For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 1850s

by Ronald P. Formisano

For the People offers a new interpretation of populist political movements from the Revolution to the eve of the Civil War and roots them in the disconnect between the theory of rule by the people and the reality of rule by elected representatives. Ron Formisano seeks to rescue populist movements from the distortions of contemporary opponents as well as the misunderstandings of later historians.

From the Anti-Federalists to the Know-Nothings, Formisano traces the movements chronologically, contextualizing them and demonstrating the progression of ideas and movements. Although American populist movements have typically been categorized as either progressive or reactionary, left-leaning or right-leaning, Formisano argues that most populist movements exhibit liberal and illiberal tendencies simultaneously. Gendered notions of "manhood" are an enduring feature, yet women have been intimately involved in nearly every populist insurgency. By considering these movements together, Formisano identifies commonalities that belie the pattern of historical polarization and bring populist movements from the margins to the core of American history.

Genres: History

328 pages, Hardcover

First published February 1, 2008

About the author

A specialist in the field of United States political culture and politics in the nineteenth and twentieth century and a founder of the “ethnocultural school” of US political history, Ron Formisano was the William T. Bryan Chair of American History at the University of Kentucky, where he taught from 2001 until his retirement in 2014. He earned a BA at Brown University and an MA from the University of Wisconsin–Madison before receiving his PhD from Wayne State University. Formisano also taught at the University of Florida (1990-2001), Clark University (1973-1990), and the University of Rochester (1968-1973).

Reviews

[Andrew Figueiredo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Formisano's study of pre-Civil War populism is really interesting, although it has some interesting omissions, namely New York's Locofocos. He goes through various movements, from anti-federalists to Fries Rebellion to the Whiskey Rebellion to Shay's Rebellion to the anti-Masons to the Know-Nothing Party and more. Formisano takes a non-condescending tone towards populists, a welcome reprieve from historians who screech about paranoia anytime they see a populist movement. He brings to light how nearly all of these movements, including the ones we see today as purely regressive, had progressive elements to them. This arose in ways that complicate our current narrative. For example, the anti-Masonic movement actually had heavy female participation. This is despite the fact that it also represented a heavily Evangelical approach to politics that wanted to see a Christian republic. Simultaneously though, they tended to uphold a very independent, some might say backward-looking, vision of masculinity. And many anti-Masonics were ardent abolitionists! As another example, the Know Nothing Party in Massachusetts was a major source of progressive economic and social reforms, which clashes with our vision of them today as purely xenophobic, anti-Catholic reactionaries. They managed to be both.

For Formisano, early populist like backers of Rhode Island's Dorr Rebellion represented a notion of popular constitutionalism where the people themselves could throw out an unrepresentative government through extra-constitutional means. But as time passed, many of these populist uprisings were crushed with military force. Sometimes they made their own strategic errors, but in almost all cases they ran up against establishment power. History subsequently stigmatized them as a bunch of backwoods lunatics. This historiography, as Formisano argues, does a disservice to the real grievances early populists contended with. For instance, it's forgotten that at the time, Rhode Island and upstate New York operated as virtually feudal, undemocratic fortress states. Something clearly needed to be shaken up!

With time, the major parties adopted populist rhetoric and co-opted this restlessness into a more party-centered approach. The nature of American politics changed to underscore "the people". I found this argument convincing, and Formisano reveals that many populists were *against* Jacksonianism, finding themselves in the broad tent of the Whig party. This came as a surprise to me, considering Jackson's own populist style.

I've been intrigued by the long history of American populism for a while, and a work like this one is a good answer to those who locate its beginnings in the late 1800s, even though it's incomplete and develops a disproportionate focus on the anti-Masonic party.

[Scott Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Audiobook) (3.5 stars) This work looks at the origins of populist movements in American politics from the first 70-80 years of America’s history. Most of them are tinged with a discriminatory and conspiratorial element (i.e. anti-Masons, anti-Catholic, anti-Immigrant). How political figures leverage those fears/assumptions for political gain is a tale that is as old as politics itself, and one that translate into today’s political reality. The work does seem a bit limited in scope, and at times, can get a bit dry in the writing/analysis. However, it does have a place on the modern political scientist’s shelf. Maybe not a must read for many, but it does have some increased relevancy, especially with MAGA and other such movements.

[Chris Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

We had to read this book for one of my graduate school courses. It was an interesting book that covered both reactionary and grass-roots populist movements that happened well before the "Populist Party" in the 1890s. The point of this book is that our country has always had a populist streak, although perhaps it would be more correct to say we have had more than one populist streak that keeps showing up every few years in the election cycle.