Book Review - Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War
In Bray Hammond's Banks and Politics in America, the ways in which the practices of American politics and banking changed between the American Revolution and the time of the Civil War are explicated. Of particular interest to the author is the examination of these issues through the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian lens, which he strangely refers to as ill-defined "agrarians" and those who support laissez faire. These terms have had very negative connotations in the past, as laissez faire was used even in the 1950s as an insult, and agrarian is often used to make those with that label seem primitive and unsophisticated. The book is surprisingly loose with its language, choosing to use loaded and incendiary language to demonize the Jacksonian Democrats and their pursuit of the Second Bank of the United States during the Bank War. That being said, Hammond manages to contribute many major contributions to political scientists and economists who study the Jacksonian era of banking and politics, his thesis being that business interests were at the forefront of the Bank War, and that the history of banking and politics relies greatly on the conflict between the laissez faire businessmen and agrarian interests.
Instead of offering a strict history of banking in the United States, he decides to couch many of his insights in the social and economic changes happening to America at the time, making for a wonderfully interdisciplinary book. Hammond claims that businessmen, who sought prosperity, were much more important to determining demand in borrowing than debtors, who worked through poverty. With regards to the Bank War, Hammond states that business interests were also responsible for the bank war, as New Yorkers took their frustration out on Philadelphia's prosperity. Furthermore, Hammond provides an intriguing and fascinating narrative of the pre-Civil War laissez faire infiltration of banking and money systems that focuses greatly on the deceit and subterfuge that went along with this insertion. Much of this detailed information is provided in well-placed notes, organized in precise (if unromantic) chapter titles, and many of the summary points are elaborated in concise paragraphs around each chapter.
Some of the language can present itself as somewhat of an issue that clearly obfuscates any sense of impartiality Hammond has with regard to his subject. The use of this strategy is an odd choice by the author, as he seeks to discredit both perspectives in a way that still refuses to actually define or discuss those economic theories in great detail. This seems to be a relatively churlish and simplistic way to discredit the targets of this book, particularly as actual points are not rebutted very concisely. Hammond prefers to use names to characterize the negative traits of those he wishes to lambast, calling the treasury officials of Van Buren "hard money antediluvians" (Hammond, p. 488) and calling "the monetary views of Albert Gallatin and of Andrew Jacksonobsolete [and] primitive" (Hammond, p. 541). The Loco Focus of New York City are simply "desperate and destructive radicals," without actually explaining the 'agrarianism' of these groups' views (Hammond, p. 499). While chiding Van Buren's reservations about government intervention in the Panic of 1837, calling it "paralytic helplessness," it ignores that Van Buren even mentions his specific and reasonably defended policy to Congress (Hammond, p. 529). Hammond's use of language and his lack of detail in the book makes it seem dismissive instead of investigative, and the reader never truly learns what the specific problems were.
These pejoratives are very much the flavor du jour for Hammond's book; he delights in tearing down Jacksonian politicians such as Amos Kendall: "Mr. Kendall's progress was a consistent one. As early as 1820 he was denying that labor was a source of value. He had always taken a harsh, puritanical view of things and scorned government relief in the days of western distress" (Hammond, p. 334). The use of 'puritanical' to add to the word 'agrarian' is meant to liken him to those who were liberal with their perspective on taxes and free trade.
Hammond believes that Jackson utterly destroyed the National Bank: "the Jacksonians, for selfish and materialistic reasons, destroyed a useful institution ably managed" (Hammond, pp. 518, 533) Hammond makes vague references to the 'war' Jackson wages on the Bank of the United States which, though it did happen, is couched in misleading and deceptive phrasing in this particular retelling. It was not Jackson's intent to "destroy" the bank, he just vetoed the bill that would renew its charter by the government. The use of the word 'war' is also misleading, as he just removed the status as a depository for federal money. The Second Bank of the United States even remained in effect for four more years after the charter expired. This contributes to the notion that Hammond's incendiary language presents a strange and forced bias that is often not backed up by the content of the book.
Another particularly interesting misstep with Hammond is the way he treats the agrarian perspective of the exchange. Farmers did not all have one singular, solitary attitude regarding banks, and often relied on them for credit. This means that their relationship with banks was far from strictly adversarial, and much more multifaceted than Hammond's single-purpose portrayal provides. While the business borrower often affected agrarian vocabulary to get what he wanted, there was much more to the story than met the eye.
Hammond's entry into the era of Jacksonian politics is very helpful for other scholars; claiming that the general trend of scholarship in this area is insufficient and lacking, he seeks to fill in the gaps by providing a comprehensive story of banking against the lens of American social and political changes. He is much more critical of Jackson than the works of Remini and others, but the work is multifaceted and extensive. While the book is somewhat coded and biased with its language at times, it is nonetheless an extremely detailed resource, which can be used by future researchers and scholars to find most of the information they need in one place. It is a lengthy tome, but that is due greatly to the extensiveness by which Hammond's research is elucidated here. Provided that future readers can escape the dull yet strangely incendiary language of some of the book, Hammond's work can be cited as a wonderful resource to those who wish to learn more about the history and context of banking and politics in America.
References
Remini, R. (1967). Andrew Jackson and the Bank War: A Study in the Growth of Presidential Power. W.W. Norton & Company.
Hammond, B. (1957). Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War by Bray Hammond. Princeton.
