What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy, 1865-1915
A penetrating, character-filled history “in the manner of David McCullough” (WSJ), revealing the deep roots of our tormented present-day politics.
Democracy was broken. Or that was what many Americans believed in the decades after the Civil War. Shaken by economic and technological disruption, they sought safety in aggressive, tribal partisanship. The results were the loudest, closest, most violent elections in U.S. history, driven by vibrant campaigns that drew our highest-ever voter turnouts. At the century's end, reformers finally restrained this wild system, trading away participation for civility in the process. They built a calmer, cleaner democracy, but also a more distant one. Americans' voting rates crashed and never fully recovered.
This is the origin story of the “normal” politics of the 20th century. Only by exploring where that civility and restraint came from can we understand what is happening to our democracy today.
The Age of Acrimony charts the rise and fall of 19th-century America's unruly politics through the lives of a remarkable father-daughter dynasty. The radical congressman William “Pig Iron” Kelley and his fiery, Progressive daughter Florence Kelley led lives packed with drama, intimately tied to their nation's politics. Through their friendships and feuds, campaigns and crusades, Will and Florie trace the narrative of a democracy in crisis. In telling the tale of what it cost to cool our republic, historian Jon Grinspan reveals our divisive political system's enduring capacity to reinvent itself.
Democracy was broken. Or that was what many Americans believed in the decades after the Civil War. Shaken by economic and technological disruption, they sought safety in aggressive, tribal partisanship. The results were the loudest, closest, most violent elections in U.S. history, driven by vibrant campaigns that drew our highest-ever voter turnouts. At the century's end, reformers finally restrained this wild system, trading away participation for civility in the process. They built a calmer, cleaner democracy, but also a more distant one. Americans' voting rates crashed and never fully recovered.
This is the origin story of the “normal” politics of the 20th century. Only by exploring where that civility and restraint came from can we understand what is happening to our democracy today.
The Age of Acrimony charts the rise and fall of 19th-century America's unruly politics through the lives of a remarkable father-daughter dynasty. The radical congressman William “Pig Iron” Kelley and his fiery, Progressive daughter Florence Kelley led lives packed with drama, intimately tied to their nation's politics. Through their friendships and feuds, campaigns and crusades, Will and Florie trace the narrative of a democracy in crisis. In telling the tale of what it cost to cool our republic, historian Jon Grinspan reveals our divisive political system's enduring capacity to reinvent itself.
376 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 27, 2021
203 people are currently reading
1950 people want to read
About the author
Jon Grinspan
4 books26 followersJon Grinspan is a historian of American democracy, youth, and popular culture. He is a curator of political history at the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History and a frequent contributor to the New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
February 16, 2023
Two years ago, insurrectionists invaded the Capitol building to disrupt Congress in the counting of electoral votes. More recently, a handful of U.S. Representatives shouted and heckled the President during his State of the Union address. If the antics of extremists bewilders or befuddles you, if it seems “abnormal,” this book may help you see how such behavior fits a pattern of American history.
Between 1865 and 1915, popular politics in the United States was a noisy, dirty, colorful, militant, and often violent affair. So, author Jon Grinspan describes it with ample illustrations as “The Age of Acrimony.” He divides this age into three phases— “pure democracy” (1865-1877), competition and reform (1877-1890), and change (1890-1915). In its larger context, the “age of acrimony” bridges the period between the Civil War and the 20th Century. However, it also adds perspective to the popular politics of the 21st Century.
The author, an award-winning historian who is employed by the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, follows the lives of Congressman Will Kelly of Philadelphia and his social activist daughter, Florence. They illustrate the trends, transitions, and themes of their times—not as representatives typical of the general population, but as change-makers. Moreover, their connections to a vast variety of influential leaders puts their biographies in a position to shed light on the most important personalities of the age.
During the age of acrimony, the rules of popular politics were loose, and voter participation was very high As the 20th Century opened, reformers set a new tone for politics with new guidelines. Politics became a topic to be avoided in polite conversation. Voter participation decreased drastically. Secret ballots and voting machines replaced the open boxes hovered over by armed partisans. African Americans, despite having won the right to vote with the Fifteenth Amendment, virtually lost that right through the violence of the Ku Klux Klan and laws designed to keep them from the polls.
Throughout the lifetime of those born in the mid-20th Century, politics seemed civil, even boringly innocuous, compared to the wild, drunken politics of the age of acrimony. Now, as popular politics seems ever more stuck in bitter polarization, what seems abnormal may actually be within the normal range of feelings and uses of politics in the larger framework of American life. Name calling and dirty tricks are by no means without precedent in our history. The pendulum that swept out the age of acrimony reached the end of its range and is swinging back into a new period of colorful conflict. Whether this trend results in greater voter participation will be something to observe.
For me, this book was a slow, studious read. The biographical motif (Kelly father and daughter) served as a chain linking many events and personalities, but sometimes it contended with the historical narrative for my attention. Nevertheless, the benefit of having stayed with it (including frequent glances at the abundant footnotes) is a new perspective on current politics, including extremists as well as reformers.
July 3, 2021
Disappointing.
Grinspan looks at American democracy during years of a highly volatile political climate: the half-century after the Civil War. As a framing devise, and narrative hook, he focuses on a remarkable father-daugther combination: "Pig Iron" Kelley and his daughter Florence. Between them, they were involved in US politics for nearly a century. At times this framing devise helps, but it often gets in the way, as the book frequently threatens to read as a family history with occassional refers to overall US politics.
Making the problem of the Kelley focus worse: I often had trouble finding the point in Grinspan's narrative. It tended to read like piles of stuff. I get that the book is narrative-focused, but still - it helps if you can tell what purpose the information is serving. Since I couldn't always do that, it made the book seem that much more like "The Kelley Family: Featuring Special Guest the United States of America."
The main point is that the US had a really acrimonous political climate in the late 19th century, but pulled out of it and developed a less heated climate at the turn of the century. What caused this change? Mostly he ascribes it to changing political culture, where the public was tired of the old ways and wanted something else. Aiding this was a series of reforms, such as the shift away from mass marches and towards print-based campaigning (which was often more costly than marches, which relied on volunteers), and the rise of the secret ballot. OK, but ..... what caused the change in political culture? It feels like his explanatoin needs an explanation.
He notes that the shift in culture led to a decline in voting, as it peaked in 1896 and dropped down notably afterwards - a fact that didn't bother progressives like Florence a bit. I don't know if Grinspan ever stated it so bluntly as I'm about to, but it feels like the big reform that took place was to take a step away from democratic engagement, and quit trying to have so many people go out and vote all the time. But .... that still leaves me asking why? How come both parties were fine with fewer voting? My own take: after 1896, the GOP finally had a secure national majority, and that security of that majority helped dampen political flames. OK, but I never saw as clear an answer to that question in the book.
He makes some comparisons to the modern day in the intro, but never really builds on that, beyond "things are acrimonious now, and they were then." Like so much of the book, it felt undercooked.
Some random observations and takeaways from the book: the frequency of election riots still taking place into the 1870s; the 1870s were called the Great Depression until the 1930s (really? Not the 1890s?). Political parties brought people together in the days of atomized individuals. This started to change in the early 20th century when you had the rise of many organizations; everything from Rotary Club to Boy Scouts, to bowling leagues. The Compromise of 1877 didn't end Reconstruction - it was dying of indifference regardless. The Specie Resumption Act was a big deal economically. Tamanny Hall and the like practiced what they called "practical politics" it was attacked by reformers, who weren't bothered if that meant lower voter turnout. A new generation emerged in the 1880s that swore off the political system as rotten. A new generation of journalists saw democracy as failing and worked for their paper, not a political party. The war on the saloon was part of an overall skeptism towards the working class. Chicago's First Ward Ball lost its liquor license in 1908, so the 1909 affair was dry (and the last time they ever had it).
Grinspan looks at American democracy during years of a highly volatile political climate: the half-century after the Civil War. As a framing devise, and narrative hook, he focuses on a remarkable father-daugther combination: "Pig Iron" Kelley and his daughter Florence. Between them, they were involved in US politics for nearly a century. At times this framing devise helps, but it often gets in the way, as the book frequently threatens to read as a family history with occassional refers to overall US politics.
Making the problem of the Kelley focus worse: I often had trouble finding the point in Grinspan's narrative. It tended to read like piles of stuff. I get that the book is narrative-focused, but still - it helps if you can tell what purpose the information is serving. Since I couldn't always do that, it made the book seem that much more like "The Kelley Family: Featuring Special Guest the United States of America."
The main point is that the US had a really acrimonous political climate in the late 19th century, but pulled out of it and developed a less heated climate at the turn of the century. What caused this change? Mostly he ascribes it to changing political culture, where the public was tired of the old ways and wanted something else. Aiding this was a series of reforms, such as the shift away from mass marches and towards print-based campaigning (which was often more costly than marches, which relied on volunteers), and the rise of the secret ballot. OK, but ..... what caused the change in political culture? It feels like his explanatoin needs an explanation.
He notes that the shift in culture led to a decline in voting, as it peaked in 1896 and dropped down notably afterwards - a fact that didn't bother progressives like Florence a bit. I don't know if Grinspan ever stated it so bluntly as I'm about to, but it feels like the big reform that took place was to take a step away from democratic engagement, and quit trying to have so many people go out and vote all the time. But .... that still leaves me asking why? How come both parties were fine with fewer voting? My own take: after 1896, the GOP finally had a secure national majority, and that security of that majority helped dampen political flames. OK, but I never saw as clear an answer to that question in the book.
He makes some comparisons to the modern day in the intro, but never really builds on that, beyond "things are acrimonious now, and they were then." Like so much of the book, it felt undercooked.
Some random observations and takeaways from the book: the frequency of election riots still taking place into the 1870s; the 1870s were called the Great Depression until the 1930s (really? Not the 1890s?). Political parties brought people together in the days of atomized individuals. This started to change in the early 20th century when you had the rise of many organizations; everything from Rotary Club to Boy Scouts, to bowling leagues. The Compromise of 1877 didn't end Reconstruction - it was dying of indifference regardless. The Specie Resumption Act was a big deal economically. Tamanny Hall and the like practiced what they called "practical politics" it was attacked by reformers, who weren't bothered if that meant lower voter turnout. A new generation emerged in the 1880s that swore off the political system as rotten. A new generation of journalists saw democracy as failing and worked for their paper, not a political party. The war on the saloon was part of an overall skeptism towards the working class. Chicago's First Ward Ball lost its liquor license in 1908, so the 1909 affair was dry (and the last time they ever had it).
July 9, 2021
I was hoping to learn more about this era of American history and the subtitle seemed promising, but this just wasn’t what I was looking for. There’s too much here about Will “Pig Iron” Kelley and his daughter Flora. There is quite a bit of interesting information recounted here, but overall the book seems more akin to a Kelley family biography than a political history of the Gilded Age. I guess their story is intended to be an illustrative microcosm of the culture at large, but I would have preferred less history of the Kelleys and more of, perhaps, the United States?
There was not nearly enough actual analysis of “how Americans fought to fix their democracy.” I’m not saying he’s necessarily wrong in his assessments, but I did not find his rather cursory explanations to be either satisfying or persuasive.
Many of Chris’s thoughts mirrored my own, so I’ll go ahead and tag his much better review right here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
On the upside, I’m going to claim credit for reading both a history book and a biography.
There was not nearly enough actual analysis of “how Americans fought to fix their democracy.” I’m not saying he’s necessarily wrong in his assessments, but I did not find his rather cursory explanations to be either satisfying or persuasive.
Many of Chris’s thoughts mirrored my own, so I’ll go ahead and tag his much better review right here:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
On the upside, I’m going to claim credit for reading both a history book and a biography.
June 19, 2021
Excellent, excellent book. Given the political noise of today, reading The Age of Acrimony was either a tutorial every American should read on what happened during this acrimonious period (and how our republic grew and changed), or it's a harbinger of what's going to happen over the next few decades. Or it could be both. It was educational, informative, and entertaining all at the same time. Great book.
August 5, 2021
This is a good book for what it is. I chose this one over one of the many thousand page books about this era of US history because I guess I didn't want to read another brick of american history. But this book made me really wish I had picked up another brick to shove into my skull.
There's nothing wrong with this book, mind. But I just wanted more of everything and a greater synthesis of the various pressures and movements of the time. This is mostly a biography of Representative William Kelley, who had an active political life spanning across parties from the 1830s until his death in 1890. He was a continual fighter for oppressed people, advocating for the end of slavery, universal suffrage (including, radically for his time, universal women suffrage), and fair wages. Even so, the book includes how he turned on Reconstruction, as those concerns began to interest him less than the general plight of the poor.
The thesis of the book is where I come to a bit of an issue. History can do many things. It can be activist, academic, interpretive, simple recounting of events, or it can reinvent previous understandings. This does something a bit interesting, which is, I think, activist in nature.
However, it's not advocating for a return to the mass democratic movements of the time period that threatened the country's stability. Rather, it's using this volatile time to try to show that the current volatility is nothing new. Which, sure. But this book also highlights that the way out of this volatility was through disenfranchisement and the culture of the Elite that came to dominate US politics. Meaning, we needed more of the *right* kind of voters and less of the rabble.
While this does appear to be accurate. American politics did cool in its temper, becoming less violent, less volatile, less criminal(?), and voting numbers did begin to collapse, leading to a general lethargy of democracy in the country that, honestly, still persists. Though the 2020 election is the biggest turnout in decades, it follows the 2016 election which was a historic low.
Grinspan never advocates for a cooling of democratic fire or that only certain types should vote, but it does seem clear that he sees the cooling process of disenfranchisement as at least more stable. And stability is good, assuming you want to live in a relatively safe world.
But I don't agree that the way out of this tempestuous time is through increased civility. We live in a sometimes frightening and volatile time. This is the first time in over a century that political violence has such high approval. That's alarming. But the obvious solution seems to be to actually address people's needs.
Grinspan argues that mass democracy actually made it impossible to solve problems. I find this a bit specious, honestly. Mass movements ended slavery, brought civil rights, ended the Vietnam War, and so on. Mass democracy civilizes the country. Yes, sometimes it's ugly and potentially frightening, but that has, I think, more to do with the Elite culture that Grinspan implicitly favors in this book.
The disconnect between the ruling class and the ruled class is so vast that it's astonishing guillotines haven't been erected.
Anyrate, this review is becoming a ramble. The information in here is quite good, but I find some of the analysis weak. It's convincing when you see it, but the more I think about it, the more it seems obviously incorrect, or at least convenient in its advocacy of the status quo.
There's nothing wrong with this book, mind. But I just wanted more of everything and a greater synthesis of the various pressures and movements of the time. This is mostly a biography of Representative William Kelley, who had an active political life spanning across parties from the 1830s until his death in 1890. He was a continual fighter for oppressed people, advocating for the end of slavery, universal suffrage (including, radically for his time, universal women suffrage), and fair wages. Even so, the book includes how he turned on Reconstruction, as those concerns began to interest him less than the general plight of the poor.
The thesis of the book is where I come to a bit of an issue. History can do many things. It can be activist, academic, interpretive, simple recounting of events, or it can reinvent previous understandings. This does something a bit interesting, which is, I think, activist in nature.
However, it's not advocating for a return to the mass democratic movements of the time period that threatened the country's stability. Rather, it's using this volatile time to try to show that the current volatility is nothing new. Which, sure. But this book also highlights that the way out of this volatility was through disenfranchisement and the culture of the Elite that came to dominate US politics. Meaning, we needed more of the *right* kind of voters and less of the rabble.
While this does appear to be accurate. American politics did cool in its temper, becoming less violent, less volatile, less criminal(?), and voting numbers did begin to collapse, leading to a general lethargy of democracy in the country that, honestly, still persists. Though the 2020 election is the biggest turnout in decades, it follows the 2016 election which was a historic low.
Grinspan never advocates for a cooling of democratic fire or that only certain types should vote, but it does seem clear that he sees the cooling process of disenfranchisement as at least more stable. And stability is good, assuming you want to live in a relatively safe world.
But I don't agree that the way out of this tempestuous time is through increased civility. We live in a sometimes frightening and volatile time. This is the first time in over a century that political violence has such high approval. That's alarming. But the obvious solution seems to be to actually address people's needs.
Grinspan argues that mass democracy actually made it impossible to solve problems. I find this a bit specious, honestly. Mass movements ended slavery, brought civil rights, ended the Vietnam War, and so on. Mass democracy civilizes the country. Yes, sometimes it's ugly and potentially frightening, but that has, I think, more to do with the Elite culture that Grinspan implicitly favors in this book.
The disconnect between the ruling class and the ruled class is so vast that it's astonishing guillotines haven't been erected.
Anyrate, this review is becoming a ramble. The information in here is quite good, but I find some of the analysis weak. It's convincing when you see it, but the more I think about it, the more it seems obviously incorrect, or at least convenient in its advocacy of the status quo.
January 17, 2022
A supremely interesting look at the social and political upheaval from the end of the Civil War to the turn of the twentieth century, often seen through the eyes of Will Kelley and his daughter Florie, a lifelong politician and labor activist respectively.
There are a few interesting parallels between then and now that are clearly demarcated by the author, but many more reveal themselves even without any extra attention put on them.
Grinspan never fully decides within the text if the more riotous campaigns of the 19th century are better than the cool, mechanical campaigns of the early 20th century, and I appreciated that. Both have their pros and cons; popular involvement versus a tighter focus on the issues, or voting-day brawls and threats compared to the secret ballot.
It is comforting in a way to read about a congressman getting shot at after delivering a speech (the aforementioned Kelley), and read that the newspapers didn't even focus on it because it wasn't that big of a deal. Compared to today, when every campaign feels fraught with tension and potential violence bubbling under the surface, the end of the 19th century was even more intense.
There are a few interesting parallels between then and now that are clearly demarcated by the author, but many more reveal themselves even without any extra attention put on them.
Grinspan never fully decides within the text if the more riotous campaigns of the 19th century are better than the cool, mechanical campaigns of the early 20th century, and I appreciated that. Both have their pros and cons; popular involvement versus a tighter focus on the issues, or voting-day brawls and threats compared to the secret ballot.
It is comforting in a way to read about a congressman getting shot at after delivering a speech (the aforementioned Kelley), and read that the newspapers didn't even focus on it because it wasn't that big of a deal. Compared to today, when every campaign feels fraught with tension and potential violence bubbling under the surface, the end of the 19th century was even more intense.
March 18, 2025
Man, I wish I could give this six stars because it was just that good. The book brilliantly captures the parallels between today's politics and the broader social movements of the past—labor rights, children's welfare, women's suffrage—all while placing the powerful Kelley family at the heart of these pivotal moments.
Set during a time when political participation was at an all-time high, the book explores how American democracy was being challenged, debated, and fought over. While many people tend to overlook this era in our nation’s history, this book brings it to life with such depth and richness that it demands further study.
Anyone even remotely interested in politics or history should pick this up ASAP.
Set during a time when political participation was at an all-time high, the book explores how American democracy was being challenged, debated, and fought over. While many people tend to overlook this era in our nation’s history, this book brings it to life with such depth and richness that it demands further study.
Anyone even remotely interested in politics or history should pick this up ASAP.
July 30, 2022
Although the topic of voting and political engagement from the 1850s-1920s isn't one I would normally choose to read, the book was written in a very engaging, easy-to-read style, including a lot of interesting details, descriptions, and personalities. It does not answer the question of how to 'fix' the US's current political climate, it does provide some important context.
July 16, 2025
Ik ben er nog steeds niet uit of het vermengen van een nationaal narratief en een biografie een goed idee was, maar beiden werken wel naast elkaar?
April 12, 2025
Can't imagine why I'm reading this as the world collapses into oligarchy
January 8, 2025
I read this book and Dana Bash's "America's Deadliest Election"
one after the other, and I recommend reading them that way.
These books have given me some relief while nonetheless contributing to my cynicism. We are going through a turbulent time now and, in my view, have re-elected one of the worst Americans of all time to the highest office.
On the one hand, what I took from these books is that this country has gone through such times before and worse. We are not going through another Reconstruction era. It's not that bad. The country survived Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. We will survive again. There, that's the reassurance.
One the other hand, what I took is that our election system simply does not work. We the people really don't choose our leaders, and the leaders we get are incredibly unfit for a system of which we claim to be so proud. There - that's the cynicism.
This book is well worth reading. I've seen some criticism in comments on how the author breaks from straight history to provide biographical information about a congressman and his daughter who were both active and influential during the Gilded Age and the early 2oth century (at least the daughter was in the latter). I disagree. I like the human element injected into the history, and I think it makes it more readable and interesting.
one after the other, and I recommend reading them that way.These books have given me some relief while nonetheless contributing to my cynicism. We are going through a turbulent time now and, in my view, have re-elected one of the worst Americans of all time to the highest office.
On the one hand, what I took from these books is that this country has gone through such times before and worse. We are not going through another Reconstruction era. It's not that bad. The country survived Reconstruction and the Gilded Age. We will survive again. There, that's the reassurance.
One the other hand, what I took is that our election system simply does not work. We the people really don't choose our leaders, and the leaders we get are incredibly unfit for a system of which we claim to be so proud. There - that's the cynicism.
This book is well worth reading. I've seen some criticism in comments on how the author breaks from straight history to provide biographical information about a congressman and his daughter who were both active and influential during the Gilded Age and the early 2oth century (at least the daughter was in the latter). I disagree. I like the human element injected into the history, and I think it makes it more readable and interesting.
January 12, 2026
The Age of Acrimony
Jon Grinspan, The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy, 1865-1915 (2021)
Jon Grinspan's The Age of Acrimony offers a bracing corrective to nostalgic narratives about American democracy. Rather than examining our current political dysfunction as unprecedented, Grinspan demonstrates that the late 19th century was far more turbulent, violent, and divisive than our own era. His central insight is that "it's not that our problems are the same as those of the late 19th century, but that the era in between was so unusual"—suggesting that the relatively civil mid-20th century politics many remember was the aberration, not the norm.
The book tracks the story of Pennsylvania Congressman William "Pig Iron" Kelley and his daughter Florence through the Gilded Age, using their experiences as a lens into an era when political engagement was both more intense and more dangerous than today. Kelley, a supporter of African-American rights, was attacked on the House floor by Kentucky Congressman Alexander Field with a knife that "cut his hand to the bone"—a shocking reminder that six U.S. congressmen were murdered by political rivals between 1859 and 1905, compared to just three killed over the subsequent 75 years (Huey Long, Robert Kennedy, and Leo Ryan), and those by strangers rather than political opponents.
Grinspan vividly recreates the Washington of the 1860s and 1870s, a city with neighborhoods called "Swamppoodle" and "Murder Bay," where a canal on the National Mall "stank like the ghost of 20,000 dead cats." To move to Washington, Henry Adams observed, "announced one self as an adventurer, an office seeker, a person of deplorably bad judgment." The federal government was rapidly expanding—from having more congressmen than paid staff in the early republic to 6,000 paid employees by the 1870s and 14,000 by the 1880s—yet remained a capital of indiscretion where ambitious politicians, far from their hometowns, behaved scandalously.
The book illuminates how the post-Civil War era descended into vicious partisan warfare. President Andrew Johnson, "an impoverished tailor who had climbed to the most powerful position in the nation," proved "resentful, paranoid, and searingly racist"—even "generous observers found him always worse than you expect." The two-party system hardened into tribal warfare: Republicans saw Democrats as "the stupider party, shady criminals," while Democrats portrayed Republicans as "bureaucrats, crooked tax collectors, meddlesome reformers" and attacked African-American officeholders. The Democratic landslide of 1874 marked "the largest congressional landslide up to that point in American history" and spelled doom for Reconstruction.
Grinspan's treatment of Reconstruction's demise is particularly powerful. White supremacists "attacked black voters with renewed aggression," using organized violence to "intimidate and murder African-Americans in Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi." By the mid-1870s, white Northerners "were done with Reconstruction," abandoning the promise of racial equality. The 15th Amendment "remained in the constitution, even as it became nearly impossible for most African-Americans to actually vote"—a constitutional guarantee rendered meaningless for nearly a century.
The 1876 Hayes-Tilden election produced a crisis eerily resonant today. For weeks, Americans didn't know who their president would be. One Virginia woman "canceled all her newspaper subscriptions after weeks of trying to keep up—'if anybody says election to me I want to fight, ignorance is bliss now.'" The Atlantic Monthly highlighted the absurdity of "a populous democracy squabbling over a few electoral college votes," arguing that "the electoral college no longer serve[s] a useful purpose" and that "an aristocracy of electors has no place in our Republican system." The crisis wasn't resolved until March 1877, just two days before the inauguration. The resolution came through backroom dealing: party leaders agreed Hayes would become president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops, effectively ending Reconstruction and abandoning African-Americans to Jim Crow terrorism.
The spoils system magnified political stakes to absurd levels. Every presidential election meant 14,000 federal jobs and 50,000 post office positions changed hands. Charles Guiteau exemplified the dangerous delusion this system bred—convinced his "labor had won the day," he pestered President Garfield, his wife, and Secretary of State Blaine "demanding a consulship, preferably Vienna, although he could settle for Paris." The system's human costs were severe, as demonstrated by scandals like Grover Cleveland's, who had "fathered a child a decade ago" with Maria Halpin, who "claimed she had been sexually assaulted by Cleveland"—competing narratives that reflected the era's indifference to women's voices.
From the 1830s through the late 1870s, Americans "lost faith in pure democracy." The problem, as contemporary observers recognized, was not merely corrupt leaders but "a systematic defect in the character or actions of the people." The 1863 draft riots, when "a ragged, coatless, heterogeneously weaponed army seized much of Manhattan, killing hundreds—most of the victims were African-Americans," demonstrated that civil disorder could paralyze major cities. The New York Times defended its offices with a Gatling gun.
Yet Grinspan also traces how Americans eventually "fought to fix their democracy." The mechanical voting device, invented in 1889 by someone "tired of watching upstate Republicans falsify vote counts," introduced within a decade "an updated version into regular use with a new invention: a curtain which closed behind the voter so that votes were secret." This simple innovation helped transform electoral politics from "hectic crowds waving torches" to "orderly voters lined up on election day."
The reforms came at a cost. "During the Gilded Age, the wealthy victors of the Gilded Age's class wars chose to trade participation for stability," and voter turnout "crashed, falling by 1/3 in the early 20th century." The parties "offered a countervailing sense of community" in "an age of ruthless individualism," but as politics became more orderly, it also became less participatory. Between 1919 and 1920, politics was "reformed" into something calmer but also more exclusive.
Grinspan's book carries sobering implications for our current moment. If the average congressional district now has 750,000 people—"more than lived in one state in 1790"—can representative democracy function at such scale? His evidence suggests that while "Americans became less likely to hurt each other over electoral politics" in the 20th century, with less "shooting, stabbing and knockdowns, even white supremacist riots," this civility came through suppression of mass participation as much as through genuine democratic reform.
The Age of Acrimony is essential reading for anyone concerned about contemporary political polarization. Grinspan demonstrates that American democracy has survived worse—but also that survival came through compromise, sometimes abandoning the most vulnerable, and accepting reduced popular engagement. Whether we can find better solutions to our current acrimony remains an open question, but Grinspan's historical perspective provides crucial context for that effort.
Jon Grinspan, The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy, 1865-1915 (2021)
Jon Grinspan's The Age of Acrimony offers a bracing corrective to nostalgic narratives about American democracy. Rather than examining our current political dysfunction as unprecedented, Grinspan demonstrates that the late 19th century was far more turbulent, violent, and divisive than our own era. His central insight is that "it's not that our problems are the same as those of the late 19th century, but that the era in between was so unusual"—suggesting that the relatively civil mid-20th century politics many remember was the aberration, not the norm.
The book tracks the story of Pennsylvania Congressman William "Pig Iron" Kelley and his daughter Florence through the Gilded Age, using their experiences as a lens into an era when political engagement was both more intense and more dangerous than today. Kelley, a supporter of African-American rights, was attacked on the House floor by Kentucky Congressman Alexander Field with a knife that "cut his hand to the bone"—a shocking reminder that six U.S. congressmen were murdered by political rivals between 1859 and 1905, compared to just three killed over the subsequent 75 years (Huey Long, Robert Kennedy, and Leo Ryan), and those by strangers rather than political opponents.
Grinspan vividly recreates the Washington of the 1860s and 1870s, a city with neighborhoods called "Swamppoodle" and "Murder Bay," where a canal on the National Mall "stank like the ghost of 20,000 dead cats." To move to Washington, Henry Adams observed, "announced one self as an adventurer, an office seeker, a person of deplorably bad judgment." The federal government was rapidly expanding—from having more congressmen than paid staff in the early republic to 6,000 paid employees by the 1870s and 14,000 by the 1880s—yet remained a capital of indiscretion where ambitious politicians, far from their hometowns, behaved scandalously.
The book illuminates how the post-Civil War era descended into vicious partisan warfare. President Andrew Johnson, "an impoverished tailor who had climbed to the most powerful position in the nation," proved "resentful, paranoid, and searingly racist"—even "generous observers found him always worse than you expect." The two-party system hardened into tribal warfare: Republicans saw Democrats as "the stupider party, shady criminals," while Democrats portrayed Republicans as "bureaucrats, crooked tax collectors, meddlesome reformers" and attacked African-American officeholders. The Democratic landslide of 1874 marked "the largest congressional landslide up to that point in American history" and spelled doom for Reconstruction.
Grinspan's treatment of Reconstruction's demise is particularly powerful. White supremacists "attacked black voters with renewed aggression," using organized violence to "intimidate and murder African-Americans in Louisiana, South Carolina and Mississippi." By the mid-1870s, white Northerners "were done with Reconstruction," abandoning the promise of racial equality. The 15th Amendment "remained in the constitution, even as it became nearly impossible for most African-Americans to actually vote"—a constitutional guarantee rendered meaningless for nearly a century.
The 1876 Hayes-Tilden election produced a crisis eerily resonant today. For weeks, Americans didn't know who their president would be. One Virginia woman "canceled all her newspaper subscriptions after weeks of trying to keep up—'if anybody says election to me I want to fight, ignorance is bliss now.'" The Atlantic Monthly highlighted the absurdity of "a populous democracy squabbling over a few electoral college votes," arguing that "the electoral college no longer serve[s] a useful purpose" and that "an aristocracy of electors has no place in our Republican system." The crisis wasn't resolved until March 1877, just two days before the inauguration. The resolution came through backroom dealing: party leaders agreed Hayes would become president in exchange for withdrawing federal troops, effectively ending Reconstruction and abandoning African-Americans to Jim Crow terrorism.
The spoils system magnified political stakes to absurd levels. Every presidential election meant 14,000 federal jobs and 50,000 post office positions changed hands. Charles Guiteau exemplified the dangerous delusion this system bred—convinced his "labor had won the day," he pestered President Garfield, his wife, and Secretary of State Blaine "demanding a consulship, preferably Vienna, although he could settle for Paris." The system's human costs were severe, as demonstrated by scandals like Grover Cleveland's, who had "fathered a child a decade ago" with Maria Halpin, who "claimed she had been sexually assaulted by Cleveland"—competing narratives that reflected the era's indifference to women's voices.
From the 1830s through the late 1870s, Americans "lost faith in pure democracy." The problem, as contemporary observers recognized, was not merely corrupt leaders but "a systematic defect in the character or actions of the people." The 1863 draft riots, when "a ragged, coatless, heterogeneously weaponed army seized much of Manhattan, killing hundreds—most of the victims were African-Americans," demonstrated that civil disorder could paralyze major cities. The New York Times defended its offices with a Gatling gun.
Yet Grinspan also traces how Americans eventually "fought to fix their democracy." The mechanical voting device, invented in 1889 by someone "tired of watching upstate Republicans falsify vote counts," introduced within a decade "an updated version into regular use with a new invention: a curtain which closed behind the voter so that votes were secret." This simple innovation helped transform electoral politics from "hectic crowds waving torches" to "orderly voters lined up on election day."
The reforms came at a cost. "During the Gilded Age, the wealthy victors of the Gilded Age's class wars chose to trade participation for stability," and voter turnout "crashed, falling by 1/3 in the early 20th century." The parties "offered a countervailing sense of community" in "an age of ruthless individualism," but as politics became more orderly, it also became less participatory. Between 1919 and 1920, politics was "reformed" into something calmer but also more exclusive.
Grinspan's book carries sobering implications for our current moment. If the average congressional district now has 750,000 people—"more than lived in one state in 1790"—can representative democracy function at such scale? His evidence suggests that while "Americans became less likely to hurt each other over electoral politics" in the 20th century, with less "shooting, stabbing and knockdowns, even white supremacist riots," this civility came through suppression of mass participation as much as through genuine democratic reform.
The Age of Acrimony is essential reading for anyone concerned about contemporary political polarization. Grinspan demonstrates that American democracy has survived worse—but also that survival came through compromise, sometimes abandoning the most vulnerable, and accepting reduced popular engagement. Whether we can find better solutions to our current acrimony remains an open question, but Grinspan's historical perspective provides crucial context for that effort.
August 7, 2021
Joke's on me for not reading the description first, but I didn't realize that this book was a double-biography of Congressman William Kelley and his daughter, Florence Kelley. I came initially, having read a New Republic review, for a re-think of Gilded Age political corruption, and notes on how the politically-focused popular culture led to the highest-ever levels of voter turnout. The book covered that aspect well, along with periodic descriptions of how the political culture changed from radical and utopian in the post-Civil War 1960s to the limited-but-exuberant engagements of the 1870s to the cynicism of the 1880s. The book does not flinch away from the reformers (like Florence Kelley herself) of the 1890s and 1900s, who wanted to change the political system to achieve real improvements, but also thought that suppressing the turnout of "undesirable" poor and immigrant voters was an important step along the way. They only achieved these results when they evolved to split the difference between the effete Mugwumps of an earlier era and the virile-turned-thuggish "practical politicians" that they opposed.
The Kelleys are a perfect lens to view these decades of social changes through, as Congressman Kelley went from a Jacksonian Democrat to an early Republican abolitionist to a supporter of Reconstruction to (in an abandonment of his African American supporters) a Greenback supporter to a tariff "crank" (a term of art that the book investigates closely). His daughter was with him along the way until she headed for Europe and became a Friedrich Engels disciple, spending years cursing the American system and living the life of a starving radical until she re-oriented herself around Hull House, Jane Addams, and the fight to abolish child labor. The Kelleys embodied the promises and flaws, the successes and failures, of their generations of borderline-fringe reformers working from within (and briefly outside of) the political system.
The biographic aspect of the book is great. The social history is also very good, though occasionally spaced out far enough that I had to flip back to remind myself what the summary of one decade had been, to better appreciate the contrast that was then being presented. It was not-quite-academic in that aspect, though it doesn't set out to be , noting for example that a full explanation of the machinations of the 1876 election resolution were beyond its scope. I did find a clear thesis statement for the reform half of the book when it said that "The public culture of politics drove marginal voters from the polls. The palatable story of an abstract realignment was really a battle over voting rights, fought out with secret ballots, polling booth curtains, and literacy tests." (p. 246). It nonetheless provides a comprehensive overview of an overlooked and dismissed era, focusing on the negative aspects as they happened and the hidden positive aspects that were only known in their eventual absence.
The Kelleys are a perfect lens to view these decades of social changes through, as Congressman Kelley went from a Jacksonian Democrat to an early Republican abolitionist to a supporter of Reconstruction to (in an abandonment of his African American supporters) a Greenback supporter to a tariff "crank" (a term of art that the book investigates closely). His daughter was with him along the way until she headed for Europe and became a Friedrich Engels disciple, spending years cursing the American system and living the life of a starving radical until she re-oriented herself around Hull House, Jane Addams, and the fight to abolish child labor. The Kelleys embodied the promises and flaws, the successes and failures, of their generations of borderline-fringe reformers working from within (and briefly outside of) the political system.
The biographic aspect of the book is great. The social history is also very good, though occasionally spaced out far enough that I had to flip back to remind myself what the summary of one decade had been, to better appreciate the contrast that was then being presented. It was not-quite-academic in that aspect, though it doesn't set out to be , noting for example that a full explanation of the machinations of the 1876 election resolution were beyond its scope. I did find a clear thesis statement for the reform half of the book when it said that "The public culture of politics drove marginal voters from the polls. The palatable story of an abstract realignment was really a battle over voting rights, fought out with secret ballots, polling booth curtains, and literacy tests." (p. 246). It nonetheless provides a comprehensive overview of an overlooked and dismissed era, focusing on the negative aspects as they happened and the hidden positive aspects that were only known in their eventual absence.
March 11, 2025
In this gripping account of America’s post Civil War upheaval, Jon Grinspan argues that all of the change wrought by the end of the nineteenth century “created a cycle of rage, a self-perpetuating bad mood that simultaneously pushed citizens further into partisanship while undermining their faith in democracy.” Sound familiar? This book is a timely and important read for any American wondering how we ended up in our current political predicament.
Grinspan weaves the story of the Kelly Family and historical analysis together to tell an important story about the transformation of politics. How did we go from the rowdy and corrupt politics of the nineteenth century to the safe and restrained, yet exclusionary politics of the twentieth century? As we move into the twenty-first century, is the pendulum somehow swinging back into the nineteenth? These are the questions the book makes you reckon with.
After the Civil War, a “pure democracy” was more possible than ever before. Political participation was at an all time high, but so was violence at the polls and corrupt elections. Politics became secondary to governance, and tribalism became a powerful force that compelled Americans to support their candidates, at whatever cost. Eventually, a new generation grew apathetic, seeking to understand “why” the system seemed so broken in the first place. They addressed problems, but as Grinspan notes, they “broke it in a different way, one that we got used to.” As politics became cleaner, participation went down. The experiment of a “pure democracy” had failed, the masses could not be trusted.
If this book can teach us anything, it’s that a new age of reform may be crucial yet again. What this looks like remains to be seen.
Grinspan weaves the story of the Kelly Family and historical analysis together to tell an important story about the transformation of politics. How did we go from the rowdy and corrupt politics of the nineteenth century to the safe and restrained, yet exclusionary politics of the twentieth century? As we move into the twenty-first century, is the pendulum somehow swinging back into the nineteenth? These are the questions the book makes you reckon with.
After the Civil War, a “pure democracy” was more possible than ever before. Political participation was at an all time high, but so was violence at the polls and corrupt elections. Politics became secondary to governance, and tribalism became a powerful force that compelled Americans to support their candidates, at whatever cost. Eventually, a new generation grew apathetic, seeking to understand “why” the system seemed so broken in the first place. They addressed problems, but as Grinspan notes, they “broke it in a different way, one that we got used to.” As politics became cleaner, participation went down. The experiment of a “pure democracy” had failed, the masses could not be trusted.
If this book can teach us anything, it’s that a new age of reform may be crucial yet again. What this looks like remains to be seen.
April 23, 2025
My main complaint with the Age of Acrimony is the book is largely focused around the Kelley family. What Grinspan is seemingly trying to do is use consistent people to illustrate the changing of the times and the character of the current times. What it becomes is The Age of the Kelleys: What the Kelley Family Did to Change American Politics, 1865-1920. Jon Grinspan, in the penultimate chapter, oddly finds a way to deliver exactly what it seems most disparaged readers were looking for: an adequate breakdown of the US social climate and changing actions of the times. The vast majority of the book however, reflected on the Kelleys and various large political figures of the time. There were plenty of points I was questions if I purchase a love letter to Florence Kelley in the final part. Jon could have shortened the book 25%+ by just reducing the irrelevant information on the Kelleys or created a more interesting read by swapping perspectives in different eras to fixate on someone in the height of the change. As they Kelley's become less involved the text becomes less detailed on the history and shifts to a focus on their lives. One has to wonder on a text that shifts focus to a Socialist how no real economic information gets mentioned. Discusssions on things like Tarrifs and their impacts become largely glossed over with the most infamous tariff advocate till Coolidge.
What Jon did do well is illustrate that American politics has been arguably more broken and divisive than it is currently. His crowning achievement in this text.
What Jon did do well is illustrate that American politics has been arguably more broken and divisive than it is currently. His crowning achievement in this text.
August 5, 2022
The best thing about the book for me was that its narrative is tailored from a swath of history that I usually think of as cut up into different periods. Instead of using beginning of the civil war and the end of reconstruction as the key events for periodization, Grinspan starts with the end of the war and ends with the good government reforms (and voter suppression) that took firm hold in the early 20th century as white elites and an upwardly-identifying middle class reasserted their control over politics.
I like how he weaves the personal stories of characters like Will Kelly, Florie Kelly, and Roscoe Conkling into the big picture. It was such a trip for me to get to know the character Roscoe Conkling through Grinspan's telling. And what a character--at once a beloved champion of abolition and Black rights (there was a wave of black babies named for him during reconstruction), a Rush-Limbaugh-like political celebrity, and the very corporate attorney who shepherded into law the notion that corporations are people.
Grinspan's causal argument that high political participation generate(d?/s?) instability, violence, and corruption really made me think, particularly since we're in a time that obviously rhymes with this story. I'd love to hear what other historians have to say about all the things he left out to make his narrative cohere. What to read next?!
Thank you Jon Grinspan for a good read.
I like how he weaves the personal stories of characters like Will Kelly, Florie Kelly, and Roscoe Conkling into the big picture. It was such a trip for me to get to know the character Roscoe Conkling through Grinspan's telling. And what a character--at once a beloved champion of abolition and Black rights (there was a wave of black babies named for him during reconstruction), a Rush-Limbaugh-like political celebrity, and the very corporate attorney who shepherded into law the notion that corporations are people.
Grinspan's causal argument that high political participation generate(d?/s?) instability, violence, and corruption really made me think, particularly since we're in a time that obviously rhymes with this story. I'd love to hear what other historians have to say about all the things he left out to make his narrative cohere. What to read next?!
Thank you Jon Grinspan for a good read.
December 24, 2022
A good book, providing a history of U.S. politics in the second half of the 19th century. The author, Smithsonian historian Jon Grinspan, tries to explain our current era of politics by showing its similarities to the dynamic era of Gilded Age politics. The main characters in the book are Philadelphian Congressman William “Pig Iron” Kelly and his daughter, political activist Florence Kelly. Through the Kellys, and their many connections, Grinspan explains an era of local issues subsumed by national politics, of super loyalty to national political parties, of high voter involvement, and of devolved, oftentimes politically aligned, information outlets. He shows how this Age of Acrimony, notably it’s high point in the contested election of 1876, was significantly different from the more staid and compromise driven eras that followed. Especially fascinating was his analysis of the end of the era, when voter participation was systematically decreased to create more civility in the political process. A good book for understanding the relationship between electoral participation and political emotions. Highly recommended for anyone looking to better understand our current era of politics.
November 23, 2025
This was a very well-written book about the chaotic politics of the fifty years after the American Civil War. It included deep party divisions and three presidential assassinations. Political campaigns were often loud, corrupt, and violent. This era saw very high voter turnout (around 77% on average), but also serious dysfunction: political machines, patronage, machine bosses, and widespread electoral manipulation. In addition, there was intimidation and even lynching in the South. Around the turn of the century, reformers began pushing for changes to “clean up” the system. Key reforms included introduction of the secret ballot (to reduce machine control), civil service reform (to curb patronage), and efforts to professionalize and civilize political campaigns. These reforms traded off mass participation for more “civil” politics: as politics became more orderly, it also became more distant, marginalizing poorer voters in many areas. Grinspan argues that what we think of as “normal” 20th-century American politics—with orderly campaigns and lower turnout—is not the default, but the result of deliberate institutional change.
I enjoyed the book a lot as it was trying to tell a good story while including some insights into changes in politics. I recommend it for anyone interested in politics in the post-Civil War era, the Gilded Age or the Progressive Era. It makes a good argument that I will probably incorporate into my US History classes.
I enjoyed the book a lot as it was trying to tell a good story while including some insights into changes in politics. I recommend it for anyone interested in politics in the post-Civil War era, the Gilded Age or the Progressive Era. It makes a good argument that I will probably incorporate into my US History classes.
January 28, 2025
I changed my mind on this one and very much came around by the end. It looks more and more like we will not be able to have government without politics, and this book is a helpful historical entry point into understanding why that is so in this country.
Grinspan's key point is that the US has experimented with a wide variety of forms of democratic engagement and that the 20th century model of of low turnout elections, comparatively restrained rhetoric, ballot privacy, and (more or less) impartial election administration represented a real departure from the 19th century experience, and we should recognize as such (especially since the 19th century mode might be making a return).
It's an attractive thesis and is well put when it comes together at the end. There are issues in the book with how the argument gets yoked to the historical record, which happens partly through an attempt to tell a focused story about one politician and his activist daughter. That narrative part didn't work as well for me, though it ended up being an interesting biographical sketch worth telling, even if not tightly and persuasively related to the ultimate point.
Grinspan's key point is that the US has experimented with a wide variety of forms of democratic engagement and that the 20th century model of of low turnout elections, comparatively restrained rhetoric, ballot privacy, and (more or less) impartial election administration represented a real departure from the 19th century experience, and we should recognize as such (especially since the 19th century mode might be making a return).
It's an attractive thesis and is well put when it comes together at the end. There are issues in the book with how the argument gets yoked to the historical record, which happens partly through an attempt to tell a focused story about one politician and his activist daughter. That narrative part didn't work as well for me, though it ended up being an interesting biographical sketch worth telling, even if not tightly and persuasively related to the ultimate point.
December 6, 2025
A story of the dramatic shift in democratic norms and participation from 1865 to 1920 as seen through the lense of Philadelphia congressman William Kelly and his daughter Florence Kelly. I picked this book initially because I wanted to learn more about pre-1900 America, however to be completely honest it was a slog to get through at times. It was fascinating to learn of the political firestorm that ran through America from 1865-1896, not too far from what else are experiencing now. And it was cool to learn that voting participation decreases driven by private voting booths, prohibition, as well as other factors reeled in the chaos of the late 19th century. Although it was clearly well researched and detailed, some parts felt disconnected particularly when discussing Pig Iron Kelly and Florie. It was almost as if two separate stories were vying for your attention, and because of this they both fell a little flat.
Nonetheless I learned a lot and I am happy I read it. Maybe might chill on the political books for a while 😂.
Nonetheless I learned a lot and I am happy I read it. Maybe might chill on the political books for a while 😂.
December 16, 2025
This title was awe inspiring and opened a portal connecting me to so many interesting figures. I have to say that 1890 is my favorite time of history and explains so much of what is going on now. I now know of crank culture and the height of cronyism and it's empowering and freeing at the same time. I am appalled at America's worst but this title also gave me the most solid reasons as to why I should vote. We as Americans should all vote. It is as close to a prayer as we can get to wishing for a better American future. As a citizen, I wish for a better future and this time period exemplifies why we should strive for it above all. Our decisions impact our children and the madness they inherit. Do we want them inheriting cronyism and madness? Surely we can do better. I absolutely loved this title and will always talk of the age of acrimony. Every book gives me a new historical center to start from and this one is no exception. Shout-out to the author for cultivating a curiosity that has me now reading about the most contentious figures of the time.
May 7, 2025
This is a book I desperately wanted to like more but was just very disappointed with. That’s not to say it’s bad, but definitely underwhelming.
The biggest issue to me is the framing device of the Kelley family. They are certainly interesting people but mixing their bio with the rest of it just felt unfocused and I found myself not caring about them which is sad given how much they did. The problem is it’s half gilded age political assessment and half biography and mixing the two waters down both.
The book is at its most interesting when it is exploring each of the various elections and how they changed from the others and I wish it had been more focused on that. The last (non Kelley) chapter about the 1900-1920 evolutions was really interesting, if this was more fleshed out overall I would have liked the book more.
That being said I can’t add much more that other reviewers haven’t said better.
The biggest issue to me is the framing device of the Kelley family. They are certainly interesting people but mixing their bio with the rest of it just felt unfocused and I found myself not caring about them which is sad given how much they did. The problem is it’s half gilded age political assessment and half biography and mixing the two waters down both.
The book is at its most interesting when it is exploring each of the various elections and how they changed from the others and I wish it had been more focused on that. The last (non Kelley) chapter about the 1900-1920 evolutions was really interesting, if this was more fleshed out overall I would have liked the book more.
That being said I can’t add much more that other reviewers haven’t said better.
July 26, 2025
Grinspan traces the switch from mass drunk participation in US elections to sober, civil and limited attendance. The post Civil War elections were aggressive, tribal partisanship with the loudest, closest, most violent elections in U.S. history. These vibrant campaigns that drew our highest-ever voter turnouts. Grinspan frames this change with the relationship and lives of a remarkable father-daughter dynasty. The radical congressman William “Pig Iron” Kelley and his fiery, Progressive daughter Florence Kelley led lives packed with drama, intimately tied to their nation's politics.
Why I started this book: History podcast interviewed this author, and I know very little about this time period.
Why I finished it: Solid history. Great to listen and learn and I always love history that reminds the reader that their experience is not the norm through history. That the only constant in history is change.
Why I started this book: History podcast interviewed this author, and I know very little about this time period.
Why I finished it: Solid history. Great to listen and learn and I always love history that reminds the reader that their experience is not the norm through history. That the only constant in history is change.
June 6, 2023
An examination of American political tendencies over the course of fifty years, from the end of the Civil War to the Progressive Era of the 1920's. In the 19th century, politics became "public democracy', i.e., huge voter turnouts coupled with tribal loyalty to one of two major parties. This led eventually, to the corrupt politcal machines as well as gaudy pageantry. It also engendered violence, bribery and drunkeness at the polling sites. All of this led to, at first, disenfranchisement of more well-to-do white voters, who recoiled at the "baseness" of political activity. Ultimately, the tide turned, helped by the advent of the voting machine as well as legislation inhibiting the sheer numbers of voters, especially Blacks in the South and recent immigrants in the North. Weird how history echoes as we are repeating this cycle in the 21st century.
January 22, 2024
I found the book tiresome and long in parts and lacking strong reasons for the change in the political climate. I was hoping for more distinct steps taken to improve things but it seemed more like people just got tired of the chaos and fighting. There was little to provide any kind of roadmap to follow to bring civility, professionalism, humanity and ethics back to politics today. I also don't think it was clear how the Will and Florry narrative tied in. I found that part interesting, but may have missed the "so what" to the overarching story. All in all, it was somewhat encouraging that political climates can change and improve, but lacked much of a path or plan for how. I also worry that todays social media and AI technology change everything, so comparisons to 1850-1930 may be irrelevant anyway.
February 18, 2025
Parts of the book are boring and seem out of place: the biographical details of Kelley’s I skimmed through.
A few things I’ve learned:
- there was no secret ballots up until the end of the 19th century
- killings and violence were common place during elections; so were fake results; some were stolen outright and it wasn’t a secret; people who think that us is unstable now really don’t have a perspective
- politics had big parades with torches and people in military uniforms
- us senators weren’t elected up until 20th century
- there were no primaries; candidates were selected by party bosses, kinda like Kamala
- non citizens could vote up in some state and local elections until it was banned in the 20th century
- us house was gaining more and more seats as the population grew initially, again up until 20th century when it got capped
A few things I’ve learned:
- there was no secret ballots up until the end of the 19th century
- killings and violence were common place during elections; so were fake results; some were stolen outright and it wasn’t a secret; people who think that us is unstable now really don’t have a perspective
- politics had big parades with torches and people in military uniforms
- us senators weren’t elected up until 20th century
- there were no primaries; candidates were selected by party bosses, kinda like Kamala
- non citizens could vote up in some state and local elections until it was banned in the 20th century
- us house was gaining more and more seats as the population grew initially, again up until 20th century when it got capped
January 21, 2022
Too long and rambling to be a 5 star for me. Certainly fascinating stories and an excellent study of the enormous transformations taking place after the civil war: reconstruction, enormous immigration, settling of the frontiers, railroad, coal, and steel empires, women's suffrage, jim crow.
Grinspan's observation that during that era the political parties were so absorbed in the jousting for power that the public and campaign machines, abetted by the media, could never focus on the real issues. And true today.
The book also reminds us that 3 presidents were assassinated during that time.
If you have the time, read Menand's Metaphysical Club along with Grinspan's. Fascinating and complementary looks at those times.
Grinspan's observation that during that era the political parties were so absorbed in the jousting for power that the public and campaign machines, abetted by the media, could never focus on the real issues. And true today.
The book also reminds us that 3 presidents were assassinated during that time.
If you have the time, read Menand's Metaphysical Club along with Grinspan's. Fascinating and complementary looks at those times.
December 6, 2024
I started this book with eager anticipation of an accounting of the politics of the late 19th century that would explain our current divisive political situation. I was disappointed. This is more an overview of the politics of the last half of the 19th century with a focus on the family of William "Pig Iron" Kelly. I kept reading, looking for information on how things were accomplished during this period, but found only the same generalized overview I had first learned in my freshman college courses on US history. The most interesting parts of the book were those that focused on Kelly and his daughter Florence.
January 11, 2025
Learned a lot about a) a fevered, populist, party defined, highly and fully engaged period of US politics I had never appreciated b) the failure of reconstruction and c) some colorful political reformists of the late 1800s. I had trouble really grasping a thesis, although I think the author truly had one in his mind. I think the point is that there is a tradeoff between corrupt, oversimplified, rousing and inclusive politics and the more procedurally and stylistically constrained (and including flat out out Jim Crow-ed) and privatized politics that leaves out those whose votes are not wanted. Puts today's politics in an interesting light. Recommend for political junkies.
April 23, 2025
I really enjoyed this book, and I couldn't have read it at a better time. It helped put our current political mess in context and gave me some optimism that we'll see this through. For example, it provided a reminder that the years after WWI and WWII may have been abnormally calm in a political sense. Towards the end of the book, the author states: "Taking the long view, 'This is Not Normal' might as well be our national motto." While far from perfect and always aspiring to be better, our country is resilient. I just hope that our current crises lead to a cooling period where reason can again prevail.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews