The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America

by Drew R. McCoy

By investigating eighteenth-century social and economic thought--an intellectual world with its own vocabulary, concepts, and assumptions--Drew McCoy smoothly integrates the history of ideas and the history of public policy in the Jeffersonian era. The book was originally published by UNC Press in 1980.

Genres: History, American History, Economics, Nonfiction, Politics, Government, The United States Of America

278 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 1980

About the author

A specialist in American political and intellectual history, Drew McCoy is Jacob and Frances Hiatt Professor of History at Clark University. He received his A.B. from Cornell University in 1971, and his M.A. (1973) and his Ph.D. (1976) from the University of Virginia.

Reviews

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of the many challenges that Americans faced when they won their independence in 1783, perhaps the most daunting of them was that of establishing a republican system of government. At a time when the prevailing political wisdom in the West held that monarchies were necessary for political stability, such a choice seemed not only bold, but incredibly risky. For it to succeed, many Americans believed, such a government required a society that was free from the corruptions and social divisions that plagued the Old World. To avoid the dangers of commercialization and the urban concentrations that invited such flaws, revolutionaries such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison envisioned a nation built upon an agrarian independence, which they were convinced would secure the robust republicanism they sought for the new nation.

Drew McCoy’s book offers an exploration of the development and application of this ideology in the new republic. At the heart of it is his examination of contemporary concepts of “political economy,” their phrase for the interrelationship between government and the social and economic order. More than just an examination of the impact of economic operations, political economy was regarded as a study of the moral and ethical dimensions of economic life, which could be shaped and determined by government policy. Such luminaries of the Scottish Enlightenment as Adam Smith, David Hume, and Adam Ferguson addressed this question in many of their writings, which considered the consequences of the early modern commercial revolution upon European society. As commercialism transformed economic activities, these writers were at the forefront of the debate over its impact on men’s character, which many feared demeaned it.

The Patriots across the Atlantic needed little persuasion that this was indeed the case. Even before the American Revolution, many of them expressed a disgust with the poverty they saw in British society, which they contrasted unfavorably with their own agrarian communities. Independence offered the chance to avoid being dragged down into such moral degradation by empowering the colonists to determine the course of their own development. This was to be based on two forms of expansion: landed expansion that would ensure a plentiful supply of farmland for the citizens of the new republic, and commercial expansion overseas into markets for the nation’s agricultural surplus. While industry was included in this vision, McCoy stresses that this was to produce only local homespun products rather than the luxury goods associated with the burgeoning factories in Europe.

These aspirations ran afoul of the economic dislocations America experienced in the aftermath of independence. Faced with mounting unemployment and the social ills it caused, many feared that the corruption had already taken hold in society. Fears of a surplus population led Franklin and others to reconsider their previous dismissal of the need for manufacturing in the new republic. This fueled support for the alternate vision proposed by Alexander Hamilton of a nation in which industry was fostered alongside agriculture and commerce. As Hamilton’s agenda was adopted in the 1790s, Jefferson and Madison feared that it would bring about the “Anglicization” of American society by a corrupted system of government, which threatened to jeopardize the nascent republic.

Jefferson’s victory in the election of 1800 offered him and his supporters the opportunity to set things right. His use of the word “revolution” to describe his new administration is seen by the author as reflecting the president’s desire to return to the original principles that drove the struggle for independence through his vision of a political economy. McCoy describes the challenges this effort faced, most notably the tension between a peaceful agricultural republic and the aggressive foreign policy necessary to acquire new lands for its growth. While Jefferson was able to avoid the inherent conflict for most of his presidency, as his successor Madison was not as fortunate, as the trade disruptions caused by Britain’s struggle with Napoleon Bonaparte’s France ultimately led the United States to declare war in defense of its vision – a war that ultimately forced Jeffersonians to acknowledge the limitations of their agrarian vision.

In retirement both Jefferson and Madison fretted over the future of their vision of a virtuous agrarian republic, even as Americans embraced the commercialized economy their policies unintentionally created. McCoy downplays this irony, preferring to focus instead on the enduring debate over the national character that their ideas did so much to shape. McCoy’s coverage of it is narrower than is justified, as important figures such as John Talyor of Caroline go unaddressed, as does the lust for Canada that was such an important part of the Jeffersonians’ foreign policy aspirations prior to the War of 1812. Yet none of this diminishes the value of McCoy’s book as a study of Jeffersonian thought and its impact on the nation’s development. It is a classic that remains necessary reading for anyone interested in the history of the early American republic or the development of our national ideology.

[Andrew Morin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was fine—a good summary of the position and pretty well structured, but needlessly repetitive of the main points. Would’ve preferred exploring a little more broadly with the rest of the space in the book.

[Andrew Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is now over 40 years old but still has a great appeal. McCoy analyzes the scope of the Jeffersonian program as it hit the reality of a world economy. Although McCoy demonstrates how the elements of the program could not withstand the economic situations of the day, the Jeffersonians come across as devoted followers of the yeoman farmer standard. However, translating a world view when you are hitched to a particular ideology becomes impossible. Hamilton did help to create a viable economic system that could compete with other countries in the world. However, he differs from Adam Smith when he does not take into account the sufferings caused by many people tied to a factory system. The Hamilton-Jefferson battles did take up most of the important events of the 1790s and McCoy does a masterful job in presenting hot they fared. Read this book to enlighten yourself on their epic battles.

[Matthias]

Being in the first few weeks of my current job (teaching American history, as it happens) have left my brain in a new-parent-like stupor, meaning it took me longer to complete than a typical book, and that I appreciated how repetitive it was. (There may have been some ideas in here that were not repeated many times, but I did not retain them. Perhaps a good lesson for the teacher himself.)

This is basically a study of the subject of population pressure within republican thought. Drawing on both the republican heritage as well as the Scottish school's proto-Marxist conception of the stages of history - foraging, herding, agriculture, commerce - ideologues of the Jeffersonian half of early America understood their present epoch of historical development as one that was heading inevitably towards a capitalist social order through population growth, which would destroy the republican civic and personal virtue particular to a nation of free peasant smallholders. (Technological advance would increase the amount of agricultural surplus per farmer, which would reduce the amount of population engaged in farming, who would then be forced to work for wages, then losing their independence.) These then supported an extensive regime of accumulation that would keep free land available through seizure of Indian territory, preserving the middle-class agrarian character of American life as long as could be managed - though, as far as McCoy portrays them, they thought that this was inevitable process that could only be forestalled for so long. And, indeed, they were successful for about as long as they could be.

This simultaneously seems to vindicate everything that I've read in Turchin's Ages of Discord that American history just is population history, and that moreover the politicians at the time knew it; and to vindicate everything (in the northern half of the equation) in Post's American Road to Capitalism that early American history just is the triumph of the capitalist mode of production as against commercially-oriented but internally noncapitalist farming, and that moreover the politicians of the time knew it. The most obvious lacuna here is slavery, which McCoy himself acknowledges, but which he defends here on the grounds that this is an intellectual history and the Jeffersonian ideologues themselves were mostly focused elsewhere, even if it's clearly lurking in the background.

Recommended if you've read Turchin and/or Post, which in turn I would recommend to everybody.

[Dan Gorman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Accessible introduction to early republican political economy, particularly Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison's desire to expand American territory and, through the development of new farms, create an agricultural republic. This would serve to stave off the fear of famine and social collapse, first dreamed up by Thomas Malthus, and delay the rise of social corruption, which many of the Founders considered inevitable. It is interesting to contrast these Founders' belief in inevitable corruption with other Founders' belief in a progressively better American future.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrific at explaining the development of the republican vision, but slavery is--barring an unconvincing excuse in the last few pages--stunningly absent.

[Jonathan Hedgpeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was a tedious read. Which is unfortunate because Thomas Jefferson's economic philosophy is interesting. Frequent reference is made to the Jeffersonians but the text is quite short on direct quotes from them or even any explanation of who the Jeffersonians were....obviously they were republican politicians and members of Jefferson's Republican party, but their is very little attention paid to the concerns of those charged with the task of implementing a system of yeomanry on the local level. The true spirit of Jefferson's ideal was in the strength of local governance. Therefore I expected to come away from this book with a better understanding of the varying circumstances in the Jeffersonian/Republican world. Instead there is a lot of information about ensuing industrialization. Which is fine, and an historian should never be afraid of sounding obvious, but I must admit that I learned very little from this adumbration that I am not already familiar with. Jefferson didn't like financial/commerce and cities, centralization or the influence of these aspects of society upon its politics. The Louisiana Purchase was sought as a a guarantee on ensuring the existance of the agrarian yeomanry on into the future. The institution of Slavery undermined these assumptions. Defensive, sectional, seperatist ideals emerged as a result. If you know this, then outside the insipid detail of commercial negotiations, that is the gist of the book.

I was just expecting a more qualitative approach. Thomas Cooper and Joseph Priestly were the only fresh voices... intellectuals or philosophical agents that the reader is introduced to. Very little attention is given to other Jeffersonian Politicians. We get a little Webster, good deal of old Hamilton and quite a lot of Madison and Jefferson. I was disappointed primarily because I was expecting to be drawn into the world of the early republic. I wanted to hear about the personalities and events that defined that era in greater detail and with more care than was provided. In short I wanted to hear about the issues that consumed the Jeffersonians on the local level. How did they act to remedy their challenges--where did they succeed, where did they fall short, and why.....these questions, for me, remain unanswered.

[Kent · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very accessible read about the conflicting ideas of political economy during the first decades of the new nation. McCoy situates the conflicting views of Hamilton and the Republicans within the existing ideological sphere which focused on ideas of societal development. How to maintain the republican value system of the Revolutionary generation became a leading point of debate within the new nation, especially as the country's social and economic development appeared to advance at a faster pace than expected. The Republican policy also contained some workable, and not so workable, paradoxes over the issues of manufacturing and foreign trade. McCoy, through the examination of the writings of leading thinkers, presents a clear and easy to follow explanation of how ideas about America's political economy changed between 1780 and 1812. My main complaint is that I'm still not exactly sure what McCoy's main argument is, if indeed there is one beyond drawing attention to political economy (as previous scholars had not focused on it) or to show that the main goal of establishing a society at a stage of development that would continue to produce virtuous citizens never wavered throughout the period, even if the policies to do this appear paradoxical. Two other minor qualms are that McCoy devotes very little attention to slavery and no attention to women at all. With the work almost completely about economic policies, the fact that much of the country prospered by the economic system of slavery is missing until the very last chapter is odd. Also, McCoy never mentions where women fit into ideas of political economy. The citizens he always references were/are men, but women's work was essential to the establishment of virtuous households/citizens and the manufacturers allowed by the Republican system. Still, while a bit repetitive at times, the work is a quick read and easy introduction to the ideological understandings of political economics during the early Republic.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

McCoy recasts the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison as part of an extended attempt at establishing a Republic. This is ultimately a tragedy, as the nature of the Republic they envisioned, a combination of modernity with classical republicanism was so frought with internal tension that even Jefferson and Madison thought it was only a temporary state. The key was not to establish a virtuous republic that would last forever, but to forestall for as long as possible the final stage of human development, characterized by avarice, luxury, venality and the economic stratification of society, divided between the very rich and the dependent, property-less, urban poor. What was then revolutionary about the war for independence was that it rejected the political economy of Britain and replaced it with a political-economic-social order that would expand through space (west) and not through time.

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

"As the Scottish political economist Sir James Steuart aptly noted, these appitites offered the modern alternative to the enforced slave labor of earlier times, for men were now incited to labor not 'because they were slaves to others' but because they were 'slaves to their own wants.'" (31-2)

"The evils of a densely populated society, particularly the impetus created toward establishing an economy based on manufacturing for export, could be forestalled in America as long as its citizens were able to expand across space rather than develop through time." (62)

"Jefferson's notion of a continuously expanding 'empire of liberty' in the Western Hemisphere was a bold intellectual stroke, because it flew in the face of the traditional republican association of expansion and empire with luxury, corruption, and expecially despotism." (204)

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A diificult read, but certainly a classic work that shows the contradiction at the heart of Jefferson's economic policy.

[AskHistorians]

Contextualizes the founders' vision of republicanism in the political economy and cultural context of their own time.