American History Homework

1002 The Joutnal of American History December 2003

which putchased the sttuctute ftom Pennsyl- vania, ptevented its possible destruction.

The ttiumphant tout of the matquis de Lafayette in 1824 ptompted more sustained notice of the building. Philadelphians not only gteeted Lafayette enthusiastically but they incteasingly commemotated the edifice as a sacted political site. People in the antebel- lum eta saw Independence Hall and the sut- tounding gtound as a place to registet divet- gent expressions of nationalism; abolitionists and nativists found the location a focus fot their ideals, and African Ameticans consideted Independence Hall a venue to display liberty's shottcomings. By the late nineteenth century, the structute dtew ptesidents and sufftagettes, among others. Both building and bell had be- come enshtined in the public memory. The increasing fiow of visitots by the twentieth century prompted questions about histotical restotation, and by the 1950s a massive effott at urban renewal resulted in the present tecon- figutation of the landscape around Indepen- dence Hall. If many Ameticans, conftonted by the uncertainty of the Cold Wat, went thete to teaffitm libetty's ideals, othets went in the 1960s and 1970s to sound a tocsin about ide- als unmet. The National Patk Service umpired disputes by allowing tallies and ptotests to un- detscote Ametica's founding ptinciples. As be- fore, people of divergent views sought to btoadcast theit vision of Ametican libetty, and Independence Hall appeated in the ctosshaits of these demonsttations.

Such a btief desctiption hatdly does justice to the sweep of this wotk. Mites cut a btoad swath thtough the centuties. We see the forces of preservation and politics convetge and col- lide, counteted by the envitonmental dynamic of a changing utban neighbothood. We also observe how Aftican Ameticans, always a vital presence in Philadelphia, took libetty's mes- sage to heatt. Less is done, however, on the immigtants who populated Philadelphia, no- tably the Itish and Italians, whose memoty of Independence Hall might have added an addi- tional dimension to the book. Did theit tela- tive economic and political success in the City of Btothetly Love make them especially keen to embtace American principles? We do not know. Newet immigtant gtoups get men-

tioned, yet their stoty, if expanded, could ftir- ther underscore theit perception of a defining icon of their new home.

Such criticism does not detract ftom this solidly consttucted, nicely detailed work. Mires's plea for understanding the public memoty that histotic sttuctutes shape should inspite othets to follow het lead. This re- viewet, for one, also found these troubled times a useftil teason for visiting Indepen- dence Hall. Others might wish to do the same.

Robett E. Ctay Jt. Montclair State University Upper Montclair, New Jersey

Ratifying the Republic: Antifederalists and Fed- eralists in Constitutional Time. By David J. Sie- mers. (Stanford: Stanford Univetsity Press, 2002. XX, 292 pp. $55.00, ISBN 0-8047-4106- 9.)

This book helps answer a significant question about the eatly tepublic: why did atgument about the Constitution's legitimacy cease aftet its tatification? David J. Siemers addresses this question by sctutinizing Antifedetalist leaders. He shows that Antifedetalists helped legiti- mize the Constitution and assured constitu- tional governance aftet 1788.

Despite serious feats about the Constitu- tion, Antifedetalist leadets were committed to the rule of law and popular sovereignty. Aftet tatification Antifedetalist leadets acquiesced graceftiUy. They acknowledged that the people should decíate ftindamental law and that rati- fication was an example of populat sovet- eignty. These stances, Siemets suggests, legiti- mized the Constitution duting the Republic's fotmative yeats.

Antifederalist leaders' contribution was not confined to their quick acceptance of the Constitution. By examining the congtesses of the 1790s, Siemers shows that many fotmet Antifederalist leadets patticipated in the new national government. Alexandet Hamilton's financial ptogtam confitmed their worst fears. Rather than reject the Constitution, howevet, Antifedetalists used early Federalist atguments against the most extreme Federalists. Fotmet Antifederalists used the essays by Publius to portray loose consttuction and the doctrine of

Book Reviews 1003

implied powers as unconstitutional. Siemers explains tbat argument for strict construction and demands to follow original intent began witb tbe former Antifederalists in tbe 1790s. Tbese ideas suggest tbe significance of tbe An- tifederalists well afi:er 1789.

Of course, during tbe 1790s Antifederalists joined witb many former Federalists. Wben discussing tbis latter group, called by Siemers tbe Madisonians, Ratifying tbe Republic is less useful. Siemers argues tbat Federalist 10 was quickly peripberal to James Madison's tbougbt and tbat Madison dropped it by tbe early 1790s. Political scientists used to say tbat all American politics sprang from Federalist 10. Tbat view was as unbelpful as saying tbat notbing did. Siemers argues tbat Madison jet- tisoned tbe tbinking in Federalist 10 because after 1789 tbe Federalists demonstrated tbat an interested minority could seize control of government. In response, Madison advocated building a majority witb a political party and tbe two-party system.

Siemers's own evidence and virtually every- tbing Madison wrote suggests tbat Madison never viewed tbe party of Hamilton as a legit- imate republican opponent or as an acceptable political party. Indeed, I suspect tbat Madi- son's defense of party was close to Edmund Burke's. For Madison, a party was tbe princi- pled group tbat advocated, agitated, and ran candidates because it understood tbe common good and used tbe tactics of popular politics to tbwart interested factions seeking to misuse power. For Madison, as for Burke, a political party was quite legitimate, but political parties were not.

Tbere are common tbemes connecting Madison's tbinking in Federalist 10 to bis fears during tbe 1790s. Nevertbeless, Siemers does a fine job answering an important question about tbe Antifederalists. Five years afi:er tbe ratification of tbe Constitution, virtually ev- erytbing Antifederalists feared under tbe Con- stitution occurred. Tbey did not demand a new convention or amendments tbat would fundamentally alter tbe nation's political sys- tem. Siemers explains wby.

Andrew Sbankman Nortbeastern Illinois University Cbicago, Illinois

Tbomas Jefferson and tbe Wall of Separation be- tween Gburcb and State. By Daniel L. Dreis- bacb. (New York: New York University Press, 2002. X, 283 pp. $42.00, ISBN 0-8147-1935- X.)

Few figures of speecb bave exercised a stronger bold over tbe American political and legal imagination, especially in the last balf century, tban Tbomas Jefferson's "wall of separation." Invoked by tbe Supreme Court in numerous cburcb-state cases beginning witb Everson v. Board of Education (1947), tbe metapbor's meaning and utility bave been scrutinized and debated from seemingly every possible angle. Still, Daniel L. Dreisbacb believes tbere is more to be learned because of tbe failure of scboiars and jurists to pay close enougb atten- tion to tbe specific bistorical context out of wbicb Jefferson wrote the pbrase in bis letter to tbe Danbury Baptist Association of Con- necticut in early 1802.

Building upon bis own important article in the. Journal of Cburcb and State (1997), Dreis- bacb provides a useful description and analysis of tbe political world in wbicb tbe wall was originally erected and a careful examination of tbe letter's actual text. He argues tbat, amid tbe Federalist-Republican squabbles sur- rounding tbe 1800 election, Jefïerson con- ceived tbe letter as a response to attacks tbat bis failure to declare days of national tbanks- giving and fasting was a sign of bis own bostil- ity to religion. Tbougb writing to allies in tbe cause of religious liberty as well as to support- ers of Republican politics, tbe president never- tbeless took great care to crafi: bis words re- garding tbe meaning of tbe First Amendment. He wisbed to make a case tbat on jurisdictional grounds tbe national government, including tbe cbief executive, bad no autbority in mat- ters of religion. By implication, tbe Bill of Rigbts reserved tbat power to tbe states. Hence, be could not issue religious proclama- tions as president, sometbing be bad been willing to do as a colonial and state official. Tbe wall metapbor, tben, as Jefferson used it,

was not offered as a general pronounce- ment on tbe prudential relationsbip between religion and all civil government; ratber, it was, more specifically, a state-

Copyright of Journal of American History is the property of Organization of American Historians and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.