Johnson, Paul E. A Shopkeepers Millennium and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815-1837: Hill and Wang, 1978. (revised 2004)

Book Reviewed By Alina Mattison

Paul E. Johnson is the author of A Shopkeepers Millennium. Johnson is currently a professor at the University of South Carolina and has devoted his time to history and writing. This book was first published in 1978 by Hill and Wang and since has been revised in 2004. Hill and Wang publish books dealing with history and politics. This tells the readers it is supposed to be read primarily by historians and students. In Johnson's revised book from 2004,the author included new a preface. Johnson has been criticized a great deal about his book because there is little mention of women. During the era he writes about, the women had a great deal in the role of the church yet he does not recognize what women did in any way. The preface in the revised version allows Johnson to talk about this issue. He states even though he was highly criticized, he would not change what he wrote about. He says might add a little bit more information but he would to keep the basic information he already had the same if he were to re-write the book. I think it is interesting he says this because of how much criticism he got about the book.

In Johnson's book, the main point is that politics and religion have roles within each other. The first part of the book focuses on Rochester, New York, from its beginning stages as a town. He goes into depth about how Rochester was set up and what kind of people moved to the city. During this time, Rochester was the largest and fastest growing city in the United States. Even though in the beginning of the book he explained how it was a small town he explains how it quickly grew and became more populated. He explains how the wealthy people of Rochester were mostly Presbyterian. The wealthy people of Rochester, basically controlled and directed the economy. This was important because if the wealthier majority was controlling the working class then they were theoretically controlling the city. This later has a lot to do with how Johnson is able to connect religion to politics.

The first part of the book, seems to lead directly to a later discussion of Charles A. Finney. Finney's influence is the one of the main points to the book. Johnson has a lot of details about Rochester and the people in Rochester which better allows him to explain his connections in politics and religion having to do with Finney. Johnson writes the first part of his book to support the second part which deals with how religion and politics came in to play with each other and the people of the town.

Charles Finny was an important man in Rochester. Johnson uses the second part of his book to talk about Finney and how Finney used politics and religion together. Finney was once a lawyer and then decided to give up law and go and preach every nightof the week and three times every Sunday. Finney was a man in the upper class and among the more wealthy. Since he was a lawyer, the people he was friends with were also mostly upper class and more toward the wealthy side. Finney was Presbyterian and was very devoted to the church. Because of his relation to the church, he influenced the upper class of Rochester to mimic what he thought. Johnson argues because the upper class was Presbyterian and they controlled the working class, the majority of Rochester had to be Presbyterian because if they were not, then the upper class would not hire people who were not Presbyterians. The church was directly related to the politics going on at this time in Rochester.

The Whigs, the more conservative party, who were mostly Presbyterian, were the stronger political party during this time. The other political party during the time were the democrats. They were more liberal then the Whigs. An example Johnson uses is how the democrats did not believe drinking alcohol should be outlawed whereas the Whigs were completely against alcohol altogether. Because the economy was run by the upper class, who were Presbyterian, the working class was also Presbyterian. When it came to voting, the political power who was ahead of the other was the Whigs because they were full of upper class Presbyterians and were supported by the majority of the city. Johnson argues in his book that religion and politics are directly related to one another. He does a good job at organizing his thoughts to support his theory and main point of the book.

I believe Johnson did a good job supporting his ideas and main point of the book. The way he organized and utilized his information was useful and helpful. The place where I thought he fell short on in his book was about women. He was very criticized by people about this point and I definitely agree with the critics. Women, if anything, had more impact on the church then men did at the time. Many times, women were more active in the church then the men and did more to benefit the church. Because of this, I do not believe Johnson is giving the full picture of what was going on in Rochester at the time.

I am not a huge fan of scholarly books. I have a hard time keeping focused and staying interested in the book. For me this scholarly book was better then most I have read. There were a few times where I thought the book was a little bit redundant but overall it was not too bad. There were some parts of the book I found to be dull but other part I thought were interesting, even though Johnson failed to recognize the role women had at this time, he supported his main point and put forth an abundance of information about Rochester and what was going on in the city during this era.

Altogether I liked the book and thought it had some very interesting information in it.

Paul E. Johnson. A Shopkeeper's Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815-1837. Hill and Wang: New York, 1978 (Revised in 2004).

Book Review By: Jaquelyn McEwen

Paul E. Johnson, a professor of history at the University of South Carolina, is an established author. His book: A Shopkeeper’s Millennium: Society and Revivals in Rochester, New York, 1815-1837, has been around since its original publication in 1978 (revised in 2004). This book was published by Hill and Wang, which publishes books that focus on American history, world history, and politics. The revised addition of the book, in 2004, allowed Johnson the ability to write and include a preface. He used the preface as an opportunity to communicate with his readers about what he felt was wrong and write this much criticized book. Within the pages of this book Johnson has tried to argue that the relationship changes between work and domestic life were at the center of religious change in Rochester. He specifically follows revivals led by Charles Finney. He does this by focusing on, “biographies of the converts themselves. reconstructed from church records, newspapers, genealogical materials, tax lists, city directories, census schedules, petitions sent from Rochester to various agencies of government, and...diaries and letter left by participants in the revival” (14). Johnson has broken this book down to six main topics of interest and within each of those he has created sub-topics to help further the understanding.

The first chapter of his book centered around developing an understanding of the economy of the time. Johnson described the economic situation of the time fully enough to be understood by the reader and then tied Charles Finney to the economic outcomes of many of the successful men that attended Finney’s church. I felt that his writing in this section became slightly confusing. Johnson began the chapter about Finney, and then diverged away from Finney to and earlier date within the time period. He then built back up to Finney’s arrival. This was the only section within the first four sections that really mentioned Finney and his impacts on the revival.

The following three sections included society, politics, and impasse. While each of these chapters entailed a mass amount of detail and facts they became very jumbled and confusing. As mentioned earlier within each chapter there were sub-chapters to further elaborate on a specific detail. While Johnson’s intentions to make the information easier to understand and systematic, I feel he really just lost the reader’s understanding. Since each sub-chapter started around 1815 and ended around 1837 making timeline correlations between the different sub-chapters became very difficult. I also felt that this writing technique had a lot of redundancy making the facts less powerful and making it seem as though Johnson had run out of material to write about. Although the redundancy definitely made the points that: (1) There were drastic changes in the employer-employee relationship, (2) This is the time that the middle-class developed, (3) Drinking was an issue, and (4) Political rivals, jealousy, turmoil and corruption came about.

The next sections of the book really dove into Charles Finney and the role he played in the revivals in Rochester. To support his main argument Johnson states that the men who attended Finney’s church were of a higher class and more successful, but he then also states that there are not adequate records on church attendees and the majority of the records that are available come from “blue-collar” churches which severely underestimates the number of workingmen that attended the churches (157). I feel that this in a way ruins the power of the point and puts the validity of his argument into question.

While this book serves as a good learning guide for the economics, society, and politics of the time according to men it severely falls short including the impact women played in the revivals between 1815-1837. Johnson does not bring women up in his book as playing any role whatsoever. He fails to mention that in the upper-class home the wives stayed home and ran the household, thus having major impacts in the home. He also fails to mention that in lower class and single women often worked in the factories, thus having an impact on the working class. Once again, Johnson fails to mention that the majority of the church goers were women - which directly affects his arguments that religious men were the main contributors of the revivals. His disregard to note the influential impact women had during the time brings his argument into question. Johnson has completely left out an entire side to the full picture, thus not giving a completely clear image of how the revivals really came about.

It seems that Johnson has written this book the way that he would like to see it, leaving out the parts that don’t support his main argument. This makes me wonder what other aspects he may have looked over and failed to mention.

Overall, I feel it is important to mention that this book does contain a lot of valid historical information about the male working class, male politics, and influences of evangelical men. As Johnson mentions in his newly added preface this book is a good learning tool for undergraduates, but not as powerful of a learning tool for graduate students. Undergraduates can still benefit from the book since its pages contain many interesting facts and descriptions of how the middle-class developed in Rochester, New York. Also, looking at the length of time this book has been used as learning tool in college courses (over three decades), one can see that it obviously contains important historical information that teachers want their pupils to know.

Although Johnson has received countless amounts of criticism for this book he has obviously written a book that still effective in the classroom today. Regardless of its several shortcomings, Johnson’s book has persevered and is still being read today. Even though his correlation between society, religion, and revivals was not as clear and fully developed as it could have been he has made an extraordinary attempt to illustrate his argument.

Class and Community: The Industrial Revolution in Lynn

Book Reviewed by: Mary Kneefel

It seems the main issue Alan Dawley wants to convey in his book Class and Community the Industrial Revolution in Lynn is the American Revolution opened the doors for radical actions and ideology. He chooses to express this by following the once quaint town in Lynn, Massachusetts. The reader can appreciate his blunt style of writing, as he states why he chose to follow Lynn:

It was once a slow-paced, agricultural village nestled along the New England coastline, and because it went through a dynamic period or growth and transformation that made it factory city(8).

The only criticism in the Dawley’s writings is the introduction seemed a little unorganized. I understand the introduction is the first step of the novel and he wants to cover the bases to not lose anyone. However, it did not seem that his point was addressed to its close. In turn, reading the book was almost expecting a different focus.

Other than a few slow parts in the first chapter (which gave various amounts of shoes, produced over a few years time span), it was intriguing how he depicted the lives of each of parties involved in shoemaking, prior to the onslaught on factories. In particular the role or the journeymen and how they worked under the master, and the atmosphere of the ten-footers. Even before the arrival of factories, there was segregation between the classes, but they seemed to tolerate it and wait for their chance to be in a higher position.

Unlike the factories where they never had a chance to competition against factory owners, for prove themselves. Dawley painted an accurate portrayal of how Lynn, and small villages like it, functioned. This is heavily contrasted by the introduction of factories. Although he seems very consistent in his writing to not introduce any biases, he seems to discretely depict a negative view of how the factories changed the landscape. It was also as if there was a looming presence. Also the factories caused other problems for the residents. Older town members who had lived in Lynn for years and years saw their beloved town became invaded with floater workers. The entire town changed physically, and the attitude of the residents changed as well.

In addition, he described the working conditions of the average/lower class family so well; the reader cannot help but feel the least bit sympathetic. In mentioning the level of respect, or lack there of, offered by the relentless cold factory owners. In the midst of this, he counters with contrasting points of how journeymen, artisans use to work.

Although they often depended in the master shoemaker in a fatherly aspect, in both paternally and economically, they were content with that. Since no one owned real property other than the elite, the workers could not help but hold some sort of resentment towards those who merely delegate. Throughout the text a phrase from the introduction resonates in mind, saying, “Old forms of inequality (master/slave) were destroyed, and new forms (employer/ employee) were created” (5). He illustrated this claim extremely well. He describes the universal uniform of those working in the factory, and how no one spoke. The only noise was the clattering of machines, which in the eyes of the factory owner seemed more valuable than their life. These attitudes and ideas set the stage for his next section, which describes the strikes that the workers formed.

The action of banding together was not by any means just and figure of speech. He introduces a very interesting dynamic, but women fought the cause just as man did. Dawley makes it clear, both worked under the same conditions (although in separate rooms), same boss, and same level of respect and worth. The audience is able to get a clear image of strikes as he writes, “for a generation it was recalled with the frequency and vividness reserved for earthquakes or hurricanes…the procession included companies of militia and firemen, brass bands, and several out-of-town strike delegation” (80). Such fire and passion is captured in this text.

In reading what I appreciate most is the originality of context. Given the first Industrial Revolution occurred after the Civil War, it seems most historians focus on that and the inequality in slavery. This by no means is that is not important, however, he presented inequality against the same race. He rarely mentions African-Americans, and actually also supports gender equality. This also gives merit to the fact that everyone in the community supported one just cause. The attitude and treatment of the factory owner is so bad that it forced everyone to set aside their differences to fight for the same cause. This idea also continued on for other generations.

Children were also present at the rallies. If they were not working in the factories, they saw their fathers and mothers working together with other people in the community fighting for equality. Dawley addresses how a land where independence was demanded, can be so unequal at the same time. It is remarkable how the class system is so divided amongst the free white people can be. A search for power can be found in any society, of any member of class. It seems unfortunate though it took thousands of protestors for owners to realize they had unfair compensation for work.

The conclusion in contrast to the introduction seems to clearly state what he felt was the main argument of his point. The spirit of this radical ideology as the final lines read,

They came out of the Equal Rights tradition, but unlike their brothers and sisters who only desired ‘more’ they demanded "awl or nothing!"

This describes how the people of Lynn are able to stand-up for their rights, and not just one instance. There was actually a cycle of three strikes. The steps involved in the strikes go as follows: the strike would break out, cops were involved, and the police chief in charge would get fired. He proves Americans not only have a right to stand up for what is right, but also in the United States there are always results.