"A Wilderness of Whigs": The Wealthy Men of Boston

"A Wilderness of Whigs": The Wealthy Men of BostonAuthor(s): Robert RichSource: Journal of Social History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Spring, 1971), pp. 263-276Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786703 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofSocial History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:52:46 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786703?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


ROBERT RICH

"A WILDERNESS OF WHIGS"

The Wealthy Men of Boston

Partisan infighting during the Jacksonian era included, as a matter of form, charges by the Democrats that the vast majority of

wealthy men supported the Whig party. The Democracy saw itself as the refuge of the masses and scorned Whiggery as a plot perpetrated by the privileged few. The Jacksonians conceded that "a few honest patriotic rich men" voted with them, but stoutly maintained that "almost all the rich" were Whigs.1

For generations, historians generally subscribed to the belief that most wealthy men in the age of Jackson were indeed Whigs. Recently this old interpretation has been challenged, particularly by the consensus school.2 In The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case, Lee Benson presented one of the fullest ex- positions of the new consensus view. Benson minimized the severity of class-oriented political conflict and argued against the thesis that political divisions could be correlated meaningfully with economic status. He posed the questions, "Did men of wealth strongly tend to give their resources, talents, and prestige to the Whigs rather than to the Democrats? Did a large portion of the business community- however defined-adhere to the Whig faith?" Benson contended that the wealthy and the businessmen could not be so described.3

Benson concentrated primarily upon the backgrounds of men in places of political leadership, rather than tracing the partisan preferences of wealthy men in general. Thus his conclusion that it was "potentially verifiable" that "the men who led and controlled both major parties in New York belonged to the same socioeconomic

ROBERT RICH is a graduate student in history at the University of California, Los Angeles. 1. Boston Post, 7, 13 July 1835. 2. For Jacksonian era historiography, see Charles Grier Sellers, Jr., "Andrew Jackson versus the Historians," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 64 (March 1958): 615-34; Alfred A. Cave, Jacksonian Democracy and the Historians (Gainesville, 1964). 3. Lee Benson, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy; New York as a Test Case (Princeton, 1961), 80.



journal of social history

strata" did not fully answer his questions about the likelihood that "men of wealth" or the "business community" would be found in the Whig Party.4

To discover the political affiliations of a wide sample of New York City's rich, Frank Otto Gatell studied 909 of that city's affluent men who appeared on the same wealthy citizens list that Benson had used. Gatell found that of the 70.6 percent he identified politically, 84.3 percent were Whigs. This differed sharply from the nearly even political split which Benson had claimed for New York's well-to-do.5 But Gatell confined his study to New York City, and no research of this kind has been published on the rich of other areas. Therefore, to test further Benson's hypothesis, the following pages will analyze the political characteristics of the wealthy men of Boston, Massachusetts.

Two contemporary wealthy citizens lists provided the names of affluent Bostonians. The first, published in 1846, bore the lengthy and descriptive title "Our First Men:" A Calendar of Wealth, Fashion and Gentility, Containing a List of Those Persons Taxed in the City of Boston, Credibly Reported To Be Worth One Hundred Thousand Dollars...." 6 The second list, The Rich Men of Massachusetts..., appeared in 1852.7 In order to obtain a "workable" sample of Boston's wealthy, women were excluded since they could not par- ticipate in politics in that era, and men listed only as trustees for estates were also omitted. These reductions produced a combined list of 714 wealthy Bostonians.

These men and their families constituted Boston's monied aris-

tocracy. An "aristocracy" did exist in Jacksonian America, but since no legal, hereditary basis conferred special status as in Europe, Boston's aristocracy founded itself on the materialism of wharves, counting-rooms and textile mills. According to the compilers of the

wealthy citizens lists, Boston's 714 aristocrats of wealth were each worth $100,000 or more, including 27 millionaires, with the weal- thiest reputed to be worth $4,000,000.8 4. Ibid, 84. 5. Frank Otto Gatell, "Money and Party in Jacksonian America; A Quantitative Look at New York City's Men of Quality," Political Science Quarterly 82 (June 1967): 235-52. 6. " Our First Men:" A Calendar of Wealth Fashion and Gentility, Containing a List of Those Persons Taxed in the City of Boston, Credibly Reported To Be Worth One Hundred Thousand Dollars; With Biographical Notices of the Principal Persons (Boston, 1852). 7. [Abner Forbes], The Rich Men of Massachusetts: Containing a Statement of the Reputed Wealth of About Two Thousand Persons, with Brief Sketches of Nearly Fifteen Hundred Characters (Boston, 1852). Only those listed in Boston were used for this study. 8. See the discussion of aristocracy in "Our First Men", 3-8. The earliest list was based, at least partially, on tax rolls, although the booklets did not pretend to be corm-

264



WHIGS IN BOSTON 265

Whether or not a man possessed wealth he could easily recognize the line of least political resistance in Boston: the area was a Whig stronghold. The city consistently gave a majority to the Whig gubernatorial candidate, and always supported Whig presidential nominees, except in 1852 when divisions over slavery and anger that the Whigs had again refused to nominate Daniel Webster produced a rare Democratic victory.9 As table 1 indicates, the Whig presidential and gubernatorial vote in Suffolk County, which consisted primarily of Boston, generally ranged between 61 and 65 percent.

TABLE 1. WHIG PERCENTAGES IN SUFFOLK COUNTY ELECTIONS

1836 President 61.9% 1836 Governor 61.7 1837 Governor 71.6 1838 Governor 63.0 1839 Governor 56.5 1840 President 63.5 1843 Governor 58.3 1844 President 62.9 1844 Governor 62.5 1845 Governor 54.3 1846 Governor 65.1 1847 Governor 55.2 1848 President 62.6 1848 Governor 67.1 1849 Governor 65.8 1850 Governor 65.5 1851 Governor 59.3 1852 President 40.9 1852 Governor 62.7

SOURCE: Based on the Whig Al- manac; figures for 1841 and 1842 were not given.

In this citadel of Whiggery, the wealthy were even more staunchly Whig than the rest of the city's voters. Of the 714 men 559 (78.2 percent) were identified by party, and of these, 498 (89.0 percent) were Whigs. For Boston, one can answer the question "Did men of wealth strongly tend to give their resources, talents, and prestige to

pletely accurate in their valuations of the men. Rather they printed figures about the " commonly reputed " worth of the individuals, as accurately as they could be determined. Perhaps more complete and accurate lists could be drawn up from an exhaustive search through tax records, wills, and similar sources, but the great advantage of the contemporary lists rests on their availability. Other sources used for this study corroborate the basic credibility of the lists. 9. Claude M. Fuess, Daniel Webster, 2 vols. (Boston, 1930), 2:345-58; Richard N. Current, Daniel Webster and the Rise of National Conservatism (Boston, 1955), 178-80; Boston Atlas, 29 June, 19 July, 23 August, 25 October and 9 November 1852.




the Whigs rather than to the Democrats?" with an emphatic affirmative.

Wealthy Whigs participated at all levels of the party. They contributed to the party's war chest, and a number of them donated large sums over the years to subsidize the Whig cause as personified by Daniel Webster.10 Men like Abbott Lawrence and Nathan Appleton exerted a powerful influence in shaping the policies of Massachusetts Whiggery, and less famous wealthy Whigs, such as George Morey, also helped direct the party's state and county committees.11 Many served as delegates to party conventions or as vote distributors during campaigns, lending whatever "prestige" they had to the Whigs.

In addition to the financial and organizational support they provided, many of Boston's rich Whigs became politicians. The seven Bostonians elected to Congress between 1829 and 1853 were all

wealthy Whigs or men who became Whigs. These included William and Nathan Appleton, Richard Fletcher, Abbott Lawrence, and Robert C. Winthrop.12 Boston's delegation to the state legislature often consisted entirely of Whigs and included such wealthy men as

Joseph Bell, John Chipman Gray, and Winthrop who served as

Speaker of the Massachusetts house before going to Congress where he also became Speaker.13

In the Whig-monopolized city government, wealthy party members

frequently held office. Between 1822, when Boston became an in-

corporated city, and 1852, there were fourteen mayors, eight of whom

appeared on Boston's wealthy citizens lists. These men were either elected as Whigs, or if elected as Federalists, National Republicans or Independants, later became Whigs. The Common Council, Board of Aldermen, and other city posts were often filled by Whigs from the

wealthy citizens list, among them Deacon Moses Grant, Solomon

Piper, and Charles H. Parker.14

10. Current, Webster and Conservatism, 136; Abbott Lawrence to Thomas W. Ward, 26 April 1839, Ward Papers, Massachusetts Historic Society; George Ticknor Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster, 2 vols. (Boston, 1872), 2:286-87. 11. Kinley J. Brauer, Cotton Versus Conscience; Massachusetts Whig Politics and Southwestern Expansion, 1843-1848 (Lexington, 1967), 79; Atlas, 1 June 1844; Boston Transcript, 7 August 1852. 12. Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1961 (Washington, 1961), 485 for N. Appleton, 486 for W. Appleton, 896 for Fletcher, 1198 for Lawrence, 1838 for Winthrop. 13. Ibid., 1838; Dictionary of American Biography, 22 vols. (New York, 1928-44), 10:416; Brauer, Cotton Versus Conscience, 109-12; New England Historical and Genealogical Register (1851), 5:473 for Bell; Professional and Industrial History of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 3 vols. (Boston, 1894), 1:173 for Gray. 14. Mlayors of Boston (Boston, 1914); Files of Post, Atlas, and Transcript.

266



WHIGS IN BOSTON

Of course, wealthy Democrats also participated in the affairs of their party. Three of the most influential managers of the Bay State Democratic party appeared among Boston's wealthy men: David Henshaw, Charles Gordon Greene, and George Bancroft. Since Whiggery remained strongly entrenched, Democrats had little chance of election, but many of Boston's sixty-one rich Democrats stood for office. Bancroft ran for governor in 1844, and William Foster perennially campaigned for lieutenant governor. John and Charles Henshaw, Seth Adams, and Joshua Sears frequently were Democratic candidates, but with limited success.15

The Democrats also contributed financially to their party, but they generally had less to give since Democrats on the wealthy citizens lists were relatively "poor." Men with the largest fortunes showed the greatest tendency to be Whiggish, as table 2 indicates. Whigs pre- dominated in each classification, but while they made up 86.5 percent of the affluent who were worth $100,000, they accounted for 96.9 percent of those in the $500,000 to $999,999 bracket. Of Boston's twenty-seven millionaires, twenty-six (96.3 percent) backed the Whigs, and only one voted Democratic. The sole exception to the general upward percentage of Whigs by wealth occurred in the $400,000 classification where Whigs made up 85.7 percent, a figure based on the smallest sample.

TABLE 2. PARTY AFFILIATION BY AMOUNT OF WEALTH

Whigs Democrats Number Percent Number Percent

$100,000 (327) 283 86.5% 44 13.5% $200,000 (111) 101 90.9 10 9.1 $300,000 (48) 45 93.7 3 6.3 $400,000 (14) 12 85.7 2 14.3 $500,000-$999,999 (32) 31 96.9 1 3.1 $1,000,000-$4,000,000 (27) 26 96.3 1 3.7

Table 2 also has social implications since money formed the basis of elite society. Nevertheless, statements on the social importance of money must be qualified. All 714 men could be considered "aristocrats" on the basis of money, but they did not all find acceptance among the true elite of Boston society. The socially elect maintained additional requirements including family background, manners,

15. Arthur Burr Darling, Political Changes in Massachusetts, 1828-1848 (New Haven, 1925), 173-76, 285-86; [Forbes], Rich Men, 13, 22; "Our First Men," 12, 26.

3

267




religious affiliation, and partisan persuasion. Even the possession of $1,000,000 might not offset the failure to meet other standards.16

Thus, Joshua Sears, Boston's only Democratic millionaire, did not, it appears, become part of the elite despite his fortune and a kinship tie to the upper circle. Sears, an especially prominent Democratic candidate during the 1830s, had originally come to Boston from Cape Cod, hoping to make $10,000 in the metropolis and then return home. But one dollar led to another, and by 1852 he had accumulated $1,500,000. He was distantly related to fellow millionaire David Sears, since both traced their ancestry to "Richard the Pilgrim." Unfortunately, Joshua's branch of the family did not rank with David's. David's father had been a prosperous Boston merchant; Joshua's father had been a Yarmouth farmer. David graduated from Harvard; Joshua worked on the family farm until his majority. David inherited $800,000; Joshua inherited his father's Jeffersonian politics. Unlike some former Jeffersonians, Joshua maintained that faith "unadulterated" throughout his life. David, on the other hand, prominently backed the Whigs.17

Rich men could be barred from elite status because of wrong political beliefs, and members in good standing could be expelled for

embracing radical tenets. When necessary, the elite employed social sanctions to enforce conformity, as illustrated by George Bancroft's

partial ostracism. Bancroft had all the requirements for elite member-

ship, money, family, education, and the proper religion, but he fell from grace when he chose to become "an aggressive Democrat in a wilderness of Whigs."18 Thereafter, he could not claim his rightful place as a leader of elect society. Old friends became so rude that at one point he nearly decided to abandon the city.19 George Ticknor defended the ostracism which the elite prescribed for wayward members when he later wrote that "the principles of that [Boston] society are right, and its severity towards disorganizers, and social

democracy in all its forms, is just and wise. It keeps our standard of

public morals where it should be... ."20

16. Ibid., 5-7. 17. Ibid., 40; [Forbes], Rich Men, 60; Mary Caroline Crawford, Famous Families of Massachusetts, 2 vols. (Boston, 1930), 2:366-69; Professional and Industrial History, 2:523-24; NEGH Register, (1848), 2:188. 18. Henry Cabot Lodge, Early Memories (New York, 1913), 313-14. 19. Ibid.; Russel B. Nye, George Bancroft, Brahmin Rebel (New York, 1944), 119-20; "Our First Men," 12; Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (Boston, 1945), 162-64. Also see M. A. DeWolfe Howe, The Life and Letters of George Bancroft, 2 vols. (New York, 1908). 20. George Ticknor to George S. Hillard, 17 July 1848 printed in Life, Letters, and Journals of George Ticknor, George S. Hillard, Mrs. Anna E. Ticknor, and Miss Anna E. Ticknor, eds., 2 vols. (Boston, 1876), 2:235.

268



WHIGS IN BOSTON

Bancroft withstood the social pressures and remained a Democrat. Several other members of the elite who drifted briefly into the Jackson camp did not remain, and social considerations often played a part in their return to the conservative fold. Like Bancroft, these members of the elite had supported the dying Federalist party. When all hope of a Federalist resurrection faded, most men of wealth became National Republicans, except for a few former Federalists who could not subscribe to the new party either because of economic or personality factors. These men flirted with Jacksonianism, but by the time the Whig party took final shape in the late 1830s, most of them had found refuge inside its boundaries with their social peers.

One such wealthy man was Henry Lee, a merchant of "birth and position."21 Lee's East Indies firm failed in 1811, and the protective tariff, instituted after the War of 1812, hindered his eventually successful efforts to overcome this failure. His intense dissatisfaction with the tariff made him one of the country's leading free trade advocates and conditioned his political activity in the 1820s and early 1830s. Lee, and other free trade merchants, desired a candidate who shared their ideas and saw in Andrew Jackson their champion.22

Although originally a Federalist, Lee became a fervent, if initially surreptitious, missionary for Jackson. He made quiet efforts to inform various people, including Martin Van Buren, that he supported Old Hickory, but in Boston he feared to declare himself "publically while the current is so strong against us." He promised to come out for Jackson eventually, and his plans for the future included the conversion to Jacksonianism of "Otis, Everett, most all of [the] Essex Junto and perhaps the great magician himself, D. W."23 Lee did publicly become a Democrat and remained one for several years, although his hopes for converting others did not materialize.

Lee's major political contest occurred in 1830 when he ran as the free trade candidate, with Jacksonian support, against the National Republican protectionist, Nathan Appleton. Lee's defeat ended the free trade issue in Boston. Lee always remained a free trader, but since the question had been decided as a practical matter, he moved toward the Whigs despite their pro-tariff proclivities. As late as 1832,

21. Henry Lee, Jr. to Senator George F. Hoar, 1892, quoted in Memoire of Colonel Henry Lee, John T. Morse, Jr. (Boston, 1905), 114. 22. Kenneth Higgins Porter, The Jacksons and the Lees; Two Generations of Massa- chusetts Merchants, 1765-1844, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1937), 1:8-9, 38-42; 2:1333; Brauer, Cotton Versus Conscience, 13. 23. Henry Lee to Thomas W. Ward, 20 June 1828, Ward Papers, MHS.

269




Lee ran as the regular Democratic candidate for state senator, but in 1834 the Whigs named him to their Committee of Public Safety, and he won election to the legislature as a Whig.24

By 1841, Lee was content in having the Whigs under William Henry Harrison replace the Van Buren regime. He disagreed with Whig positions on a new national bank, as well as on the tariff issue, but he rationalized that "the men coming with power have more talents and character as I think, than those who are retiring." Lee took the socially proper position and supported the Whigs who were "made of better stuff, and more polished," although he opposed their policies on many substantive issues.25

An even more prominent pro-Jacksonian member of the elite in the late 1820s was Theodore Lyman, Jr., the son of a wealthy and respec- table family. His father had been part of the Essex Junto, and the younger Lyman followed family tradition by serving as a Federalist in the Massachusetts legislature from 1820 to 1825. He also brought his literary talents to bear upon political matters in A Short History of the Hartford Convention, an apologia for that Federalist gathering.26

Ironically, Lyman's Federalism led him to support Andrew Jackson. Lyman was one of the Federalists who had never forgiven John Quincy Adams's apostasy in supporting the Embargo and defecting to the Republicans. In order to defeat Adams, Lyman himself embraced Republicanism. In 1824, he backed William H. Crawford for the presidency, and in 1828 he became a Jackson man.27 With other "silk-stocking" Democrats, Lyman founded and edited the Jackson Republican, a newspaper devoted to the "preservation of our republican institutions" and the election of Andrew Jackson.28

Lyman fully understood the difficulties of being a Democrat in Boston. "It is not the easiest thing in the world either to establish a Jackson paper in Boston or to conduct it after established," he wrote. "The community is either hostile or neutral."29 In order to soften the opposition and make Jacksonianism socially acceptable, Lyman's

24. Post, 23 February 1836; Porter, Jacksons and Lees, 1:115-16; Darling, Political Changes, 84. Darling's investigations did not reveal "Lee as a participant in the affairs of the Democratic party in Massachusetts" (12). Certainly Lee was an unusual Democrat, but he did, at times, appear on the regular Henshaw ticket; see New England Paladim and Commercial Advertiser, 24 May 1829 and Post, 7 November 1832. 25. Henry Lee to Thomas Thornely, 24 February 1841 printed in Porter, Jacksons and Lees, 2:1439-44. 26. DAB, 6:518; Theodore Lyman, "Hon. Theodore Lyman, Jr." Memorial Biog- raphies of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, 9 vols. (1880-1908), 1:169-88. 27. Ibid., 188-89; Darling, Political Changes, 41-42, 60. 28. "Prospectus" for Jackson Republican in Norcross Papers, MHS. 29. Theodore Lyman to Samuel Crocker, 31 July 1828, written on the back of "Pros- pectus" in ibid.

270



WHIGS IN BOSTON

faction styled itself the "Federal Republicans" and passed resolu- tions at public meetings averring that "the party that now supports General Jackson... is as distinguished for those eminent endow- ments, that entitle men to consideration in society ... as any party" since the time of George Washington.30

Lyman's pro-Jackson activity provoked the scorn of elite Boston, but he did not gain power in the Democratic party.31 His newspaper's faction competed with the other Jackson paper, the Statesman (later the Post) which spoke for the David Henshaw group. After the distribution of federal patronage to the Henshaw wing of the party, Lyman's clique dissolved. By 1835, the Post was asking rhetorically, "Where now are these 'genteel democrats'?"32

More typically, Federalists made a smooth transition to National Republicanism and then formed the core of the Whig party. This group had no finer representative than Thomas Handasyd Perkins, an archetypical "merchant prince," member of the Hartford Con- vention, and Federalist legislator. He felt deep frustration because of the Jacksonian movement, and immediately after Jackson's re- election he wrote, "was I young, I should go mad-as it is, I take the thing easy, knowing that I shall not have long to suffer... ."33 A government of the wise, the good, and the rich would have been more congenial to Perkins than one in which the masses participated.

In addition to ex-Federalists, some of whom briefly supported Jackson, the Whig Party also gathered into its ranks "a great many renegade old republicans." These men, who had, in the opinion of the Post, "relinquished their democratic principles along with their youth, their honesty and enthusiasm,"34 included Benjamin W. Crowninshield. His family, although prosperous, had been Repub- lican, and unlike Lyman and Lee, Crowninshield had supported the War of 1812, during which he increased his fortune by privateering. As a reward for the financial and moral support rendered the government, as well as for party loyalty, James Madison appointed Crown- inshield Secretary of the Navy in 1814.35

30. Columbian Centinel, 19 March 1828. 31. Community vengeance included a libel suit brought against Lyman by Daniel Webster. See J. H. Benton, A Notable Libel Case, the Criminal Prosecuion of Theodore Lyman, Jr. by Daniel Webster (Boston, 1904); Darling Political Changes, 64-66. 32. Ibid., 62-63, 70-71; Post, 25 March 1835. 33. DAB, 7:477; "Our First Men," 35-36; [Forbes], Rich Men, 51; Thomas G. Cary, "Thomas Handasyd Perkins," in Freeman Hunt, ed., Lives of American Merchants, 2 vols. (New York, 1856), 1:33-101; T. H. Perkins to Nicholas Biddle, 9 November 1832, Biddle Papers, Library of Congress. 34. Post, 9 November 1836. 35. Porter, Jacksons and Lees, 1:106; DAB, 2:577-78.

271




Crowninshield spent the most important part of his political life as a Jeffersonian and has been remembered as a "Democrat."36 He was not, however, a Jacksonian Democrat. As a congressman represen- ting the Salem district from 1823 to 1831, he generally supported Adams and held an unflattering view of Jackson. "The truth is nobody respects or cares a cent about him," Crowninshield wrote of the Old Hero in 1831. And he showed his New England prejudice by remarking of Jackson's followers that "the only joy they have, is that, no Yankee fills the throne & that makes up for every other curse."37 When National Republicans in Salem denied Crownin- shield renomination in favor of young Rufus Choate, he moved to Boston and promptly gained election as a National Republican to the legislature.38

In addition to renegade Jeffersonian Democrats, some disgruntled Jacksonian Democrats also entered Whig ranks. Among Boston's wealthy men the most notable Jacksonian defector was Franklin Haven, president of the Merchants' Bank. A vigorous Jacksonian in the 1830s, Haven served on the Democratic County Committee and ran for office on tickets which the Post assured its readers contained only men who were "DEMOCRATS TO THE BACKBONE." In 1833 Haven served on a committee which invited President Jackson to visit the city, the same year that Haven's bank was chosen as an original deposit or "pet" bank.39

After the 1830s Haven took little part in partisan affairs, and he never displayed Whig sympathies as openly as he had his Jackson- ianism. Haven's drift toward Whiggery began in 1835 or 1836 when he became a close friend of Daniel Webster. Their families often exchanged visits, and Haven attempted to advise Webster on financial matters. But Haven also maintained friendships with leading Demo- crats, including Marcus Morton and David Henshaw.

These ties to men in both parties proved helpful to Haven and his bank. In 1838, Van Buren made an "unsolicited" appointment of Haven as Federal Pension Agent for the state, and he continued to

prosper when the Whigs came to power since Webster advised the

36. Ibid. 37. B. W. Crowninshield to G. H. S. Dearborn, 7 January 1831, in Norcross Papers, MHS. 38. Atlas, 10 November 1832. 39. Professional and Industrial History, 2:280-81; Richard P. Chapman, One Hundred Years on State Street! "Merchants National of Boston" (1831-1956) (New York, 1956), 9; Frank Otto Gatell, "Spoils of the Bank War; Political Bias in the Selection of Pet Banks," American Historical Review 60 (October 1964). 50-52; Post, 25 May and 11 November 1833, 7 November 1835.

272



WHIGS IN BOSTON

United States Marshal to use the Merchants' Bank for government funds. In 1849, Haven received a Whig appointment as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in Boston.40

In 1854, the Whigs, obviously counting Haven as a friend, nomi- nated him for the legislature. He expressed no opposition to the party, but he felt compelled to decline since holding elected office might cause neglect of his other duties. He still held two federal posts, and with Democrats ruling in Washington it would have been un- diplomatic to appear on the other party's ticket.41

Haven and former Federalists Lyman and Lee were among twenty wealthy original supporters of Jackson who defected. Battles over such issues as the tariff, patronage, and the Second Bank of the United States undermined much of the minimal support Jackson had mustered among Boston's wealthy. And at all times, social considerations dictated that a wealthy man who wished to be accepted by the elite must conform to Whiggery.

Proper Boston maintained religious as well as political standards, and the affluent of the city generally followed the elite's preference for Unitarianism or Episcopalianism. The religious affiliations of 265 (37.1 percent) of the 714 wealthy men were identified, and of these, 175 (66.0 percent) were Unitarians. The second largest number of identifications was made for Congregationalists, 38 (14.3 percent), followed closely by Episcopalians, 35 (13.2 percent). There were also a handful of Swedenborgians (5), Baptists (4), Methodists (3), Universalists (2), Catholics (2), and one Jew.

The Unitarian faith ranked as the most socially proper and "embraced the larger part of the men eminent for ability, worth, and beneficence, and most of the principal merchants, lawyers, and physicians."42 For example, the congregation at Brattle Street Church included such families as the Lodges, Otises, and Grays, plus the millionaires William, Amos, and Abbott Lawrence. Equally indicative of the social preeminence of Unitarians was the quality and quantity of aristocracy found at King's Chapel. Five millionaires worshipped there, and over three-fourths of the Church's vestrymen appeared on the wealthy citizens lists, including Samuel Appleton, James Jackson, and J. Ingersoll Bowditch.43

40. Franklin Haven MS Autobiography, Franklin Haven Papers, MHS; Fuess, Webster, 1:375; Chapman, "Merchants Bank," 10-12; Gatell, "Pet Banks," 51-52. 41. Autobiography, Haven Papers. 42. Andre P. Peabody, "The Unitarians in Boston," in The Memorial History of Boston, Including Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Justin Winsor, ed., 4 vols. (Boston, 1886), 3:479. 43. The Manifesto Church: Records of the Church in Brattle Square Boston, With Lists

273



274 journal of social history

Unitarians were "conservative, believers in providential arrange- ments of society, believers in respectability, in class distinctions."44 Boston's wealthy Unitarians felt that the Whig party offered the best manner of expressing these beliefs politically, for they overwhelm- ingly supported that party. Of the 175 Unitarians 161 (92.0 percent) were classified politically, and 157 (97.5 percent) voted as Whigs.

The religion closest in social status to Unitarianism was Episcopa- lianism. The vestry at Trinity Church, just as at King's Chapel, consisted primarily of wealthy men. Trinity's vestrymen included William Sohier, George C. Shattuck, Jr., and Robert C. Winthrop. William Appleton, unlike his cousins Nathan and Samuel, was Episcopalian, and David Sears renounced Unitarianism to become an active member at the new St. Paul's Episcopal.45

On most political and social questions, "the Anglicans were in accord with their wealthy Unitarian neighbors," and such former Unitarians as Sears and Benjamin Robbins Curtis found Episco- palianism congenial enough to embrace it.46 These men were at home politically among wealthy Episcopalians, for of the 29 (82.8 percent) identified on a party basis, 28 (96.5 percent) supported the Whigs.

In Massachusetts the orthodox Congregational faith remained strong, but it had lost its social prestige in Boston. Several wealthy Bostonians practiced Congregationalism, but they seldom ranked with the elite. Old South's Deacon, former Lieutenant Governor Samuel T. Armstrong, had gained prominence, but he never secured his social position. Daniel Webster once referred to fellow Whig Armstrong as "one of the common people."47

The religious requirements of the elite generally went unmet by the Democrats, and it constituted another mark of their social inferiority that they did not worship at the "best" churches. Democrats were, in

of Communicants, Baptisms, Marriages and Funerals 1699-1872 (Boston, 1902); Henry Wilder Foote, Annals of King's Chapel From the Puritan Age of New England to the Present Day, 2 vols. (Boston, 1896), 2:588-601, 608-10. 44. Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Boston Unitarianism 1820-50; A Study of the Life and Work of Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (New York, 1890), 251. 45. Trinity Church in the City of Boston Massachusetts, 1722-1933 (Boston, 1933); The Aristocracy of Boston; Who They Are, and What They Were: Being a History of the Business and Business Men of Boston for the Last Forty Years. By One Who Knows Them (Boston, 1848), 30. 46. Darling, Political Changes, 29; Benjamin Robbins Curtis, ed., Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, LL.D. With Some of His Professional and Miscellaneous Writings, 2 vols. (Boston, 1879), 2:68. 47. Hamilton Andrews Hill, History of the Old South Church (Third Church) Boston 1669-1884, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1890), 2:489-90; DAB, 1:361; Uriel Crocker, "Hon. Samuel Turell Armstrong," Memorial Biographies, 1:232-36; Darling, Political Changes, 197.



WHIGS IN BOSTON

fact, such social outcasts that a wealthy immigrant who adhered to proper Boston values stood more chance than a Yankee Democrat of achieving the recognition of the upper circle. Thus, the Englishman Giles Lodge, who married into a good family, joined Brattle Street Church, and voted the Whig ticket, found an acceptance on Beacon Hill which the residents denied such native-born Democrats as David Henshaw and even George Bancroft.48

The wealthy man of Boston, whether a Whig or a Democrat, was usually a native American, born and bred in New England, "a real live Yankee."49 Ethnic backgrounds for 457 (64.0 percent) of the 714 wealthy men were ascertained, and of these, 433 (94.7 percent) were native Americans. Most of them were born in Massachusetts, although some of Boston's most notable rich men came from neighboring New England states, including the Appletons of New Hampshire.

Relatively few immigrants had become wealthy men even by 1852. Only 24 (5.2 percent) of the 457 men identified ethnically were immigrants or children of immigrants. The 18 (3.9 percent) immigrants came primarily from the British Isles, England (5), Ireland (3), Scotland (3), and from western Europe, Germany (3), and France (1). There was also 1 wealthy immigrant from Canada of Scots stock, 1 Italian, and 1 Smyrnoid Armenian; 6 (1.3 percent) were identified as the sons of immigrant fathers, 5 English and 1 Scot.

Few of the wealthy immigrants became real members of the elite, although their children often participated fully in the highest levels of society. Giles Lodge's son, John Ellerton Lodge, married Henry Cabot's daughter and became known as one who "ranks high in 'American aristocracy."'50 John's son, Henry Cabot Lodge, later came to symbolize all Boston Brahmins.

Non-Irish British, like Giles Lodge, most easily adjusted to Boston life, and this assimilation extended to their politics.51 Table 3 shows that eleven (61.1 percent) of the eighteen immigrants were identified politically, and six (54.5 percent), all non-Irish British except for one Frenchman, supported the Whigs. The Democrats claimed the allegiance of one Englishman, the Italian, one German, and two Irishmen. Five (83.3 percent) of the sons of immigrants were classified politically, and all five, four sons of Englishmen and the son of

48. Lodge, Early Memories, 4-5; The Aristocracy of Boston, 25. 49. [Forbes], Rich Men, 56. 50. Ibid., 42; Lodge, Early Memories. 51. Rowland Berthoff, British Immigrants in Industrial America, 1790-1950 (Cam- bridge, 1953), 126.

4

275



276 journal of social history

a Scot were Whigs. Taking wealthy immigrants and first generation sons together, 68.7 percent of those identified belonged to the socially acceptable party.

TABLE 3. PARTY AFFILIATIONS OF IMMIGRANTS AND SONS OF IMMIGRANTS

Politics known Whigs Democrats No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

Immigrants

English (5) 4 80.0% 3 75.0% 1 25.0% Irish (3) 2 66.6 -2 100.0 Scottish (3) 2 66.6 2 100.0 German (3) 1 33.3 1 100.0 French (1) 1 100.0 1 100.0 Canadian (1) Italian (1) 1 100.0 - 100.0 Armenian (1)

Total (18) 11 61.1% 6 54.5% 5 45.5%

Sons of Immigrants

English (5) 4 80.0% 4 100.0% - Scottish (1) 1 100.0 1 100.0

Total (6) 5 83.3% 5 100.0%

Boston's wealthy citizens lists displayed a high degree of homo- geneity, ethnically, religiously, and politically. The wealthy who formed the city's true elite were even more homogeneous. Family upbringing, business interests, and personal conviction undoubtedly led most of Boston's affluent men to become Whigs, but in addition the elite employed social controls against renegades. Wayward members either conformed to Whiggery or lost their claim to elect status. Those well-to-do men who hoped to move upward into the elite could not reach their goal by running against the political grain. Although a wealthy Democrat might seem to be an aristocrat to those who had no fortune, he was still a "common man" to those who dictated social conventions. Boston society in the age of Jackson had no room for partisan divisions of the kind that Benson hy- pothesized for America's wealthy.



Date post:	23-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	robert-rich
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

"A Wilderness of Whigs": The Wealthy Men of Boston

Documents