Reviews for Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850

The average rating for Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788-1850 based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-11-27 00:00:00 Markus Kirschner I read this book not because I am particularly interested in labor history, although it is a fascinating and important subject with contemporary overtones. I read "Chants Democratic" because I wanted to again share company with one of the best U.S historians alive: Sean Wilentz. His "The Rise of American Democracy" is the best U.S history book I've ever read. "Chants Democratic" was his first book, published in the 1980s. It is also superb. Many Americans today may take for granted that capitalism is inevitable progress, that its coming was accepted nearly universally, that it produced only wealth. "No" on all counts. Wilentz studies the dawn of industrialization in New York City from the Jeffersonian through Jacksonian eras, the 1820s to the 1850s, the advent of free labor ideology, the withering away of the old artisan relationship between boss and worker as wages became subject to the vicissitudes of the "free market," and the nascent labor radicalism that followed. You will be introduced to characters like Thomas Skidmore and John Commerford, names all but forgotten to greater figures like Marx and Engels. You will be introduced to the first radical labor ideologies in U.S history, and taken on a tour of the first strikes, public demonstrations, and labor violence. You will see how the first trade unions formed, what each thought about the new employer-employee order, their many different prescriptions for establishing a more equitable labor system, and why they all inevitably failed: lack of internal cohesion, political co-optation, downturns in the economic cycle, etc. These early disputes were often about more than wages and work hours; they were a test of what kind of Republic America should become. Both sides (actually, there were many sides and competing/overlapping ideologies among workers and employers) attempted to use the language of American republican virtue and independence to win. Both (many) sides claimed to be the true protectors of the legacy of the American revolution. One need not specialize in labor history to understand that this battle was never completely settled. Even today, unions and their employers tussle over what kind of capitalism we should have. Wilentz is not only a superb historian, he is an excellent writer. Even though we know how the story ends, his narrative makes the journey fascinating. (The story ends with the failure of the early labor movement but with seeds planted to fuel the later struggles.) You might be surprised how many strikers won concessions as well as how many different trades formed unions and went on strike; that notwithstanding, conditions in the skilled crafts and unskilled manufactories remained mostly deplorable by modern-day standards. To peer inside a window to a New York that only exists in paintings, faded newspaper articles, and history books -- pick up Chants Democratic, especially if labor history interests you.

Review # 2 was written on 2012-11-06 00:00:00 Stephen Sallis I got through most of this. Very deceptive...it looks so small! I'll skip through this in nothing flat, one thinks to one's self. And then...tiny type. And the material is not my favorite. I try to like labor history, but I may have to admit that in the end, I just think labor history is boring. Sorry, working class forebears. Wilentz has interesting things to say here about this artisan republicanism, and how everyone in the early republic claimed the "Inheritance of the Revolution." Journeyman artisans say that the republican spirit comes from independent workers, their bosses say it comes from capitalism, they both agree it has nothing to do with black people or women...the antics and mayhem of the American experience ensue. It was also sort of remarkable to me how limited this story was to New York City proper. I have read a decent amount about what was going on in upstate New York during the time frame of this book, but judging from this you wouldn't think anything that went on upstate had any effect on the city at all. Maybe it didn't. Seems odd though. Also makes one think- can New York City history illuminate American History? Or is it too special, too different? In an American History survey class, how much time should be spent on a very particular spot like New York? It seems like it would be easy to dismiss..."well, it's New York, it's a special case." And yet it is the biggest city hereabouts, and certainly very influential.