Civil Society Second Edition The

Critical History of an Idea John R.

Ehrenberg
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/civil-society-second-edition-the-critical-history-of-an-id
ea-john-r-ehrenberg/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Salafi-Jihadism: The History Of An Idea Shiraz Maher

https://textbookfull.com/product/salafi-jihadism-the-history-of-
an-idea-shiraz-maher/

Armies of Deliverance: A New History of the Civil War

Elizabeth R. Varon

https://textbookfull.com/product/armies-of-deliverance-a-new-
history-of-the-civil-war-elizabeth-r-varon/

The Discourse of Neoliberalism An Anatomy of a Powerful

Idea Discourse Power and Society Simon Springer

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-discourse-of-neoliberalism-
an-anatomy-of-a-powerful-idea-discourse-power-and-society-simon-
springer/

Israel and Palestine Alternative Perspectives on

Statehood John Ehrenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/israel-and-palestine-
alternative-perspectives-on-statehood-john-ehrenberg/
The Public Relations of Everything The Ancient Modern
and Postmodern Dramatic History of an Idea 1st Edition
Robert E. Brown

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-public-relations-of-
everything-the-ancient-modern-and-postmodern-dramatic-history-of-
an-idea-1st-edition-robert-e-brown/

An Invitation to the Sociology of Emotions Second

Edition Scott R Harris

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-invitation-to-the-sociology-
of-emotions-second-edition-scott-r-harris/

A history of Western society Eleventh Edition, Value

Edition. Edition John P. Mckay

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-western-society-
eleventh-edition-value-edition-edition-john-p-mckay/

The Functions of Law 1st Edition Kenneth M. Ehrenberg

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-functions-of-law-1st-
edition-kenneth-m-ehrenberg/

Multilayer Flexible Packaging, Second Edition John R.

Wagner Jr

https://textbookfull.com/product/multilayer-flexible-packaging-
second-edition-john-r-wagner-jr/
Civil Society
 Civil Society
The Critical History of an Idea
Second Edition

John Ehrenberg

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS

New York
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS
New York
www.nyupress.org

© 2017 by New York University

All rights reserved

References to Internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing.

Neither the author nor New York University Press is responsible for URLs that
may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.

ISBN: 978-1-4798-9671-4 (hardback)

ISBN: 978-1-4798-9160-3 (paperback)

For Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data, please contact the Library

of Congress.

New York University Press books are printed on acid-free paper, and their binding
materials are chosen for strength and durability. We strive to use
environmentally responsible suppliers and materials to the greatest extent
possible in publishing our books.

Manufactured in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Also available as an ebook

To Kathleen
 Contents

Introduction: Inequality and Democracy’s Uncertain Future

Part I. The Origins of Civil Society

1. Civil Society and the Classical Heritage
The Danger of Private Interest
The Mixed Polity
Civil Society and the Res Publica

2. Civil Society and the Christian Commonwealth

Pride, Faith, and the State
The Christian Commonwealth
Early Fractures

3. Civil Society and the Transition to Modernity

Virtue and Power
Civil Society and the Liberated Conscience
Sovereignty, Interest, and Civil Society

Part II. Civil Society and Modernity

4. Civil Society and the Rise of “Economic Man”
Rights, Law, and Protected Spheres
The Moral Foundations of Civil Society
The Emergence of Bourgeois Civil Society
5. Civil Society and the State
Civil Society and the Ethical Commonwealth
The “Giant Broom”
The “System of Needs”
The Politics of Social Revolution

6. Civil Society and Intermediate Organizations

The Aristocratic Republic
Civil Society and Community
The Customs of Civil Society
American Lessons

Part III. Civil Society in Contemporary Life

7. Civil Society and the Crisis of Communism
Antistatism and Totalitarianism
Socialist Civil Society
Reaching the Limits
Global Civil Society

8. Civil Society and the United States

Factions, Pluralism, and the Market Model
Hegemony and the Commodified Public Sphere
Strategies of Renewal

Conclusion: Pessimism, Activism, and Political Revival

Notes
Bibliography
Index
About the Author
 Introduction

Inequality and Democracy’s Uncertain Future

The last thirty-five years have witnessed historic levels of economic

inequality, relentless attacks on the regulatory and redistributive
functions of all levels of government, and the movement of “civil
society” to the center of democratic theory and political discourse.
These three impulses are different aspects of a single process of
conservative ascendency. Economics, politics, and ideology have
combined to dramatically reshape contemporary American life and
change the way we think about equality and democracy. Embraced
by Republican and Democratic politicians alike, earnestly debated in
university forums and college courses, expanded on by political
pundits, and elaborated in countless books and articles, the idea that
civil society can enrich democracy by contesting state power has
become an article of faith.
It is no coincidence that the contemporary understanding of civil
society—local activity and voluntary association—has come to
replace political commitment and state activity during a period of
accelerating inequality. Nor it is a coincidence that its democratic
core should be so uncritically accepted by such a broad swath of
political, social, and moral opinion. There is wide agreement that
tutoring children, volunteering in social movements, joining bowling
leagues, and working in soup kitchens can revitalize communities
and strengthen habits of good citizenship at a time when there is
virtually no confidence that political activity or established
institutions are up to the task. In an era of wealth concentration,
political dysfunction, and ideological polarization, both political
parties agree that civil society can do what politics cannot. The first
President Bush’s faith in “a thousand points of light” was a fitting
introduction to President Clinton’s proclamation that “the era of big
government is over.”
Barack Obama’s election in 2008 seemed to indicate that a change
was in the works, but the faith that civil society can revitalize
democracy continues to shape American politics. In the absence of
noble public goals, admired leaders, or general agreement, many
observers have charted an alarming erosion of civic spirit and a
corresponding decline in the quality of public life. An increasingly
distressed literature has alerted the country to the damage done by
cheapened standards of behavior, “road rage,” political dysfunction,
microaggressions, inequality, and offensive jokes. Experts worry that
an overworked, disengaged, and self-absorbed population has
allowed its moral connections, social engagements, and political
participation to atrophy. The concern is not limited to bad manners
but has spilled over into political affairs and generated many
suggestions about how public life could be improved in a period
marked by fraying communities, widespread apathy, and
unprecedented levels of contempt for politics. Driven by an uneasy
sense of decline and animated by a deep suspicion of the state, a
growing body of contemporary work hopes that civil society can
provide a democratic counterweight to the broad political
commitments of an earlier period.
But the view that local voluntary activity sustains democracy is
only one way of understanding civil society. Ironically, the events
that brought the notion of civil society to the center of contemporary
political life conceptualized it in very different terms. In the early
1980s a broad series of civic forums, independent trade unions, and
social movements began to carve out areas of political activity in the
Eastern European countries of “actual existing socialism.” Their
leaders talked of “the rebellion of civil society against the state,” and
when they started coming to power in 1989 the stage was set for an
explosion of interest in the West. Liberal political theory was revived
in demands for “law-governed states” that would protect private life
and public activity from the intrusive hand of meddling
bureaucracies. It was not surprising that Eastern Europeans should
conceptualize civil society in terms of limiting state power, or that its
popularity in the United States should be expressed in the language
of intermediate organization. Civil society meant constitutional
republicanism in one area and denoted local volunteerism supported
by informal norms of solidarity and mutual aid in another. Both
bodies of thought sought to theorize it as a democratic sphere of
public action because it limits the thrust of state power.
Eighteen years have passed since the first edition of this book,
and some recent developments mark the limits of civil society’s
democratic potential as they simultaneously hint at a way forward.
We know more than we did in 1999, and it is time to take note of
history’s recent lesson that local volunteerism and intermediate
organizations are insufficient vehicles for democratic renewal in an
era of accelerating inequality. More is required, and that more is
broad, comprehensive political activity. The breathless faith that the
energy of the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street would be enough
to reinvigorate democracy has yielded to Black Lives Matter’s
embrace of patient political organizing and presidential candidate
Bernie Sanders’s unambiguous orientation toward the state.
Spontaneous protests against European austerity led to Syriza’s and
Podemos’s turn toward national politics in Greece and Spain. The
collection of organizations in “global civil society” helped alert the
world to great danger even as it made possible the state-centered
Paris Climate Change Conference. All these developments underline
how important state power, comprehensive politics, and broad
ideologies are to democratic theory and practice. This is particularly
true now. The threat to democracy posed by historic levels of
inequality is very potent, and civil society has proved unable to
respond to it in the way its admirers have anticipated. Things are not
as enthusiastic and celebratory as they were in the heady aftermath
of European communism’s collapse. There is considerably more to
the category than meets the eye, and an explication of tradition can
help us evaluate easy assumptions about its democratic potential.
This book examines the historical, political, and theoretical
evolution of the way civil society has been theorized over two and a
half millennia of Western political theory. Broadly speaking, three
distinct bodies of thought have marked its development—but these
are not hard and fast divisions, and considerable cross-fertilization
has enriched each tradition. Reflecting its orientation toward broad
categories of analysis, classical and medieval thought generally
equated civil society with politically organized commonwealths.
Whether its final source of authority was secular or religious, civil
society made civilization possible because people lived in law-
governed associations protected by the coercive power of the state.
Such conceptions shaped the way civil society was understood for
hundreds of years. As the forces of modernity began to undermine
the embedded economies and universal knowledge of the Middle
Ages, the gradual formation of national markets and national states
gave rise to a second tradition, which began to conceptualize civil
society as a civilization made possible by production, individual
interest, competition, and need. For some thinkers, the
Enlightenment opened unprecedented opportunities for freedom in a
secular world of commerce, science, culture, and liberty. For others,
civil society’s disorder, inequality, and conflict falsified its
emancipatory potential and required a measure of public
supervision. However civil society was understood, it was clear that
the world could no longer be understood as fused commonwealths.
Civil society developed in tandem with the centralizing and leveling
tendencies of the modern state, and an influential third body of
thought conceptualized it as the now-familiar sphere of intermediate
organization and association that serves liberty and limits the power
of central institutions.
Chapter 1 explores the origins of civil society in a classical heritage
that understood it as a politically organized commonwealth.
Reflecting the general dominance of political categories, “civility”
described the requirements of citizenship rather than private
sensibilities or good manners. Plato’s wish to articulate an invariant
ethical center for public life drove his attempt to unify dissimilar
elements and stimulated his greatest student’s powerful critique.
Aristotle’s civil society was still a political association that improved
its citizens, but it was founded on respect for the different spheres
and multiple associations in which life is lived. As important as
Aristotle’s respect for variation and distinction was, civil society was
still organized around the face-to-face relations of friends whose
leisurely aristocratic benevolence allowed them to discover and
articulate the public good. Cicero and others sought to develop a
broader notion of civil society by adding the distinctive Roman
recognition of a legally protected private realm, but republican
degeneration and imperial collapse brought the first period of theory
to a halt.
Christianity supplied the central categories of political life and
theory for the better part of a millennium, beginning with
Augustine’s devastating critique of classicism’s prideful striving for
self-reliance. Chapter 2 explores how secular notions of political life
succumbed to Christian theories of civil society that were organized
around fallen man and human depravity, emphasized dependence
and hierarchy, and denied that the works of man can guide moral
action. As powerful as it was, such a blanket condemnation of the
classical heritage eventually conflicted with the needs of a Church
that had to make its way in the world. Augustine’s recognition that
the state is both the result of and corrective for sin opened the way
to more developed notions that did not denigrate the here and now.
Aquinas invested the secular order with a fuller measure of ethical
potential than Augustine was willing to admit and revived Aristotle’s
civil society as an organized political community predicated on the
distinct logics of different orders of creation. Since the moral content
of human affairs was not erased by revelation, a politically
constituted civil society was now essential to human life, expressed
man’s nature, and served God’s purposes. Aquinas took Aristotle as
far as he could within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy, but notions
of a civil society constituted by religion would not survive for long.
As medieval attempts to theorize a Christian Commonwealth began
to crumble under the corrosion of markets and the pressure of kings,
Dante and Marsilius of Padua anticipated modern conceptions of a
civil society constituted by a single point of secular sovereign power.
 Chapter 3 traces the gradual transition to the two modern
conceptions of civil society. Centralizing monarchies stimulated
distinctly modern theories of power, legitimacy, and sovereignty. The
end of classical and medieval attempts to theorize civil society in
universal terms was reflected in Machiavelli’s recognition that Rome’s
civic republicanism turned conflict into stability. But his
understandable preoccupation with political decadence made it
difficult for him to theorize a sphere of meritorious action outside a
purely instrumental understanding of politics. The discovery of the
individual was the work of the Reformation, and as Luther drove the
conscience inward he left it to princes to organize civil society and
choose their subjects’ religion. A unified and religiously constituted
Christendom yielded to the autonomy of faith, a sharper distinction
between the external and internal spheres of life, a new justification
of state power, and a civil society that regulated the external
relations of a fellowship of equal believers. But not all transitional
conceptions were rooted in theology. The great work of this period,
Leviathan, announced the appearance of a new calculating individual
who had to take account of other self-interested entities. Hobbesian
civil society was an artificial creation for the purposes of survival, but
a constitutive sovereign power made the benefits of civilization
possible. Justice, morality, culture, art, and science depended on the
state’s ability to shape a civil society that allowed people to go about
their business in peace and security. If Hobbes looked backward to
the politically organized universal community, he discerned a future
marked by the individual pursuit of self-interest.
Modernity came in the form of centralizing nation-states, extensive
markets, and political movements for freedom. Civil society was no
longer understood as a universal commonwealth but came to mean
private property, individual interest, political democracy, the rule of
law, and an economic order devoted to prosperity. Chapter 4 begins
with John Locke’s understanding that a civil society constituted by
property, production, and acquisition required a law-governed state
to preserve order and protect liberty. Civil society denoted the
possibility of living in conditions of political freedom and economic
activity. Adam Ferguson was worried about the disintegrative and
divisive effects of the competitive pursuit of self-interest and tried to
locate an innate ethical sensibility at civil society’s heart. Adam Smith
shared Ferguson’s awareness of the corrupting effects of commerce,
but it was he who articulated the first distinctively bourgeois sense
that civil society is a market-organized sphere of production and
competition driven by the private strivings of self-interested
proprietors. The important role he reserved to the state did not
conflict with his simultaneous recognition of civil society as the
sphere of moral sentiments, arts, sciences, morality, and all the
other benefits of civilized life. Smith’s tendency to privilege economic
activity epitomized a powerful strand of liberal thought that assumed
the market constituted civil society.
Chapter 5 traces the implications of this first modern conception.
His separation of essence and appearance led Immanuel Kant to
regard civil society as a protected sphere that can enable people to
make their own decisions in conditions of freedom. A liberal public
sphere, fair and equally applied public procedures, extensive civil
liberties, and legitimate republican institutions would anchor a
“republic of letters” and turn the pursuit of individual interests
toward the public good. But Kant’s morality could never find an
empirical referent, and Hegel’s criticism of his “introversion” led him
to a theorization of the three ethical moments of the family, civil
society, and the state. Hegel’s civil society was inhabited by
economic man, was constituted by his private interests—and was a
sphere of moral action. A network of social relations standing
between the family and the state, it linked self-serving individuals to
one another in a mediating sphere of social connections and moral
freedom. But Hegel’s civil society fails to realize the fullest measure
of freedom because it cannot solve the persistent problem of
pauperism, and he ended with the hope that Prussia’s bureaucratic
state could resolve civil society’s antagonisms. Marx agreed that civil
society was the problem that had to be overcome but rejected
Hegel’s solution. His conclusion that the state could not be
conceptualized apart from economic processes drove him to a theory
of social revolution that placed the proletariat at the center of
socialist politics and looked to a transformed state to take the lead in
democratizing civil society. Marx brings to a close the modern
tradition of thought that theorized civil society as a sphere
constituted by production, class, and their attendant social and
political relations. It raised the urgent question of how a chaotic
sphere of competition could be subjected to public supervision. In so
doing it posed the relation between civil society and the state as the
fundamental question of modern life and developed a powerful
reminder that civil society is not an autonomous sphere of self-
contained democratic activity.
Chapter 6 shows how the second major strand of modern theory
led in a different direction. It conceptualized civil society in light of
conditions in France, where a tradition of centralizing monarchs and
a powerful state stimulated notions of community and intermediate
organization. Drawing on Aristotle’s concept of mixed constitutions
and wishing to protect local traditions of aristocratic privilege from
central power, Montesquieu located intermediate bodies at the heart
of republican theories of civil society. Rousseau mounted a romantic
attack on Enlightenment notions of progress, the arts, and science
but was unwilling to defend the privileges of blood. For him, civil
society was a community whose solidarity reconciled the subjectivity
of individual interests with the objectivity of the common good. But
his indifference to intermediate bodies left him open to Burke’s
defense of local traditions against the leveling and centralizing
French Revolution. This second strand of modern thought
culminated in Tocqueville’s attempt to understand how American
localism and informal norms of voluntary association could limit the
thrust of the democratic state in conditions of economic equality and
political freedom. His attention to public life outside the state
dominates contemporary thinking about civil society even though his
initial postulate of American equality exempted him from considering
the effects of economic forces on local traditions of self-reliance and
voluntary association.
their own logic but can be fully comprehended only in relation to the
more complete levels to which they contribute. His classic view that
all subsidiary affiliations find their culmination in the state framed his
orientation toward civil society as the politically organized
community:

Observation shows us, first, that every polis or state is

a species of association, and, secondly, that all
associations are instituted for the purpose of attaining
some good—for all men do all their acts with a view to
achieving something which is, in their view, a good. We
may therefore hold . . . that all associations aim at
some good; and we may also hold that the particular
association which is the most sovereign of all, and
includes all the rest, will pursue this aim most, and will
thus be directed to the most sovereign of all goods.
This most sovereign and inclusive association is the
polis, as it is called, or the political association.15

Aristotle shared Plato’s understanding that human bonds are

rooted in material need and that the division of labor rests at the
heart of civil society. Since it was the basic productive unit of the
ancient world, the household was the foundation of Aristotle’s state.
Several families compose a village. Both spheres of organization
were constituted by the particular ends or purposes around which
they were organized. But the core of classical political philosophy
was its ability to theorize the whole, and Aristotle knew that lower
forms of association could be comprehended only in terms of the
more complete totality of which they were a part. He spent relatively
little time analyzing these subsidiary spheres, and it soon became
clear that his real interest was the city. Man has to eat before he can
do anything else, but his ultimate purpose cannot be reduced to
food.
Aristotle’s teleological method led him to regard the polis as the
most inclusive and sovereign of all human associations because it
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 sketch of, 309, 310;
selected by Hamilton and King as Federalist candidate for President, in
1796, 310.

Pintard, John, chief of Tammany Society, 148.

Porcupine’s Gazette, active in urging war with France, 350-60;

publishes Martin’s attacks on Jefferson, 352, 353;
abusive to Democrats, 354, 355;
on Lyon-Griswold fight in House, 361.

Powell, Mrs. Samuel, aunt of Mrs. William Bingham, 132.

Priestley, Joseph, English liberal, addresses Tammany and other

‘Democratic Societies’ in New York, 259.

Randolph, Edmund, Attorney-General under Washington, considers

Hamilton’s Bank Bill unconstitutional, 77;
on reception of Genêt, 215;
succeeds Jefferson as Secretary of State, 239;
and French Minister Faucet, 285;
is dismissed from Cabinet, 286.

Read, Jacob, Senator from South Carolina, denounced in Charleston for

supporting Jay Treaty, 281.

Reign of Terror, Alien and Sedition Laws produce, in 1798, 380-82;

continued through two years, 383;
riotings, 384;
victims, 386-93, 398-406.

Report on Manufactures, Hamilton’s, 161;

newspaper comments on, 161.

Report on the Public Credit, Hamilton’s, 43-68;

debated in Congress, 44.
Reynolds, James, seeks to blackmail Hamilton, 187.

Ricketts, John, proprietor of the Circus, Philadelphia, 138.

Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine, copy lent by printer to Jefferson, 82;

in returning borrowed copy to printer Jefferson writes note commending
pamphlet, 83;
Jefferson’s note used by printer as preface, 83;
effect of publication, 83, 84;
newspaper controversy over, 83, 84.

Rittenhouse, David, scientist and friend of Jefferson, 149;

and Jefferson in library of Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, 156;
aids in preparations for reception of Genêt, 219;
president of Democratic Club of Philadelphia, 223.

Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, Duc de La, on Philadelphia, 124, 125;

in Philadelphia, 135.

Rush, Dr. Benjamin, writes letters to Maclay against Assumption, 61;

on Paine’s Rights of Man, 84;
letter to Burr, 147;
Jefferson’s friend, 149;
in yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia, 237.

Rutledge, John, denounces Jay Treaty, 280;

appointment as Chief Justice not confirmed, 289.

Saint Cecilia Society, Democratic Club in Charleston, 223.

St. Clair, General Arthur, failure of expedition against Indians made issue
by Jeffersonians in campaign of 1792, 175.

Schuyler, Philip, father-in-law of Hamilton, elected Senator from New

York, 36;
 letter of Hamilton to, on Washington, 41, 42;
and the Assumption Bill, 62.

‘Scrippomony,’ Jefferson on, 87.

Sedition Bill, purpose to crush Jeffersonian press, 376, 377;

debates on, in Congress, marked by disorder, 378;
passed by small margin, 380.

Sedgwick, Theodore, speculator in public securities, defends Funding Bill,

48, 49;
on funding of debt, 48, 49, 50;
on Madison’s plan to amend Funding Bill, 55;
speech on the Assumption Bill, 62;
and Excise Bill, 72;
and amendment to Excise Bill, 73;
on Giles’s resolutions attacking Treasury management, 201;
recommended Adams’s nomination as Vice-President, in 1789, 325;
on results of 1798 elections, 383.

Sedgwick, Mrs. Theodore, 134.

Sherman, Roger, Representative and Senator from Connecticut, on titles, 3.

Sign of the Sorrel Horse, Philadelphia tavern, 119.

Smith, Mrs. Margaret Bayard, on Jefferson, 92, 93.

Smith, Samuel, on Madison commerce resolutions, 241.

Smith, Jeremiah, on Philadelphians, 116.

Smith, William, Representative from South Carolina, on Madison’s

amendment to Funding Bill, 55;
chosen director of Bank of United States, 90;
on Giles’s resolutions attacking Treasury management, 201, 203;
on Madison’s commerce resolutions, 240, 242.
Southwark Theater, Philadelphia, 137.

Speculation, in government securities, 44-47;

members of Congress involved, 46-48;
in stock and scrip, 87;
fraud and counterfeiting, 88;
Hamilton shocked and concerned, 88;
bubble bursts in 1792, 176;
Hamilton’s policies charged as cause of panic, 177;
newspaper comments on, 177.

Spooner’s Vermont Journal, on the Jay Treaty, 283.

Steele, John, North Carolina, 181.

Stewart, Mrs. Walter, daughter of Blair McClenachan, social leader of

Philadelphia, 132.

Strong, Caleb, Senator from Massachusetts, 9;

and the Assumption Bill, 62.

Sullivan, James, lawyer, pamphleteer, and orator for the Democrats, 145.

Tammany, Sons of, rival organization to Society of the Cincinnati, 148;

at first non-partisan, then fervid Jeffersonians, 148.

Tariff, in First Congress, 19;

in Second Congress, 161;
Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures excites little attention, 161.

Taylor, John, of Caroline, a Jeffersonian leader in Virginia, 149, 150;

Jeffersonian leaders confer at home of, 205;
pamphlet analyzing vote in Congress vindicating Hamilton, attributed to,
205, 206;
introduces Virginia Resolutions in Legislature, 409.
Tilley, Count, 135.

Treaty with the Southern Indians, Washington’s attitude on presentation to

the Senate, 21, 22.

Trumbull, John, paints portrait of Hamilton, 162.

Tucker, George, editor of Blackstone’s Commentaries, 169.

Twining, Thomas, in Philadelphia, 120.

United States Chronicle, on Freneau’s attacks on Hamilton, 164.

Venable, Abraham B., of deputation from Congress to Hamilton on the

Reynolds charges, 187.

Vermont Journal, on Hamilton’s Passaic Falls scheme, 162.

Vining, John, Representative from Delaware, and Assumption, 61;

Maclay on, 61.

Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison, and introduced in

Legislature by John Taylor of Caroline, 409;
contemporary opinions of, 409-11.

Wadsworth, Jeremiah, Representative from Connecticut, speculator in

certificates, 47 n.;
sneers at soldiers of Revolution, 55, 56;
elected director of Bank of United States, 90.

Warville, Brissot de, and Mrs. Bingham, 128, 129.

Washington, George, reception on arrival in New York, 6, 7;

 inaugurated President, 7;
bored by dignities and ceremonial of office, 16, 17;
his solemn dinners, 18;
presents in person treaty with Southern Indians for ratification by Senate,
20;
annoyed by proposal to refer treaty to committee, 21;
rents house of Robert Morris in Philadelphia, 119;
endeavors, unsuccessfully, to effect reconciliation between Jefferson and
Hamilton, 171;
Hamilton refuses to discontinue attacks in Fenno’s Gazette, 172;
and the French Revolution, 214;
issues Neutrality Proclamation, 216;
and Jefferson in the case of the Little Sarah, 228;
reluctantly accepts Jefferson’s resignation, 233, 234;
appoints Jay special envoy to Great Britain, 247;
attacks Democratic Societies in Message, 261;
delays signing Jay Treaty, 285;
his prestige used to make Treaty more acceptable, 286;
is attacked by Democratic press, 286-88;
refuses to comply with request of House for papers pertaining to Jay
Treaty, 298;
refuses to be a candidate for a third term, 308;
accepts chief command of army in prospective war with France, 413;
selects Hamilton, Pinckney, and Knox as major-generals, 413.

Washington City, new capital, in 1800, 486-89;

‘city of magnificent distances,’ but mud roads, 487.

Whiskey Boys, the. See Whiskey Insurrection.

Whiskey Insurrection, the, 250-56;

grew out of enforcement of Excise Law, 251;
Hamilton active in suppressing, 254-56;
ringleaders arrested, harshly treated, and jailed, 255;
most of prisoners acquitted on trial, 255;
two convicted, but pardoned by Washington, 256;
tempest in a teapot, 256.
Williamson’s Gardens, New York City, 10.

Willing, Thomas, business partner of Robert Morris, elected director of

Bank of United States, 90.

Wingate, Paine, on Federal Hall, 2.

Witherspoon, John, president of Princeton, 157.

Wolcott, Mary Ann, sister of Oliver Wolcott, afterward Mrs. Chauncey

Goodrich, 134.

Wolcott, Oliver, of Connecticut, on Hamilton’s religious views, 41;

mouthpiece for Hamilton, 59, 60;
on Philadelphians, 116;
on demonstrations against Jay Treaty, 275;
Adams’s Secretary of the Treasury, sketch of, 331-34.

Wolcott, Mrs. Oliver, called ‘the magnificent,’ 134.

Wythe, George, Virginia lawyer and politician, 96;

presides at meeting in Richmond denouncing Jay Treaty, 282.

X Y Z papers, Federalists familiar with, before publication, 364;

Hamilton sees trump card in them for war party, 364;
Jeffersonians kept in ignorance, 364;
excitement intense on publication, 365, 366;
‘millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute,’ a clarion call, 366;
rioting in Philadelphia, 367.

Yellow Cat, the, Philadelphia tavern, 120.

Yellow fever, in Philadelphia, 237, 238;

in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, 380.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Pickering (Wingate to Pickering), II, 447.
[2] Ames, I, 31.
[3] Writings, I, 450.
[4] Ames, I, 31, 32.
[5] Pickering (Wingate to Pickering), II, 447.
[6] Ames, I, 31; Pickering, II, 447.
[7] Republican Court, 120-22; Story of a Street, 101.
[8] Ames, I, 32-34.
[9] Writings, I, 450.
[10] Ames (to Minot), I, 41-42.
[11] Republican Court, 122, note.
[12] Adams’s explanation, Works, VIII, 511-13.
[13] Maclay, 2-3.
[14] Maclay, 7-10.
[15] Ibid., 22-24.
[16] Ibid., 25-27.
[17] Maclay, 37.
[18] Writings, I, 470-71.
[19] Ames, I, 46.
[20] June 3, 1789.
[21] Maclay, 31.
[22] Daily Advertiser, April 24, 1789.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Story of a Street, 221.
[25] Maclay, 7-10.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Gazette of the United States, May 2, 1789.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid, May 8, 1789.
[30] Daily Advertiser, May 8, 1789.
 [31] Daily Advertiser, May 8, 1729.
[32] Gazette of the United States, May 9, 1789.
[33] Governor Page complained bitterly of hogs and mud. Memorial History, III,
48.
[34] The Daily Advertiser advertises the specifications April 13, 1789.
[35] Maclay, 90.
[36] Gazette of the United States, June 27, 1789.
[37] Memorial History, III, 47.
[38] Daily Advertiser, March 6, 1789.
[39] Memorial History, III, 45.
[40] Daily Advertiser, April 15, 1789.
[41] New York in 1789, 117.
[42] Memorial History, III, 65; New York in 1789, 117-20.
[43] New York in 1789, 172-75.
[44] Ibid., 176.
[45] Ibid., 178.
[46] May 9, 1789.
[47] Gazette of the United States, May 13, 1789.
[48] Maclay, 31.
[49] Gazette of the United States, June 6, 1789.
[50] Ibid., September 19, 1789.
[51] Story of a Street, 112.
[52] Gibbs, I, 22.
[53] Ibid., I, 43.
[54] New York in 1789, 19.
[55] Ibid., 119.
[56] Warville, 96-97.
[57] Republican Court, 210, note.
[58] Brooks, Knox, 217-18.
[59] Mrs. Iredell; McRee, Iredell, II, 296-97.
[60] Gazette of the United States, May 16, 1789.
[61] Ibid., May 30, 1789.
[62] Daily Advertiser, June 19, 1789.
 [63] Gazette of the United States, April 15, 1789.
[64] Maclay, 257-58.
[65] Wharton, Salons, Colonial and Republican, 53.
[66] Maclay, 266.
[67] Ibid., 73-74.
[68] Story of a Street, 112, 114-17, 121.
[69] Richmond Hill, at present site of Charlton and Varick Streets.
[70] Letters of Mrs. Adams (to Mrs. Shaw), II, 201; (to Thomas Brand-Hollis), II,
205.
[71] Ames (to Minot), I, 34; Maclay, 375; Familiar Letters, 86-89.
[72] Adams, Works, VIII, 491-92.
[73] Thayer’s Washington, 180-81.
[74] Gazette of the United States, May 6, 1789.
[75] Republican Court, 149, note.
[76] Autobiography, Ford, I, 171.
[77] Maclay, 138.
[78] Iredell, II, 138.
[79] Maclay, 138.
[80] Ibid., 138, 206.
[81] Ibid., 101.
[82] Maclay, 38.
[83] Ibid., 50.
[84] Bassett, The Federalist System.
[85] Gerry, Annals, May 20, 1789.
[86] Writings (to Randolph), I, 471-73.
[87] Jackson, Annals, I, 486-89.
[88] Page, Annals, I, 548-52.
[89] Maclay, 128-31.
[90] Iredell (Lowther to Iredell), II, 258-59.
[91] Writings, I, 471-73.
[92] Warville, 102.
[93] Familiar Letters, 236-37.
[94] Oliver, 114.
[95] Gibbs, I, 22.
[96] Autobiography, 278.
[97] Morris, Diary, II, 456.
[98] Oliver, 15.
[99] See Appendix, Lodge, Alexander Hamilton.
[100] Works, IX, 405-06; letter to brother.
[101] Ibid., X, 109.
[102] Intimate Life, 3.
[103] Life, by son, I, 4.
[104] Fiske, I, 104-05.
[105] Life, by son, I, 10.
[106] Ibid., 22.
[107] Ibid., 263-74.
[108] Payne’s Journalism, 191-92.
[109] Works, I, 202.
[110] Ibid., I, 213-39.
[111] Ibid., I, 243-87.
[112] Life, by son, II, 277.
[113] Ibid., I, 69.
[114] Works, VI, 276.
[115] Life, by son, I, 69.
[116] Ibid., I, 318.
[117] Ibid.
[118] Lodge, 26.
[119] Oliver, 27.
[120] Intimate Life, 47.
[121] Oliver, 161-62.
[122] Lodge, 177-78; Oliver, 163-64.
[123] Oliver, 86.
[124] Ibid., 263.
[125] Ibid., 376.
[126] Works, VI, 457.
[127] Oliver, 149.
 [128] Fiske, 120; Lodge, 58.
[129] Beck, 75.
[130] Oliver, 156.
[131] Works, I, 347-69.
[132] Beck, 76.
[133] Life, by son, II, 487.
[134] Ibid., 487.
[135] Ibid., 488.
[136] Ibid.
[137] Ibid.
[138] Ibid., 516.
[139] Lodge, 60.
[140] Works, I, 404.
[141] Gordy, I, 70.
[142] Works, I, 417.
[143] Ibid.
[144] Works, I, 420.
[145] Lodge, 62-63.
[146] Statement to Tench Coxe quoted by Jefferson, Works of Jefferson, Ford, I,
338.
[147] Letter to G. Morris, Works, X, 425.
[148] Morris, Diary, II, 456.
[149] Works, X, 480.
[150] Intimate Life, 75.
[151] Life, by son, I, 398.
[152] Parton’s Jefferson, 358.
[153] Familiar Letters, 236-37.
[154] Oliver, 177-78.
[155] Works, X, 3; letter to King.
[156] Jefferson’s Anas, I, 180.
[157] Morris, Diary, II, 456.
[158] Lodge, 156.
[159] Works, X, 354.
 [160] Morris, Diary, II, 456.
[161] Cabot, 298-300.
[162] Intimate Life, 48.
[163] Life, by son, I, 236.
[164] Ibid., 233.
[165] Lodge, 81.
[166] Ibid., 144.
[167] Oliver, 40.
[168] Works, X, 90-91.
[169] Ibid., X, 425-26.
[170] Works, X, 123-26; letter to Lloyd.
[171] Parton’s Jefferson, 355.
[172] Intimate Life, 46.
[173] Works, IX, 256-58.
[174] Familiar Letters, 236-37.
[175] Morison’s Otis (to Mrs. Otis), I, 141-43.
[176] Cabot, 204-05.
[177] Morison’s Otis, I, 141.
[178] Lodge, 272.
[179] Oliver, 76.
[180] Ibid., 381.
[181] Griswold, 173.
[182] Intimate Life, 55.
[183] Ibid., 56.
[184] Ibid., 60.
[185] Ibid., 259.
[186] Ibid., 73.
[187] Intimate Life, 17.
[188] Works, V, 61 (to Washington); X, 256 (to William Smith); X, 275 (to King);
X, 343 (to Pickering).
[189] Life, by son, reminiscences of Troup, I, 10.
[190] Ibid.
[191] Works, VI, 276.
 [192] Ibid., X, 432-37.
[193] Intimate Life, 334.
[194] Ibid., 406.
[195] Oliver and Sumner.
[196] Intimate Life, 261.
[197] Works, IX, 232-37.
[198] Ibid., X, 356-57.
[199] Daily Advertiser, October 9, 1789.
[200] Gerry and Clymer, both supporters of the Report, objected. Annals, January
9, 1790.
[201] Maclay, 177.
[202] Writings, J. Q. Adams, I, 49.
[203] Connecticut Gazette, February 19, 1790.
[204] Lodge, 90-91.
[205] Ibid.
[206] Madison’s Writings (letter to Pendleton), I, 507-09.
[207] Maclay, 179. The member of Congress who sent the vessels was Jeremiah
Wadsworth of Connecticut.
[208] Professor C. A. Beard makes a conclusive case against both in his Economic
Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy.
[209] Works of Jefferson, I, 354.
[210] Mr. Amory, H. G. Otis, and William Wetmore.
[211] Writings of J. Q. Adams, I, 56-59.
[212] Maclay, 177-78.
[213] Beard’s Economic Interpretation, 104-12.
[214] Gazette of the United States, ‘Common Sense,’ January 30, 1790.
[215] Annals, January 28, 1790.
[216] Ibid.
[217] Maclay, February 1, 1790.
[218] Maclay, 194.
[219] Annals, February 10, 1790.
[220] New York Daily Advertiser, February 13, 1790.
[221] Familiar Letters, 108.
[222] Gazette of the United States, April 15, 1790.
 [223] Fiske, 187.
[224] Ames (letter to Minor), I, 35.
[225] First Forty Years of American Society, Family Letters of Mrs. Margaret
Bayard Smith, 61.
[226] Works of Jefferson, Ford, I, 86.
[227] Mrs. Smith, 63.
[228] Annals, February 11, 1790.
[229] Madison’s Writings, I, 507.
[230] Annals, February 15, 1790.
[231] Writings (to Randolph), I, 512.
[232] White, Annals, February 16, 1790.
[233] White, Annals, February 16, 1790.
[234] Maclay, 199.
[235] Ibid., February 22, 1790.
[236] Writings, J. Q. Adams, I, 49.
[237] Gazette of the United States, June 12, 1790.
[238] Centinel, February 24, 1790.
[239] Ibid., March 20, 1790.
[240] Pennsylvania Gazette, copied in Maryland Gazette, February 26, 1790.
[241] Boston, Independent Chronicle, March 4, 1790.
[242] Boston, Independent Chronicle, March 25, 1790.
[243] Ibid., April 15.
[244] Maclay, 202.
[245] Ibid., 205.
[246] New York Advertiser, February 20, 1790.
[247] Ibid., February 22, 1790.
[248] Comptroller of the Treasury.
[249] Gibbs, I, 43.
[250] Madison’s Writings (to Jefferson), I, 511.
[251] McRee, Iredell (from Senator Johnson), II, 286; (from William R. Davie), II,
281, note.
[252] King, I, 385.
[253] Henry, II, 459.
[254] Stone of Maryland.
[255] Maclay, 203.
[256] Ibid., 209.
[257] Ibid., 212.
[258] Ibid., 214.
[259] Maclay, 227, 230.
[260] Ibid., 234.
[261] Elias Boudinot of New Jersey.
[262] Maclay, 237.
[263] Maclay, 248.
[264] Ibid., 250.
[265] Writings, I, 517.
[266] McRee, Iredell, II, 286.
[267] Lodge, Cabot, 35-36.
[268] Ibid. (to Goodhue), 37.
[269] Gazette of the United States, April 21, 1790.
[270] Ibid., April 24, 1790.
[271] Centinel, June 19, 1790.
[272] Daily Advertiser, March 24, 1790.
[273] Ames (to Dwight), I, 79-80.
[274] Maclay, 292.
[275] Ibid., 299.
[276] Maclay, 310.
[277] Works, Ford, VIII, 42-45.
[278] Ibid., VIII, 52.
[279] Writings (to Monroe), I, 522.
[280] Maclay, 332.
[281] Gazette of the United States, August 25, 1790.
[282] February 25, 1791.
[283] Brooks, Knox, 213.
[284] Maryland Journal, February 11, 1791.
[285] Josiah Parker.
[286] Annals, January 5, 1791.
[287] Samuel Livermore.
[288] Annals, January 6, 1791.
[289] Annals, January 11, 1791.
[290] Maclay, 385.
[291] Ibid., 385.
[292] Maclay, 387.
[293] Jefferson’s Works, VIII, 123.
[294] Works, III, 319-41; 342-87.
[295] Ibid., 388-443.
[296] Maclay, 364.
[297] Ibid., 369.
[298] Annals, February 2, 1791.
[299] Ames (to Dwight), I, 94.
[300] Annals, February 3, 1791.
[301] Jefferson’s Works, III, 145-53.
[302] Madison’s Writings, III, 171.
[303] Madison’s Writings, III, 171.
[304] Ames (to Minot), February 17, 1791.
[305] Madison’s Writings (to Jefferson), I, 534-35.
[306] Hamilton’s Works (letter to Carrington), IX, 513-35.
[307] Parton, II, 1.
[308] Dustin’s Freneau, 160.
[309] May 11, 1791.
[310] Gazette of the United States, April 6, 1791.
[311] Daily Advertiser, February 25, 1791.
[312] Independent Chronicle, March 10, 1791.
[313] New York Daily Advertiser, July 19, 1791.
[314] British Agent.
[315] Domestic Life, 197-98. Jefferson was living in the country.
[316] Maryland Journal, March 22, 1791.
[317] Domestic Life, 199.
[318] Ibid., 201.
[319] Jefferson’s Works, VIII, 205.
 [320] Gay’s Madison.
[321] Madison’s Writings, I, 534.
[322] Graydon, 375.
[323] McRee, Iredell, II, 335.
[324] Adams, Adams, I, 454.
[325] New York Daily Advertiser, July 8, 1791.
[326] Ibid., July 9, 1791.
[327] Ibid., July 14, 1791.
[328] Independent Chronicle, June 23, 1791.
[329] Ibid., July 7, 1791.
[330] Ibid., August 26, 1791.
[331] Ibid.
[332] Jefferson’s Works, VIII, 192.
[333] Adams, Works, VIII, 503.
[334] Ibid., 505.
[335] Madison’s Writings, I, 535.
[336] Jefferson’s Works, VIII, 223.
[337] Jefferson’s Works, VIII, 232.
[338] Madison’s Writings, I, 540.
[339] Ibid., I, 534.
[340] Madison’s Writings, I, 538.
[341] Maryland Journal, February 15, 1791.
[342] Pennsylvania Gazette, September 7, 1791.
[343] August 17, 1791.
[344] Hamilton’s Works (to King), I, 402.
[345] August 8, 1791.
[346] August 9, 1791.
[347] August 13, 1791. ‘Scrips sold last night: Cash 212-202-210-206; 10 days,
216, 217-1/2, 214; 30 days, 223, 212, 215; 45 days, 216; 60 days, 219; Sept. 10, 224;
Deliver and pay December 1, 235; Deliver October 1 and pay January 1, 242;
Monday next, 207; Tuesday, 215-1/2, 217, 210.’ (New York Daily Advertiser.)
[348] Daily Advertiser, August 15, 1791.
[349] New York Daily Advertiser.
[350] Daily Advertiser, August 17, 1791.
[351] New York Daily Advertiser, September 21, 1791.
[352] Independent Chronicle, September 1, 1791.
[353] Independent Chronicle, August 18, 1791.
[354] Maclay, 272.
[355] Familiar Letters, 148.
[356] Maclay, 272.
[357] Mrs. Smith, 6.
[358] Ibid., 6-7.
[359] Liancourt, III, 157.
[360] Parton on the Moore incident, III, 115-19.
[361] Maclay, 272.
[362] Mrs. Smith, 6-7.
[363] Maclay, 272.
[364] Familiar Letters, 149.
[365] Familiar Letters, 148.
[366] Maclay, 272.
[367] Liancourt, III, 157.
[368] Familiar Letters, 148.
[369] Mrs. Smith, 6-7.
[370] Randall, I, 14.
[371] Dodd, Statesmen of the Old South, 3-4.
[372] Ibid., 9.
[373] Dodd, Statesmen of the Old South, 23.
[374] Parton’s Jefferson, I, 27.
[375] Randall, III, 448.
[376] Autobiography, I, 77.
[377] Fiske, 148.
[378] Works (to Mrs. Trist), V, 151.
[379] Ibid. (to Bellini), V, 151.
[380] Ibid. (to Mrs. Trist), V, 81-82.
[381] Ibid. (to Bellini), V, 151-54.
[382] Morris, Diary, I, 101.
[383] Domestic Life (letter to Madison), 155; Works, I, 131-38.
 [384] Domestic Life (letter to Adams), 156.
[385] Ibid. (to Jay), 156.
[386] Ibid. (to Jay), 159.
[387] Works (letter to Lafayette), VII, 370; (to De St. Etienne), VII, 370-72; (the
Charter), VII, 372-74.
[388] Ibid., IV, 72.
[389] Ibid. (to De Unger), IV, 138-39.
[390] Autobiography, I, 72.
[391] Mrs. Wharton, 391.
[392] Parton’s Jefferson, I, 344.
[393] Vol. I, 77.
[394] Works, V, 3-4: letter to Chastellus.
[395] Ibid., VI, 428: to Warville.
[396] Randall, I, 17.
[397] Ibid., III, 556-58; letter to Rush.
[398] Ibid., 671-76.
[399] Ibid.; also see The Thomas Jefferson Bible, edited by Henry Jackson.
[400] Randall, III, 547.
[401] Dodd, Statesmen of the Old South, 36.
[402] Randall, III, 620-22.
[403] Works, VI, 11-15; to Charles Thompson.
[404] Ibid., 227-29 (to Edward Carrington); 269-71 (to J. Blair).
[405] Ibid., 296-301 (to Benjamin Hawkins and George Wythe); 231-32 (to Count
Del Vermi).
[406] Ibid., 285-89; to John Adams.
[407] Ibid., 368.
[408] Ibid., 378-83; to William Carmichael.
[409] Works, VI, 385-93.
[410] Ibid., 425-27. I have the authority of Josephus Daniels for a tradition in
North Carolina that such a letter in the hands of Willie Jones was responsible for the
failure of the first Convention there to ratify. The letter is apparently lost.
[411] Ibid., VII, 26-30; to Carmichael.
[412] Ibid., 36-39; to Colonel Carrington.
[413] Ibid., 79-88.