Review: Most Uncommon Jacksonians
Radical Leaders of Early Labor Movement Examined by Edward Pressen
Jul 21, 2008
Edward Pressen, Most Uncommon Jacksonians: The Radical Leaders of the Early Labor Movement, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1967
Pressen’s thesis is that the leaders of the labor movement were radicals, men who desired more than just labor reforms. They were social reformers who did not quite fit in with the Democrats, especially Andrew Jackson, and who sought to agitate the status quo in order to perpetuate their agenda.
The Workingmen's Party
The book is broken up into three parts. The first examines the Workingmen’s party and the trade unions which arose during this time. These groups were authentic expressions of the worker’s views as a part of the Democratic party without becoming a fixed part of the Democratic coalition.
The Radical Leaders
The second part details the careers of the principal leaders of the labor movement. Men such as Thomas Skidmore, Robert Dale Owen, George Henry Evans, Stephen Simpson, John Ferral, William English, Seth Luther, Ely Moore, Levi Slamm, John Commerford, and Charles Douglas are examined and found to not be mere union leaders, but radicals who sought larger social justice. These men had interests ranging far beyond those problems directly relevant to unions, according to Pressen.
Radical Social Views
The final section of the book gives an analysis of the social thought of these leaders. It quickly becomes apparent these men held a quite bleak view of the state of American society. They believed it “to be torn with social conflict, disfigured by the misery of the masses, and dominated by greedy elite” (197). According to Pressen, these labor leaders were influenced by the English Enlightenment radicals, having rejected Malthus and accepted that society’s ills were mainly due to private property, monopolies, corrupt institutions, and industrialization.
Conclusion: Most Uncommon Jacksonians
The conclusion Pressen draws is that these labor movements were truly radical, having moved outside of the mainstream of the Democrats. Ultimately the leaders of the movement were “uncommon Jacksonians” by giving a serious critique of the elite, having ideological substance, and moving far away from the conservatism of the time.
Pressen writes in a clear, succinct style, bringing the reader into the world of Jacksonian America without being dry or engaging in unnecessary polemics. The organization of the book makes it easy to follow his arguments, going from the specifics of the Workingmen’s party to the general principles of labor in America.
Not so Radical?
This is not to say, however, the book is without any problems. The largest area of concern is in the men Pressen choose to highlight. These men are constantly referred to as Jacksonian labor leaders, yet the author presumes they existed outside of the mainstream of the Democratic party. This is confusing at the very least. One also wonders exactly how radical these men actually were. The tenets of their radicalism, a critique of monopolies and the corruption of the banking system, were held by those within the Democratic party. It seems these so-called radicals were perhaps not as radical as Pressen says; his own words argue against that, “[the labor leaders] loved stability even as they talked up turbulence” (198).
A Minority?
The leaders studied in this work also do not make up a large portion of total labor leaders at the time. Pressen argues he is examining those who left writings, that silent leaders cannot be studied, but is this actually the case? Can one not study the policies and actions of those “silent” leaders?
Also, Pressen makes the case that laborers, a working class, were more powerful than they actually were. He argues they were an important segment of Jacksonian America, while also saying these laborers did not even make up a “significant minority for the parties organized on their behalf” (31). He cannot have it both ways.
The arguments Pressen makes, along with the sources used, may be flawed, but that does not mean it is without merit. It is an important work in a field that, at the time, did not recognize a legitimate labor movement, especially not one that was radical. Pressen does prove the existence of radicals, of some sort, within a labor movement during the Jackson era.
