Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government

by Catherine Allgor (Editor)

When Thomas Jefferson moved his victorious Republican administration into the new capital city in 1801, one of his first acts was to abolish any formal receptions, except on New Year's Day and the Fourth of July. His successful campaign for the presidency had been partially founded on the idea that his Federalist enemies had assumed dangerously aristocratic trappings―a sword for George Washington and a raised dais for Martha when she received people at social occasions―in the first capital cities of New York and Philadelphia. When the ladies of Washington City, determined to have their own salon, arrived en masse at the president's house, Jefferson met them in riding clothes, expressing surprise at their presence. His deep suspicion of any occasion that resembled a European court caused a major problem, however: without the face-to-face relationships and networks of interest created in society, the American experiment in government could not function. Into this conundrum, writes Catherine Allgor, stepped women like Dolley Madison and Louisa Catherine Adams, women of political families who used the unofficial, social sphere to cement the relationships that politics needed to work. Not only did they create a space in which politics was effectively conducted; their efforts legitimated the new republic and the new capital in the eyes of European nations, whose representatives scoffed at the city's few amenities and desolate setting. Covered by the prescriptions of their gender, Washington women engaged in the dirty business of politics, which allowed their husbands to retain their republican purity. Constrained by the cultural taboos on "petticoat politicking," women rarely wrote forthrightly about their ambitions and plans, preferring to cast their political work as an extension of virtuous family roles. But by analyzing their correspondence, gossip events, "etiquette wars," and the material culture that surrounded them, Allgor finds that these women acted with conscious political intent. In the days before organized political parties, the social machine built by these early federal women helped to ease the transition from a failed republican experiment to a burgeoning democracy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, School

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2000

Reviews

[Lindsay Chervinsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this book. I thought it was incredibly well written and a totally new look at history and a time period that is pretty well documented. It's not easy to bring a new perspective to the table, but this book does an amazing job.

The author focus on a thirty year period, 1800-1830, that gave birth to the Washington, D.C. we are familiar with today. In particular, the women behind the scenes that structured the social scene in D.C. and served as partners to their husbands and agents for their families in the common goal of obtaining jobs, social standing and networks of kin and friends. The book is structured into five parts. First, President Thomas Jefferson's administration and his attempts to keep women at the margins of the city and politics. Second, Dolley Madison's impact on D.C. and the White House. Third, women in Washington in general. Fourth, Louisa Catherine Adams campaign to win the Presidency for her husband. Five, how one woman brought down the Jackson Cabinet, and almost the republic.

What was so amazing to me about this book is that it takes place in an era I am really familiar with. I wrote my thesis on John Quincy Adams during his tenure of Secretary of State, which is the exact same time period as section four in this book. Yet, somehow, I overlooked the tremendous contributions of Louisa Catherine (I am really embarrassed to admit that). To be fair, I wasn't writing about the 1824 election, which was her primary focus, but she was a huge social player in D.C. and should not have been missed. In fact, that's really the point of the book. To demonstrate the massive role women played in the first 30 years of the capital, but how they brokered deals, managed people and pulled strings from inside their protected parlors. It was critical that they be able to deny any interest in affecting politics such that they were complying with social expectations about the behavior of women, and that they instead were only trying to help their family or close friends.

I particularly liked that the author didn't try and make the story fit into today's feminism. The women, the main characters in the book, were not trying to change how men thought about women. They weren't trying to change how society viewed them. Rather, they recognized the important role they played as wives, mothers, sisters, etc. in developing the social scene to enhance and support the political work of the capital. This job was something they were proud of and it was important and deserves recognition. But, I think it deserves recognition for what it was and we shouldn't try and change or alter their work to fit today's goals.

A few other, less substantial thoughts about the book. The author used the word pose too much. It's not like it was every other sentence, so I can see how the author or an editor would miss it. However, whenever describing someone's actions, particularly if they were trying to appear different than they actually were, she used the word pose. Not a big deal really, but it just sort of irked me. Also, I found certain points to be a little repetitive. It seemed as though the author really wanted to stress the importance of some fact, but I felt like she should have cut the paragraph a sentence or two shorter. Again, a small and nit-picky thing.

Because I wrote my thesis on John Quincy Adams, or perhaps I focused on JQA because I find him so interesting, I was drawn to the section on Louisa Catherine. It is my firm belief that JQA is under recognized in history, and his wife, as most wives were, is as well. After reading this book, I could really see myself writing about her or their partnership in the future. It even got me thinking about changing my dissertation topic. No decisions on that yet, still just pondering, but the fact that this book even got me thinking about such a big change, says a lot about my high opinion of it.

Anyway, while reading the Louisa Catherine section, I noticed that they lived in a house on F street, which they renovated to include more space for social functions. Being the history nerd that I am and a resident of Washington, D.C., I know where most historical homes are, or at least can picture the location in my mind. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out where their house was. After way too much time googling, I was sort of able to deduce a few things. Evidently, their home was first used by Madison, when he was Secretary of State. Also, several years later it was across the street from the Ebbitt House, the precursor to the Old Ebbitt Grill. The Ebbitt house was believed to be closer to Chinatown than it is now. Finally, in some random blog, I was able to find an address: 1333-1335 F Street NW. You wouldn't believe how hard it was to find that information and I have found no way to verify it. All I know is, currently 1333-1335 F street is large, modern office buildings. It breaks my heart to think that so much history was made in a house that no longer exists. I wish more care had been taken to preserve these special places. There isn't even a plaque. If anyone can or is able to verify my findings, I would be so grateful. Also, don't be surprised if you read in a newspaper one day in the future that I've started a campaign to get the city to put a plaque there :). Just saying, wouldn't be totally out of character.

[Liesl · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do believe that this is a book that every woman should read at least once in their lives regardless of their political beliefs. While this was a book I read for my Early American Republic college class in spring of 2024 semester; I do believe that this is worth a read. Mainly because it does give the women during this time period a voice of how they were able to change the policies for women through the American Government. I do think that this book does a wonderful job showing how these women were able to use as much power as they did to influence the politician’s to pass legislation to help the women during this time period.

[Aimeé Bailey · Rating 3 out of 5]

It took me the better part of 9 months on and off to finish this. Along the way I both loved it and began to nod off. It was well researched but felt a bit long on explanations. For example, The Eaton affair was redundant to me. Page after page of the same thing. To be honest, it reads like a text book. There is immense value in its pages. I feel as tho I understand our First Ladies and Washington City better because of this book. This is not for a casual reader.

[Bargain Sleuth Book Reviews · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the third book I've read from this author. I want to know how she can take such interesting topics and make them so boring. Try Cokie Roberts Founding Mothers and Ladies of Liberty for a more interesting read on the same topic.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is written more like a thesis than a nonfiction book. It's scholarly tone definitely made the subjects of the book more dry than then needed to be.

The concept of the book is very interesting. I was disapointed to read that even back then politics and political leaders played "dirty." I think I would have gotten more out of the book if the author provided more background information of each time period. She describes the city of Washington fairly well but leaves out key information to better understand the War of 1812 and other key historical events in which the woman of Washington influenced.

She also mentions that Jefferson was the first President to live in the White House. I believe this in inaccurate. I am almost certain that John Adams lived part of the Presidency there.

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

Parlor Politics is a fascinating look into the politics of early Washington, DC. The author posits that the women of Washington had a huge influence on politics, one that has gone mostly unnoticed and unexamined. She states that these women created spaces that allowed politics to function, through calling, parties, and other gatherings. In these informal spaces, men and women could meet and talk politics in a way they could not anywhere else. She goes through the presidencies from Jefferson to Jackson and talks about the social scene in each of them, how they were different, and the effect that had on politics during that presidency. The strongest case is made in the chapter on Jackson's presidency, where she is able to show how the breakdown of society through the Peggy Eaton affair directly affects the breakdown of politics.

[Nicole]

An academic history about the early years of Washington DC that is easily accessible to a broader audience. The author was an actress for years before she went back to grad school, and it shows - to great advantage - in her prose style. It's also a very important book in terms of the role of social and ceremonial activities in the conduct of politics and diplomacy.

I've used this in the intro US history survey, and those students who actually bothered to open the book liked and understood it.

Initially read for my own PhD prelims.

[Craig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting look at the first 30 years of Washington D.C. and the women who helped shape the make-up of the early stages of America's government under the leadership of Jefferson to Jackson.

Focuses on the better-known political women of this time period (if anyone can fit that description) such as Abigail Adams (briefly) and Dolley Madison, but also offers fascinating looks at lesser-known individuals such as Catherine Adams (the wife of John Quincy Adams) and Margaret Bayard Smith.

[Debbie · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first time I read this book, I thought it was all style over substance. Turns out, on second reading, that was exactly what Allgor was talking about: style is substance, in a very real way. She shows how women shaped the political culture of Washington DC, and how things really got done then (and probably still do).

[Annabel · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I like how Allgor focused on a lot of things women did during this time to help their husbands politically, I think sometimes she focuses so much on them that she makes the men seem like they sat back and let their wives do all the work, instead of writing about how the husbands may have appreciated their wives' work, or that they too worked so they might rise in the world of politics.

[Nicki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Stuffed between library shelves is where I found this little volume which was, at least what I consider, a pretty good find.

Informative and enlightening? Yes, of course. Engaging? Not particularly. It was a bit of a chore to finish, but the stories of these women are absolutely captivating. The writing style, not so much.

[Ben · Rating 1 out of 5]

oh god. what an irrelevant book. Allgor completely ignores the actual struggles of women and tries to emphasize how by being good supportive wives, rich white women helped make the US the most perfect country on earth. the peggy eaton chapter is ok, resulting in the single star i gave it.

[Andee Nero · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this would make a very good Showtime series, along the lines of the Tudors. Overall, it was an interesting book, but I felt like she might have relied too heavily upon a single source, Margaret Bayard Smith.

[Bronwyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

You can read my review/synopsis at: http://www.suite101.com/content/parlo...

[Ann · Rating 1 out of 5]

How could anyone take such an interesting topic and completely muddle the writing. I felt like taking a red pen to it. Good information completely buried in unnecessary wordage.

[Sean Chick · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very fresh perspective on how politics was conducted in the early American Republic. Books like this prove that there is new work to be done on well tread historical subjects.

[Cherie · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a better Book TV lecture than it was a book, but it did raise some interesting points.

[Theresa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very difficult for me to read. Did enjoy a few things I learned.