table 21), arranged according to gen9 9

β o œ λ o

tIM

α φ υ Ut φ PL,

Φ Χί »

s

o o co i—i 1 1 ' Φ s» i-s
o ts 3 «5 Ξ O 3 UH „ ce o3 o υ o , ΐ « 3 o3 a ¡8 Φ Ό _ O φ bo •tí φ — ow Φ 0 Ό o3 o3 Γ 3 " π O -j3 - . S ? ? § T3 o3 < 5 P H œ O . Í 3 3 -8 ö o3 1 o3 cS o .3 . 3 ' S § tH »H O - 2 • a • jH l sφtU φφ 02 φ Λ)

1

o

03

1

s

s - s

03 *> s . 2

fS

Φ

-3

ο

§ .a S o

s

O

β Ο Ο · ί

co

NO Ο Ό

O IO

O S

O C O O i-Η

T H j

-Ψ •Ψ

OWOH •φ

O

C O

Η co

O C O 1 H

o io

co

00

05 S h φ

α; Λ

.s

gl .-S 2 Ö o

νΤ 0 Q Λ 1 03 Γ .a ώ 3 o3 .3 a .2 -a •3 S φ o O O φ 2 o •a β O 03 M < L > ¿.s Λ Sí

β β s a.

s » 05 IΝ sas §o S e? S g, O M J* ® 'S •a0b3ß α

a-s £ ® ΌΗ φ Λ

>> ft

Xt

-O S

0 Ώ a §

"Si 1 ?

I

iCGl — · < l3 s 3 iœ O .2 a α to

O Ç 0 • r* f-l "S < »

I-s

•g o

•a a O H

-ρ

Pu Ρη

d Ρ

φ

o o -S

r

•η o

O « 4 H -

ft §

1 0

1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

eral categories, reveals a clear class bias; not a single workingmen's association was represented. High proportions of participation were characteristic of all the elites; what differences existed were between Federalists on one side and Jeffersonians and Jacksonians on the other. Specific affiliations show some interesting differences as well as similarities. Federalists were more likely to be members of scholarly and scientific organizations than Jeffersonians or Jacksonians. Federalists were also more likely to be members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a New England body, and of agricultural and manufacturing societies. Jeffersonians were more likely to be members of the American Philosophical Society, and just as many Jacksonians were members as Federalists. Moreover, as many positions in Jackson's elite were filled by members of historical societies as in Adams', while Jefferson's were third. More positions in Jackson's elite were filled by trustees of educational institutions than in that of Adams or of Jefferson — an ironic commentary on the tradition that Jacksonians were anti-intellectual. "The first Presidents of the United States had been men of broad culture, interested in the advancement of science and learning," wrote Van Deusen. "John Adams had been an intellectual and a scholar. Jefferson was one of America's early scientists . . . From 1797 to 1815 he was president of the American Philosophical Society . . . Jackson's administration ushered in a change of view at Washington in connection with science, to say nothing of the other aspects of intellectual life . . . The lack of intellectual interests characteristic of the Old Hero and many of those who surrounded him, diminished the likelihood of assistance for scientific learning from the national government." 42 In fact, however, Jacksonians were not very different intellectually from their predecessors in government. Science and intellectual activity received the same kind of en10 2

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

couragement from Jackson as they had earlier. In the reorganization of the Patent Office and the appointment of a commissioner, Henry L. Ellsworth, who had wide scientific objectives; in the encouragement of the Coastal Survey; in the award to a committee of scientists to study boiler explosions, one of the earliest examples of a government grant of research funds to a private body; in the enthusiastic support of the United States Exploring Expedition, which continued the activities begun in Jefferson's administration by Lewis and Clark — scientific activity could hardly be said to have suffered with Jackson's election. "Except for a national university, John Quincy Adams' program approached realization" under Andrew Jackson.43 Federalists were more likely to be involved in fraternal and military associations than either the Jeffersonians or Jacksonians. There were slightly more Masons among Jacksonians but many more Federalists were members of the Society of the Cincinnati, which only those who had served as officers during the Revolution could join. Participation in philanthropic organizations was not important in any of the elites. However, more positions in Jefferson's elite were filled by men who were members of social and patriotic organizations than in Adams' or Jackson's. Jacksonians, in the traditional view, were newcomers to political office, having derived from those lower classes which had not yet had a chance to govern. That view has already been called into question by the evidence that there were no important differences among elites according to the other criteria of social ranking. Nor were there great differences in the proportions of men whose fathers had held political office. Thus the distribution of offices held by elite members prior to appointment (Table 22) offers an opportunity to test the validity of the other indicators of social status. The proportions of men who had held political office are so 1 0 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

high that the differences among elites cannot be regarded as important. What variations do occur are between Adams and Table 22. Previous political experience of elite members. Adams

(N = 96)

Jefferson

(N = 100)

Jackson

(N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Local Provincial, state Continental, federal

21 69 63

22 72 65

25 62 61

25 62 61

31 81 79

24 64 62

Positionsfilledby men who held office (all levels)

87

91

83

83

112

88

Level of government

Jackson on the one hand and Jefferson on the other. The idea that Jacksonians were new to politics must be assigned to mythology. Furthermore, Jackson's men were not originally appointed to government by him and subsequently promoted into elite status. Many had held office at local and state levels; in fact, two thirds of the positions were filled by men who had held state office prior to entering the federal service. Only three (2.7 per cent) of the 112 positions filled by men with previous experience went to those who received their first office as a result of an appointment by Jackson.44 That is, 109 positions, or 86 per cent, were filled by men who had held office prior to any appointment by Jackson. The same result emerges from a scrutiny of the elites of Adams and Jefferson.45 The men appointed by the Presidents were not new to politics or to appointive office in the federal government. Twentyseven per cent of the positions in Jackson's elite were filled by 1 0 4

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

men who had held appointive office in the federal government under one of Jackson's predecessors; 26 per cent of the positions in Jefferson's elite were filled by men who had served under other Presidents; and 34 per cent of Adams' positions were filled by men who had served under Washington. Adams opposed rotation in office and was tolerant toward Washington's appointees.46 Yet only 7 per cent more of the positions in his elite — as compared to Jackson's — were filled by men who had served in the previous administration. There was a double standard of judgment in the traditional interpretation of the social backgrounds of Jacksonians. The appointments of earlier Presidents followed the precedent of the founders by placing only gentlemen in office. When Jackson made appointments of the same type, he was criticized or commended, depending on the point of view of the writer, for turning the government over to the people. It makes no difference, then, which indicator of status is used, for the results are the same. The members of all three elites came from the most prestigious groups in the occupational, political, and social orders. Those brought into office by Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson were already members of the political elite at various levels of government. Further evidence is contained in an analysis of the kinds of offices filled at each level of government. Participation in local office (Table 23) was less frequent than in state and federal government, but was slightly more important among Republicans than among Federalists. There were proportionately more aldermen among Jacksonians, more judges and justices among Jeffersonians, and more mayors among Federalists and Jacksonians. In general, though, the differences in the proportions and kinds of local offices held reflect no important status distinctions among elites. A high proportion of positions were filled in each elite by men who had held state offices ( Table 24 ). They occupied the ι o 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Table 23. Local offices held by elite members. Adams

(N = 96) Office

Jefferson (tf = 100)

Jackson

(N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Alderman, selectman Judge, justice Mayor, moderator of town meeting Sheriff Other

4 10

3 10

3 14

3 14

9 12

7 10

3 2 10

3 2 11

1 1 8

1 1 8

4 2 11

3 1 9

Positions filled by men who held local office

21

22

25

25

31

24

Table 24. Provincial and state offices held by elite members. Adams (N = 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Cabinet member, councilor Governor Judge Legislator Other

16 6 15 60 11

17 6 16 63 11

19 5 17 45 8

19 5 17 45 8

21 14 25 65 17

17 11 20 51 13

Positions filled by men who held provincial or state office

69

72

62

62

81

64

Office

most important places in the state at a time when such positions carried more prestige than later. More Federalists filled state office than Republicans, but more Jacksonians than Jeffersonians did so. Federalists had the most legislators, Jeffersonians ι o 6

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

the most cabinet members and councilors, while the most judges and state governors were found among the Jacksonians — further evidence that the lowly origins of the last-named group have been exaggerated. The fact that over 60 per cent of the positions in each elite were filled by men who had held federal office (Table 25) Table 25. Federal offices held by elite members. Adams (N = 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Senator Representative 8 Appointive elite Other appointive

11 32 34 24

11 33 35 25

7 30 23 25

7 30 23 25

28 31 16 34

22 24 13 27

Positions filled by men who held federal office

63

65

61

61

79

62

Office

» Includes persons who served in the Continental Congresses and the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

further illustrates the high political status of their members. Although the differences were not great, more Federalists filled such posts than Republicans, and Jacksonians were again in the intermediate position. There were more congressmen and members of the appointive elite among Federalists and Jeffersonians than among Jacksonians, but there were twice as many senators among Jacksonians as among the Adams men, and more than three times as many senators among Jacksonians as among Jeffersonians. The Senate was considered an aristocratic body since its members owed their election not to the people but to the state legislatures. Jackson appointed fewer former elite members to his elite 1 0 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

than Adams or Jefferson, but slightly more nonelite federal officeholders than they did. Jackson, then, was least likely to retain from the previous administration the prominent persons whose departure from the government would attract notice and cause discussion. The fact that many of them were replaced with federal officials who were not as visible helped to give the impression of a clean sweep — from top to bottom — of the civil service under Jackson. The differences among elites in the proportions of positions filled by men who had held previous offices were not important; over 80 per cent in each went to people who held office prior to appointment. Jeffersonians enjoyed slightly higher status than Jacksonians, but the situation was reversed when it came to political office. In any event, the high status that the elite members enjoyed in society was matched by their powerful positions in the political system. Since military leadership went to the leaders in the social, economic, and political orders of society, high rank in the regular army or in the militia was still another index of status ( Table 26). The fact that over half the positions in Adams' elite were filled by men who served as officers and 20 per cent by those Table 26. Military experience of elite members. Adams (N = 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Enlisted man Officer General

5 50 19

5 52 20

14 39 10

14 39 10

8 41 9

6 32 7

Positions filled by men who had served in the military

55

57

53

53

49

39

Rank

ι o 8

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

who had held the rank of general again attests to the high status of the Federalists. Though almost as many Jeffersonians served in the military, only 39 per cent of the positions in Jefferson's elite were filled by men who had been officers, while 14 per cent were filled by those who had held the rank of volunteer, private, or noncommissioned officer. The factor of age enters into the discrepancy, however, since at the outbreak of the Revolution Jeffersonians were younger than the Federalists and therefore less likely to be officers. Only 39 per cent of the positions in Jackson's elite were filled by former soldiers and only 32 per cent by former officers. It is, however, difficult to assess the influence of class factors in the Jackson percentage. The fact that fewer Jacksonians than Federalists or Jeffersonians served in the military may have been a result of the change in attitudes toward military service after 1815. There was a shift from the positive emphasis upon the Jeffersonian concept of "every citizen a soldier" to strong opposition to all military institutions.47 The new attitude affected the requirement of militia service. The state laws usually carried some provision for avoiding duty through payment of a fine, a recourse of the well-to-do rather than the poorer members of the community.48 The lower percentages of Jacksonians in the military may mean that they were rich enough to avoid military service, although no evidence on this point was uncovered. In any event Jeffersonians were more like Jacksonians than Federalists in the proportion of positions filled by officers. In a country whose population was composed largely of immigrants, and whose prosperity depended on a continuous flow of newcomers, one would not expect generation of origin to be a relevant factor in social status, yet hostile attitudes toward immigrants appeared almost from the start.49 In the seventeenth century it was sometimes felt that the best acreage was already taken up and opportunity was diminishing.50 As a result, foreigners, even Scots, Welsh, and Irish, were frequently unwel1 0 9

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

come.51 The heightened activity in land speculation, characteristic of the eighteenth century, reduced unfriendly attitudes because settlers were needed to increase the demand and the price for land.52 But after the Revolution, prejudice appeared once again; and discriminatory practices became the law of the land with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Laws, which lengthened from five to fourteen years the length of time an immigrant had to wait before naturalization and gave the President the authority to deport any undesirable foreigner. Jefferson did not share the antiforeigner attitude of his predecessor. In the campaign of 1800 he promised to repeal this legislation and he subsequently did so.53 Indeed he was accused of using government office to give refuge to "wild Irishmen and French refugees." 54 The friendlier attitude of the Republicans toward the foreignborn continued until the depression of 1819, when the "bitterness of hard times" increased the resentment against "more damned immigrants" and the "alien menace." 55 Nativist tendencies grew during the 1830's, and although Jackson was blamed by his critics for many sins, the appointment of foreigners to government office was not one of them.56 Table 27 contains the distribution of elite members by generation in America. Following the practice of genealogists, first generation refers to those who migrated to America as adults; those who came as children were classified as second generation. Furthermore, since it was not always possible to trace an elite member all the way back to the family founder in this country, some elite members were classified only as far back as the first known American ancestor. Ancestry was usually traced through the male line, but in the few instances where such data were lacking, the mother's was used. Jefferson was more apt to appoint first-generation Americans than the other two Presidents, and Jackson was least likely to do so. There is some substance, then, to the tradition that Jef1 1 0

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

Table 27. Generation of origin of elite members. Adams 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

First Second Third or more Unknown

3 24 66 3

3 25 69 3

9 23 63 5

9 23 63 5

1 34 91 1

1 26 72 1

Family founder known to have arrived in the seventeenth century-

53

55

48

48

61

48

Generation

ferson did not discriminate against the foreign-born. But these were not "wild Irishmen and French refugees." Practically all were men of education and scholarly accomplishments. Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, was a Swiss who had graduated from college and had been a tutor of French at Harvard; 57 Moreau de Lisle, judge of the Territory of Orleans, was a native of Santo Domingo who had received a legal education in France, had also studied languages, and was the author of a treatise on criminal law; 58 Harry Toulmin, judge of the Mississippi Territory, was the son of a noted British scholar and theologian, had attended Hoxton Academy in England, and had been one of the first presidents of Transylvania University;59 David Ker, judge of the Territory of Mississippi, was ScotchIrish, had graduated from Trinity College in Dublin, and, like Toulmin, had been a college president prior to appointment; 00 John B. C. Lucas, judge of the Louisiana Territory, was a Frenchman who had attended the law schools of Paris and Honfleur and was a graduate in law from the University of Caen; 61 Thomas Tudor Tucker, Treasurer of the United States,

1 1 1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

was a native of Bermuda and a graduate in medicine of the University of Edinburgh;62 Robert Patterson, director of the Mint, was Scotch-Irish and had been a professor of mathematics and vice provost of the University of Pennsylvania.83 Not much is known about Otho Shrader, an Austrian whom Jefferson appointed judge of the Territory of Louisiana, but, apparently aware that Jefferson preferred that federal officers in the former French territory speak French, Shrader wrote in French to Jefferson requesting appointment.84 Dr. Joseph Browne, secretary of the Louisiana Territory, was an Englishman who had studied medicine in London.85 There was not much difference among elites in the proportion of Americans of second generation or more. The United States was a generation older by the time the Jacksonians came to office, and the fact that there were slightly more men of third generation or more in his elite did not indicate that more of them came from very old families. The proportions of positions in each elite filled by men who traced their descent in America back to the seventeenth century was remarkably similar. Ethnic origin may also influence social origins and status. Throughout the colonial period the territory which would become the United States was English. In 1800, people of English origin constituted slightly more than 60 per cent of the population; the next largest group were Scots and Scotch-Irish, who comprised 14 per cent of the population; the Germans were third with 9 per cent and the Irish and the Dutch each numbered around 4 per cent of the population.88 While the English maintained their predominance, after 1800 the migration of southern Irish became increasingly important; from 1820 to 1829, almost twice as many Irish as English arrived in the United States.87 Table 28 contains the ethnic distribution of elite members. Country of origin was traced through the father's line unless 1 1 2

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

Table 28. Ethnic origins of elite members. Adams (N = 96)

Jefferson 100)

Jackson (N- 127)

Origin

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Austrian Dutch English, Welsh French German Irish Scots, Scotch-Irish Swiss Unknown

0 2 57 3 0 9 10 0 15

0 2 59 3 0 9 10 0 16

1 0 55 5 1 1 17 2 18

1 0 55 5 1 1 17 2 18

0 5 63 2 3 10 19 0 25

0 4 50 2 2 8 15 0 20

such information was unavailable, in which case the mother's was substituted. There were no marked differences between elites in the ethnic backgrounds of the elite members: the English were the preponderant group in each. It is difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in the representation of the Irish. That there were more Irish in Adams' elite than in the other two may have been a result of confusion about what constituted an Irishman. The term then was applied to Ulstermen as well as to the Catholic Irish.68 There were no known Catholics in Adams' elite, so that some of those designated as Irish may actually have been Scotch-Irish. On the other hand, the increased number in Jackson's elite may reflect the rise of the Irish element in the whole population. The Scots and Scotch-Irish, next in importance to the English, contributed to the elites larger numbers than their proportions in the population warranted. On the other hand, the Germans, who constituted almost one tenth of the American population, were underrepresented; there were none in Adams' elite, and

1 1 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

they filled only 1 per cent of Jefferson's and 2 per cent of Jackson's positions. Except in Jackson's administration the Dutch were also underrepresented. There remains to be considered the widespread impression that Federalists were drawn primarily from New England, Jeffersonians from the South, and Jacksonians from the West. During the Federalist and Republican periods approximately half of the population was concentrated in the North, slightly less than half in the southern and southwestern states and territories, and about 1 per cent on the northwestern frontier. By 1830 westward migration had raised the northwestern population to 13 per cent, with the rest divided equally between the northern states on the one hand and the southern and southwestern states and territories on the other.69 Table 29 includes the geographic origins — defined as the area of residence at the time of the first elite appointment — of the elite members. New England was more important in the Adams administration than in the other two. However, Federalists were also more likely to be drawn from South Atlantic states than Jeffersonians and Jacksonians. The proportions of positions filled in each elite by northern men was less than their proportion in the population as a whole, an indication that Federalists represented not only the mercantile interests of the North, but also the planters of the South. The shift to westerners began with Jefferson, not with Jackson, although Jackson accelerated the process. This evidence of the geographic origins of the elite members helps explain the traditional view of the social status of the elite members. Many Jacksonians did come out of the West; and the drifting transients — wagoners, boatmen, and adventurers — had earned the frontier a "dark reputation" in the East. 70 Yet from the start, the West had also had its upper classes; and it was from them that Jackson's elite had been drawn.71 A comparison of the high-ranking indices of status in the three 1 1 4

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

Table 29. Geographic origins of elite members." Adams (N = 96)

Jefferson (N = 100)

Jackson (N = 127)

Region

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

New England Middle Atlantic South Atlantic Southwest Northwest Unknown

22 18 43 6 5 2

23 19 45 6 5 2

12 21 39 17 10 1

12 21 39 17 10 1

10 27 37 36 17 0

8 21 29 28 14 0

1

The Bureau of Census classification of regions for 1800 and 1830 was used as a guide in setting up Table 29. For 1800 — New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut; Middle Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania; South Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia; Southwest: Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana Territory; Northwest: Northwest Territory. For 1830 — New England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut; Middle Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania; South Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida; Southwest: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Louisiana, Arkansas Territory; Northwest: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin Territory.

administrations shows that Jackson's appointees stood on a level with their earlier counterparts (Table 30). There are several reasons why the reputation of the rude frontiersman was not attached to Jefferson's administration, even though the shift to western officeholders began then. Not a single westerner in Jefferson's elite was born on the frontier. On the other hand, although a majority of Jackson's westerners were migrants from the East, almost 20 per cent of them had been born in the West. More important, perhaps, the reputation of the uncouth violent frontiersman was not as firmly fixed in 1800 as it was in 1828. The fact that so many positions in Jackson's elite were filled ι ι 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Table 30. Occupation, social-class position, and education of westerners. Adams (N — Π)

Jefferson = 27)

(N

Jackson (N = 53)

Category-

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

High-ranking occupation Class I College men

11 6 4

100 55 36

25 16 12

93 59 44

48 37 24

91 70 45

t y westerners was not proof of their lowly origin. Most of them were born in the genteel East, were well educated, and had high-ranking occupations and social-class positions. By no stretch of the imagination were they rough and ready frontiersmen. It has already been established that Jacksonians had lower social origins than Federalists and that Jeffersonians were in an intermediate position. In general, the Federalists were also able to maintain the advantages of status they received at birth. No elite was representative of the general population in occupational distribution. Most positions were filled by professionals, a group constituting a very small proportion of the population. In the administrations of Adams and Jefferson the mercantile elements contributed much more than their share, and although there were few merchants in Jackson's elite, it had more professionals than the earlier ones. Few full-time farmers or planters entered any of the elites; manufacturers •were not represented at all in the first two and had less than their share in the third. Not as many positions in Jackson's elite were filled by men with high-ranking jobs and more were filled by men in middlel ι 6

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

ranking occupations than in Adams' or Jefferson's, but the differences were slight indeed. At the time of their appointment the members of Jackson's elite were not the fanners, laborers, and mechanics the President said they should be. Therefore the traditional interpretation that "the spoils system . . . destroyed peaceably the monopoly of offices by a class" composed of "merchant, banker, planter, lawyer and clergymen" and replaced it with "a fresh and alert group which had the energy to meet the needs of the day" 7 2 is invalid. There were more lawyers and bankers in Jackson's elite than in Adams' or Jefferson's. Furthermore, there was very little difference between Jackson's and Jefferson's in the proportion of positions filled by the landed gentry. And although merchants were less important in Jackson's elite than in the earlier ones, other kinds of businessmen — bank presidents and bank directors — were more important. Clergymen had never been significant in any of the politically elite groups. Even though most of the members held high-ranking positions prior to appointment, there were nevertheless social-class differences among the eh tes. Federalists were richer than either Jeffersonians or Jacksonians. There were more men in Adams' elite whose other, earlier jobs ranked among the very highest; there were also more speculators and investors in lands and securities and almost as many business directors and promoters as in Jackson's elite, although Federalists had less opportunity to participate in such ventures. Therefore, though Jacksonians did not reflect the whole population, they did not match the Federalists in social status. Nor were Jeffersonians the social equals of the Federalists any more than their fathers had been. There were more self-made men in Jackson's elite than in those of Adams or Jefferson, just as there had been more in Jefferson's than in Adams'. The Jacksonians had the lowest origins but achieved almost the same occupational status as ι χ 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

the members of the other two elites. A higher proportion also were schoolteachers — an important channel of mobility in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries — apprentices, and clerks. The traditional view of incompetence of Jacksonians is therefore inaccurate. There were more professionals among Jacksonians than among the Federalists or Jeffersonians. By appointing competent men, Jackson prevented the full realization of his egalitarian ideas. Professionals were an educated elite, and lawyers, who were prominent in his administration, were among the highest in the group. He did not choose men of average intelligence and learning as his ideology had indicated he would. There were always some men who had had relatively low occupational status who received elite appointments. Former apprentices, artisans, clerks, and farmers served in each elite, although these occupations hardly contributed their share to any of them. Analysis of social-class differences by the "total-pattern" technique also indicated that the members of all three elites were disproportionately drawn from the upper classes of American society. Almost three fourths of the positions in each were filled by men who were rated as Class I at the time of appointment. Adams chose a higher proportion of Class I men than the Presidents who adhered to egalitarian principles. A high proportion of positions in each elite was filled by men who were members of high-ranking voluntary associations; not a single workingmen's organization was represented. The differences were between the Federalists and the Republicans. Although Federalists led the other two elites in the number of positions filled by members of scholarly organizations, more Jacksonians appear to have been members of such associations than Jeffersonians. In addition, more Jacksonians were trustees of educational institutions than the members of the other two elites; more were members of historical societies than Jefl ι 8

SOCIAL-CLASS

POSITIONS

fersonians and as many as Federalists; and as many Jacksonians as Federalists were members of the American Philosophical Society. Over 80 per cent of the positions in each elite were filled by men of previous political experience. Most of them had been part of politically elite groups at various levels of government before the appointments. The differences among elites were not important, although Federalists were of higher political status than Republicans. This same pattern appears in the distribution of military rank. Only Jefferson was hospitable to foreign-born Americans. Otherwise, most of the members of each elite were "old Americans" of English stock who were likely to come from New England and the South Atlantic states if they were Federalists and increasingly from the newer states in the West if they were Republicans.

ι ι 9

C H A P T E R

THE OF

^

VI

E D U C A T I O N E L I T E

M E M B E R S

Á - t c o l l e g e education has become the major « J -JL equalizing force in modern American society, the "royal road" to success.1 But there is a widespread belief that this was not always the case. Historians have argued that there were so many opportunities earlier that success was within the reach of those just out of the common schools and academies, or indeed, with no formal education at all. The more important tasks of the day "could be performed by good brains and strong characters." 2 A college education might delay rather than promote mobility. "Although college training was an advantage, it was not necessary in the early nineteenth century to go to college to become a doctor, lawyer, or even a teacher, much less a successful politician or business man." 3 Yet Adams and Jefferson considered a college education indispensable for political leadership, although at a time when a free, tax-supported system of education was decades away, it may not have been realistic to expect that enough men of learning would be available to run the government.4 It made more sense for Adams to be optimistic, since he believed that public educational institutions of Massachusetts of his day were "not equaled, and never were, in any part of the world." 5 But Jefferson had been bitterly disappointed by the refusal of the Virginia legislature to set up his system of free schools.6 There were only nine or ten colleges in the country when the men who later served in the elites of Adams and Jefferson were of an age to attend them.7 Such opportunities were greater by the time Jackson was 1 2O

EDUCATION

President, but he rejected the notion that higher education was a prerequisite for preferment. Presumably this would mean that the proportion of college-trained men in his elite was no greater than in the population at large and significantly less than in Adams' and Jefferson's elites. The exact number of Americans who went to school is unknown. Census takers asked no question about attendance until 1840.8 But outside New England there was little opportunity for formal learning at any level before the middle of the nineteenth century. In the colonial period tutors and private schools were available for those who could afford them, while the poor could turn to church charity schools and trade apprenticeships. 9 The confidence of the Jacksonians in the competence of the average man was based on the fact that the principle of free, tax-supported schools was gaining gradual acceptance throughout the country in the early decades of the nineteenth century and new schools were opening, but there was still a lag between the acceptance of the principle and a social structure organized on its basis.10 Thus the pool of educated men from which the Presidents could select government leaders was not large. The number of Americans who received elementary and secondary education in this period is unknown, but it is possible to arrive at an estimate of the proportions of college-trained Americans down to the year 1829. For the period around 1800 — when Adams and Jefferson were filling their elites — the numbers of graduates and nongraduates between 1750 and 1800 were computed from the catalogues of alumni of the 25 American colleges then in existence.11 Of these, three—Bowdoin College, the University of Georgia, and the University of Vermont — as yet had no graduates. 12 No data could be found for four other institutions, none of which had many students in this period. 13 The reliability of the figures for the 18 remaining colleges varies considerably. The records of the College of William and Mary are 12 1

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

incomplete, and its alumni catalogue probably reports more students than actually attended.14 The number of nongraduates has never been compiled for Princeton and is not known for Yale.15 The lack of these latter figures is partly offset by the fact that some students are counted more than once since they transferred from one college to another. In the period between 1750 and 1800, approximately 8,744 Americans attended the 18 institutions.16 The four for which statistics are lacking did not have many students. They were not founded until late in the century and their first few classes were small.17 Transylvania University, organized in 1789, thus graduated only 13 students in the entire decade between 1801 and 1810.18 If one estimates the number of students at the four schools to have been 730 — a generous estimate based on the average number of pupils at the 18 colleges for the years that the four schools were operating — then approximately 9,474 Americans went to college between 1750 and 1800. This does not include Americans educated in Europe or at the few professional schools in America. Therefore about two Americans out of a thousand, or, more exactly, 18 out of 10,000, were college alumni in 1800, assuming that none of the people who had gone to college since 1750 had died — an assumption made only because there is no way of knowing just how many had died during this period. This assumption makes up, to a certain extent, for the lack of figures on Americans educated abroad, in professional schools, and in colleges that historians do not know about. In any event, few Americans went to college in the eighteenth century. The figures for the year 1829, when Jackson was filling his elite, were taken partly from a survey conducted by the Quarterly Register and Journal of the American Education Society. In 1828, the editor sent questionnaires to American colleges requesting, among other things, figures of living alumni. The journal reported that there were 11,866 living alumni in the 23 12 2

EDUCATION

colleges which provided the requested information.19 Additional figures were found for 16 other colleges not included in the survey.20 Between 1780 and 1828 — again the assumption is made that all the alumni in the 16 colleges were alive in 1828 —10,021 attended the schools for which data are lacking in the survey of the Quarterly Register. Thus a total of 21,887 Americans were college men in 1828. This is a fair approximation of the number of college alumni in the United States; the American Almanac and Repository of Useful Knowledge for the Year 1831 reported that there were 21,955 college alumni in the United States in 1830.21 Thus about two Americans out of a thousand, or 17 out of 10,000, were college alumni in 1830. The proportion was no higher in 1829 than it had been in 1800. Although the number of college students had increased 2.4 times in 1829 from what it had been in 1800, the population had also increased from 5.3 million to 12.8 million, or by exactly the same proportion as college enrollments.22 The educational achievements of elite members are presented in Table 31. The term "College" includes training in professional schools such as the medical and law departments of universities. "College: unconfirmed" includes individuals who may have gone to college but whose attendance could not positively be confirmed.23 The category "Elementary, secondary, other" includes common schools, academies, private schools, as well as instruction by a tutor. This group also includes individuals credited with a "thorough classical education," or a "good education." 24 The "Unknown" category includes individuals for whom no information concerning education was found. Since the names of college students in the alumni records of most of the colleges then existing were examined, it is doubtful if many of the persons in this category for any of the elite groups were college men. Table 31 shows that despite the widely held belief that a successful politician did not need a college education, at least half 1 2 3

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Table 31. Educational achievements of elite members. Adams = 96)

(N

Education College Graduated Attended Unconfirmed Elementary, secondary, other Little or none Unknown Totals

Jefferson 100)

Jackson 127)

{ N -

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

41 19 2

43 20 2

34 18 2

34 18 2

44 22 3

35 17 2

14 2 18

15 2 18

25 2 19

25 2 19

41 2 15

32 2 12

96

100

100

100

127

100

of the positions in each elite were filled by persons who had attended or graduated from a college or professional school. Since only about 0.2 per cent of the population at large were alumni, all three political elites were intellectual elites as well. The differences in college education were between Adams' elite on the one hand, and Jefferson's and Jackson's on the other. Sixty-three per cent of Adams' elite positions were filled by college men, compared to 52 per cent for Jefferson and 52 per cent for Jackson. Both Adams and Jefferson wanted college men to run the government, but Adams was more successful in getting them. This may have been a result of differences in wealth between Federalists and Republicans. Although there were many rich men in the Republican party, the evidence of this study indicates that Federalist elite members were richer than their Republican counterparts and could more easily afford to go to college.25 Many Federalists originated in New England, where opportunities for higher education were greater than in

1 2 4

EDUCATION

other sections, and this may have contributed to party differences in college attendance. Since Jefferson avoided Federalists as much as possible when making appointments, he passed up many men who were otherwise qualified. Apparently, Jefferson often turned to men of lesser learning rather than to Federalists, even though he felt that a college education was absolutely indispensable for government officers. He desired greater equality of opportunity with respect to party affiliation and he wished to bring into office Republicans who had virtually been excluded by Adams. Jefferson once asked his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, for information about the party affiliation of a man being proposed for office. "Is Jonas Clark . . . a Republican? . . . If he is not, we must be inflexible against appointing Federalists till there be a due portion of Republicans introduced into office." 26 Jefferson also felt that his program, to be implemented, had to be administered by Republicans, since the judiciary was already monopolized by Federalists who could not be touched. 27 A government by men of education, the desire for equality of opportunity, and the wish to put into operation other parts of his program, were all elements of Jeffersonian Democracy. But any set of goals is inevitably arranged in a hierarchy; some have greater priority than others. The fact that 52 per cent of Jefferson's elite positions were filled by college men, but that this was 11 per cent fewer than was the case with Adams, suggests that wherever possible Jefferson appointed followers who had gone to college, but that he believed it was more important to appoint Republicans who had not gone to college than Federalists who had. Jacksonians had no greater opportunities for college than Federalists or Republicans had had. Furthermore, Jacksonians had insisted on talent, not education — they did not explicitly equate the two — as the prerequisite for political preferment.

1 2 5

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

Yet despite the fact that Jackson wanted to end the monopoly of wealth and education in government, 52 per cent of his elite positions were filled by college men. The explanation lies in the fact that Jackson, no less than Adams or Jefferson, was intent on running a stable and properly functioning government. Jackson was almost obsessed with the idea of an orderly and efficient administration.28 As soon as he was elected, he instructed cabinet members to survey their departments to see if it were possible to dispense with any offices. He was especially concerned with the moral character of officeholders who handled money, and he constantly sought men of ability.29 Jackson may have said that intelligence, not education, was the major ingredient of ability, but at the same time he valued college training. He was concerned about one of his wards, a not-too-serious undergraduate: "Hutchings is with me, and leaves here today for the university in V[irgini]a where I hope he will remain and be studious; and although he has spent much idle time, I hope he may gain such an education as will enable him to pass through life with respectability. He has genius if he will apply it." 30 Later when Hutchings neglected his studies, Jackson wrote, with fatherly concern, "His thoughts run upon Miss Mary McL. and I have assured him unless he becomes celebrated as a scholar and polished gentleman, he need not aspire to her affections, that he has both in his power, the first by continued application to his studies, the second by a constant attention to, and obedience of all rules laid down for the government of the university."31 Furthermore, Jackson saw to it that his adopted son, Andrew Jackson Donelson, also received a college education. Donelson was a student at Nashville College, a frontier school, was a West Point graduate, studied law at Transylvania, and received an elite appointment from his father.32 The tradition that Jackson drove the man of learning from 1 2 6

EDUCATION

the government is thus clearly not warranted. The United States in 1830 was no longer so simple that common men could perform the duties of public office.33 The country was developing rapidly and governmental functions were expanding in scope and complexity.34 As Albert Somit has said, "Jackson made good on his promise to improve the Federal administration."30 Perhaps the major reason was the fact that his top officials, at least, were well educated and qualified. In the last analysis, Jackson was not willing to sacrifice the government or his political reputation to his populist notions. Although his appointment ideology differed in important respects from those of Adams and Jefferson, he nevertheless shared their ideas about the necessity of an efficient administration, and talent and education were not easily separable.38 Few positions in any of the elites were filled by men with little or no education. The proportion in each elite was exactly the same, 2 per cent. Only 15 per cent of the positions in Adams' elite were filled by men with elementary or secondary school education, compared to 25 per cent for Jefferson and 32 per cent for Jackson. But these differences were merely the obverse of the findings on college attendance: the 11 per cent fewer of Jefferson's and Jackson's positions held by college men were filled by people who had gone to the common schools, academies, and the like. Jackson leaned heavily on men of education because he was reluctant to entrust the leadership of the government to the uneducated; this may also account for the fact that a majority of positions in Jackson's elite were filled by men who were of Class I social-class origins and whose fathers had had highranking occupations, since upper-class origins and college attendance in this period were correlated. In the seventeenth century higher education had been the monopoly of the upper class. The college outran the elementary 1 2 7

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

and secondary school in development because the ruling groups were intent on establishing the capstone to the educational system so that their sons would be trained to leadership. 37 By the eighteenth century, the yearly expenses of the older colleges — Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, for example — had become high in terms of the available cash income of most American families. In the early part of the nineteenth century the costs of a college education at these institutions continued to increase. One year at Harvard cost on the average about $250 — including tuition, room, board, fuel, laundry — while some students spent as much as $400 or $500 or even more.38 Annual expenses at Princeton were around $170, but many undergraduates found they could not get by for less than $500.39 The high cost of education restricted the older seaboard institutions to the wellto-do and gave them a fundamentally patrician character. 40 A few American state universities were organized after the Revolution, to broaden the social basis of the student body. 41 However, they failed to do so. The annual cost at the University of Georgia, for example, in the beginning of the nineteenth century, was $150, not much cheaper than Princeton and higher than some private denominational colleges. State universities, especially in the South, soon earned the reputation for being expensive, and were widely criticized as the exclusive preserves of the rich and the socially elite.42 Ironically, the most expensive college next to Harvard in 1830 was Jefferson's University of Virginia.43 There were opportunities for poor boys to go to college. Even in the seventeenth century they could attend Harvard on what would today be called scholarships.44 Some worked their way through by teaching during the long college winter vacation. 45 In addition, in the nineteenth century there appeared the frontier and hilltop colleges, the "people's colleges," specifically designed to cater to the needs of students of limited means. 46 Because of lower tuition charges and the fact that the newer schools made a

1 2 8

EDUCATION

virtue of "the lean and sallow abstinence" — the maintenance of a tone of student life that encouraged economy — they sometimes attracted the "poor bumptious sons of local farmers." 47 Here one could get by on $100 a year,48 yet $100 was a considerable sum of money in the early part of the nineteenth century, and even these schools were said to have "made a point of catering to the sons of prosperous farmers." 49 "With some exceptions, then, the colleges had not remained what most of them set out to be: institutions for all the people." 50 Yet there may have been social-class differences between students who went to the older seaboard schools and those who went to the newer institutions. Table 32 shows the number of times the different kinds of colleges were attended by elite members of the three administrations. The schools were organized into three categories: pre-Revolutionary, post-Revolutionary, and European. Analysis was again by number of appointments rather than by number of appointees. Furthermore, if an elite member attended more than one school both were counted. Therefore the total number of times the schools were attended was greater than the number of elite positions filled by college men. Almost all the Adams college men attended the pre-Revolutionary schools. Furthermore, John Adams' preference for his alma mater gave Harvard greater representation than any other school—29 per cent of the total. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and William and Mary, the principal seats of learning for the American upper class of this period, were represented in 67 per cent of the total. Actually only 12 different American colleges were attended by the Adams men, none of which catered to a middleor lower-class student body. Another index of the patrician character of the college men in Adams' elite was the fact that foreign schools were represented in 14 per cent of the total. The college men in Jefferson's elite were not of lower socialclass origins than those of Adams' elite. In both, the post-Revolu1 2 9

Table 32. Colleges attended by elite members.

College Group I: Pre-Revolutionary Brown Columbia Dartmouth Harvard Litchfield Law School Princeton Queens Museum Rutgers U. of Pennsylvania Washington College (Va.) William and Mary Yale Totals Group II: PostRevolutionary Baltimore Dickinson Franklin Hampden-Sidney Nashville St. John's (Annapolis) Transylvania U. of North Carolina U. of Virginia Washington College (Md.) Washington College (Pa.) West Point Williams Totals

Adams (ΛΓ = 60)»

Jefferson (.Ν = 52)»

Num- Per ber cent

Num- Per ber cent

Jackson (N = 66)» Number

0 2 1 20

0 4 2 5

2 1 6 1

2 8 1 1 2

0 9 0 0 3

6 12 0 0 4

2 9 10

4 12 8

2 10 2

58

83

47

78

46

0 0 0 2 0

0 0 0 1 0

2 9 1 2 1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1 7 6 1

0

2

0

0 0 0

0 0 0

2 1 1

2

3

3

5

34

Per cent

57

42

EDUCATION Table 32. — Continued Adams (N = 60)»

College Group III: European Geneva Honfleur Inns of Court Oxford Paris Law School St. Omer Trinity (Dublin) U. of Caen U. of Edinburgh U. of Leyden Totals Totals for all colleges

Number

Per cent

Jefferson (N = 52)" Number

Per cent

Jackson (Ν = 66)» Number

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0

0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Per cent

10

14

10

17

1

70

100

60

100

81

» Refers to the number of elite positions filled by college men.

tionary (Group II) schools contributed an insignificant proportion to the total, 3 per cent and 5 per cent respectively. Jackson's elite members attended 22 different American colleges, an illustration of the rapid development of higher education, and particularly of the post-Revolutionary state universities and frontier colleges. Attendance at the newer schools represented 42 per cent of the total number of times the different colleges were attended, compared to 57 per cent for the preRevolutionary schools. The very rich schools, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and William and Mary, declined to 31 per cent of the total. Harvard suffered almost a complete eclipse, being represented only once. This may have contributed to the tradition that Jackson drove the man of learning from the govern1 3 ι

STATUS

AND

KINSHIP

ment. Yale did not do much better than Harvard, and only one Jacksonian attended a European school. Jackson thus did not dispense with educated men, but broadened the range of institutions on which he drew. Whether that also broadened the range of the social hierarchy that he appointed will be revealed by cross-tabulating stratum of origin and college attendance and the type of college attended. Table 33 includes a distribution of the social backgrounds of the college men in the elites. Once again the distribution is in the familiar pattern: 81 per cent of the positions in Adams' elite filled by college men were filled by those whose fathers had high-ranking occupations, compared to 74 per cent for Jefferson and 62 per cent for Jackson. Conversely, 37 per cent of the positions filled by college men in Jackson's elite were filled by men whose fathers had middle-ranking occupations, compared to 23 per cent for Jefferson and 18 per cent for Adams. More positions in Jefferson's elite were filled by college men of Class I origins than was the case for Adams or Jackson, a reversal of the situation between Adams and Jefferson with occupation as the index. However, if Classes I and II are combined, there is no difference between the Federalists and Jeffersonians. The college men in Jackson's elite, then, were of lower occupational and social-class origins than their counterparts in the other two elites. Differences in social origins between the elite members who attended the older, more exclusive colleges and those who attended the post-Revolutionary colleges can be seen in Table 34, which includes the distribution of stratum of origin and type of college attended. The data do not suggest that the men who attended the newer colleges were of markedly lower origins than those who attended the older, more exclusive colleges. Actually, the Jacksonians who attended the colleges established after the Revolution were of higher occupational origins than those who attended the pre-Revolutionary schools, but they

1 3 2

EDUCATION Table 33. Occupational and social origins of college men. Adams 60)

Category Father's occupation High-ranking Landed gentry Merchant Professional

Number

13 16 21 50

Middle-ranking Artisan, manufacturer Farmer Professional (teacher) Sea captain Shopkeeper Tavernkeeper

Unknown Totals 8 Social-class origins Class I Class II Class I I I Unknown Totals" a

Per cent

Jefferson (ΛΓ = 52) Number

Per cent

13 10 16 81

39

Jackson (N = 66)

Number

Per cent

19 11 12 74

42

4 6

6 2

9 13

0 0 1 0

0 2 1 1

1 0 0 2

62

11

18

12

23

25

37

1

1

2

3

1

1

62

100

53

100

68

100

44 13 2 3

71 21 3 5

41 8 2 2

77 15 4 4

44 14 5 5

65 21 7 7

62

100

53

100

68

100

Includes stepfathers.

13

3

o o o o

o ™

o

I . © O O

©

© rt O O O O

rt

O

rt

O O - H O O

rt

Ξ α Ρ^ g © η

CD O

-ö ü> Ό β

•3 » "¡fe:

α>

OCO-^I^

l ï

o

« *

ä s

s

s

r f O O r H O O l «

OJ

H O O O O O

rtio

t* Ν © © »H I ©

|rt

Ο Ι Ο

- η ο ο ο ι ο

1·°

ce bJO

0 S

o o

»

•8 »

a ¡>>

s

I to

« Q P. g

•Π

S * .

S O) -Ρ

s d

ν ι

6 ία 01

O 'So

Ì

»

o o 02

-ι O O O O O

O

S a tu S S

κ

n o o

I «

o o © o © o

© I ©

] ©

©

I o*

£

II

n o h o o

I

η

O © © © O

I ©

n o © © © ! «

S o Ah g IO © rt © ©

Ν

I

s

© CO OI Ο 01

Φ s * 8

-Φ CO

Λ Η

Ν (O ®

S

*

,

a •fl .»a _ι «ι M s s n o Μ 8 s 5 3 -a a o S Ό