What do you think?
Rate this book
Main Currents in American Thought, Vol. 2: The Romantic Revolution in America, 1800-1860
Main Currents in American Thought will stand as a model for venturesome scholars for years to come. Readers and scholars of the rising generation may not follow Parrington’s particular judgments or point of view, but it is hard to believe that they will not still be captivated and inspired by his sparkle, his daring, and the ardor of his political commitment.
In Volume II, The Romantic Revolution in America, 1800 - 1860, Parrington treats such influential figures as John Marshall, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, Daniel Webster, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Nathaniel Hawthorne
In Volume II, The Romantic Revolution in America, 1800 - 1860, Parrington treats such influential figures as John Marshall, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Washington Irving, James Fenimore Cooper, Herman Melville, Daniel Webster, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Nathaniel Hawthorne
524 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1987
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 13, 2016
This book, much like its preceding volume, is an interesting survey of the intellectual trends and movements of America during the pre-Civil War period. Parrington contextualizes the ideas of Southern defenders of slavery, mid-atlantic Romantics, and New England abolitionists all within their respective locations. However, this book has aged poorly since its publication in 1927. Parrington's ardent defense of the slave owners he surveys (in particular Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens), is both unnecessary and condescending. Parrington contends that all of these ardent defenders of slavery were actually quite kind to their own slaves. Its the sort of paternalistic bullshit that should be left to the past. On the other hand, Parrington undermines the case that the Civil War was not principally concerned with slavery, largely by examining the oceans of ink expended in the defense of slavery. Moreover, Stephens and his ilk argued that slavery was the proper functioning of a democracy in the Greek tradition (a fact that makes me fundamentally rethink Plato's ideas about the philosopher king leading slaves from my freshman philosophy class.)
The major failure of this volume, which was also a failure of the first volume, is that Parrington assumes a good deal about the reader. For instance, Parrington explains that Daniel Webster's political career was ruined by his support for the Fugitive Slave Act. He goes on to quote at length from Webster, but at no point does he clearly explain what the Fugitive Slave Act actually was. Parrington assumes that the reader knows a certain amount. Maybe that was a fair assumption in 1927, but it certainly is no longer the case. Another significant example was the theory of a Massachusetts thinker from the 17th century, whom Parrington compares to the Levelers during the English Civil War. Once again, the Levelers are left unexplained. These problems, along with Parrington's obsolete views on certain issues undermine so much of what is compelling about these two volumes.
The major failure of this volume, which was also a failure of the first volume, is that Parrington assumes a good deal about the reader. For instance, Parrington explains that Daniel Webster's political career was ruined by his support for the Fugitive Slave Act. He goes on to quote at length from Webster, but at no point does he clearly explain what the Fugitive Slave Act actually was. Parrington assumes that the reader knows a certain amount. Maybe that was a fair assumption in 1927, but it certainly is no longer the case. Another significant example was the theory of a Massachusetts thinker from the 17th century, whom Parrington compares to the Levelers during the English Civil War. Once again, the Levelers are left unexplained. These problems, along with Parrington's obsolete views on certain issues undermine so much of what is compelling about these two volumes.
July 9, 2020
This volume surveys writers from the end of the revolutionary period (i.e., 1800) until just before the Civil War of the 1860s, although he also covers several writers who span the years of that war and for some time beyond.
That section I found most interesting but, at the same time, the most troubling, covered the “Old South.” I just do not find anything “noble” in the writings of those who praise the alleged chivalric virtues of the South and its upright aristocratic ways because of the incredible evil of chattel slavery, without which the South’s self-celebration of its “noble” civilization could have been maintained.
The civilization of the South was, simply and horribly, built upon the enslavement of Black human beings.
Parrington is a very gifted writer, quite capable of “nailing” several qualities of a person in one lilting sentence as well as in dismissing the ideas of others with a bit of a sniff. But he wrote at a time — the 1920s — when the understanding of the prewar South was seriously distorted by a flood of “history” that accepted both the South’s postwar claim of having fought for a “noble cause” and the Southern-spun interpretation of the all-too-brief Reconstruction period (1866-77) when the nation struggled to deliver the promises made to the liberated former slaves.
In the ‘20s, in fact, historians were largely willing to accept that the Reconstruction “failed,” and that the principle cause of that alleged failure was the incompetence of the Black legislators who briefly were prominent both in Southern state legislatures and in Southern representation in the federal Congress. Portrayed as corrupt and grafters, they were aided — in this narrative’s tale — by evil whites who either came in from the North or who “betrayed their” people by working with Black legislators to reform Southern institutions, the most odious of which was the continued suppression of the rights of Black people.
Our contemporary struggle with offensive statues glorifying Southern generals and political leaders were, in fact, largely erected in the years from the 1890s through the 1920s and early ‘30s. This coincided both with the renewal of a national presence of the Ku Klux Klan and multiple race riots and lynchings, by no means restricted solely to the South.
So I find the relatively “soft” treatment of the Old South in this volume quite off-putting.
Aside from this major qualification, however, I found much that was rich, interesting, and revealing. For one thing, the political evolution of the first part of the 19th century saw the continuing decline of what had been the Federalist Party — members of which had been prominent in crafting the Constitution — and the evolution of Jeffersonian politics into a broader, but bawdier, democracy led by people like Andrew Jackson. Jackson, until quite recently, had been celebrated by the modern Democratic Party for his wide appeal to the common people, but his “other side” — his racism and genocidal policies towards Native Americans — has in recent years caused his former fame to be justly tarnished.
Parrington’s book reminds us of how truly sprawling this country was in the 19th century, especially before the telegraph and the transcontinental railroad. There truly was “wilderness,” and a frontier, and “Indian country,” and backwoodsmen who live primitive lifestyles, as well as Eastern cities, grand balls, and the rising prominence of wealthy industrialists.
Since Parrington’s work is an effort to cover writers and to explore their points of view, their intellectual heritage as well as their legacy, this is not a standard “history” and should not be approached as such. However, this method also ensures that he connects writers, events, and major concerns with the wider developments of their regions and the country at large.
A good book for thoughtful readers IF you remember the caveat about the treatment of the “Old South.”
That section I found most interesting but, at the same time, the most troubling, covered the “Old South.” I just do not find anything “noble” in the writings of those who praise the alleged chivalric virtues of the South and its upright aristocratic ways because of the incredible evil of chattel slavery, without which the South’s self-celebration of its “noble” civilization could have been maintained.
The civilization of the South was, simply and horribly, built upon the enslavement of Black human beings.
Parrington is a very gifted writer, quite capable of “nailing” several qualities of a person in one lilting sentence as well as in dismissing the ideas of others with a bit of a sniff. But he wrote at a time — the 1920s — when the understanding of the prewar South was seriously distorted by a flood of “history” that accepted both the South’s postwar claim of having fought for a “noble cause” and the Southern-spun interpretation of the all-too-brief Reconstruction period (1866-77) when the nation struggled to deliver the promises made to the liberated former slaves.
In the ‘20s, in fact, historians were largely willing to accept that the Reconstruction “failed,” and that the principle cause of that alleged failure was the incompetence of the Black legislators who briefly were prominent both in Southern state legislatures and in Southern representation in the federal Congress. Portrayed as corrupt and grafters, they were aided — in this narrative’s tale — by evil whites who either came in from the North or who “betrayed their” people by working with Black legislators to reform Southern institutions, the most odious of which was the continued suppression of the rights of Black people.
Our contemporary struggle with offensive statues glorifying Southern generals and political leaders were, in fact, largely erected in the years from the 1890s through the 1920s and early ‘30s. This coincided both with the renewal of a national presence of the Ku Klux Klan and multiple race riots and lynchings, by no means restricted solely to the South.
So I find the relatively “soft” treatment of the Old South in this volume quite off-putting.
Aside from this major qualification, however, I found much that was rich, interesting, and revealing. For one thing, the political evolution of the first part of the 19th century saw the continuing decline of what had been the Federalist Party — members of which had been prominent in crafting the Constitution — and the evolution of Jeffersonian politics into a broader, but bawdier, democracy led by people like Andrew Jackson. Jackson, until quite recently, had been celebrated by the modern Democratic Party for his wide appeal to the common people, but his “other side” — his racism and genocidal policies towards Native Americans — has in recent years caused his former fame to be justly tarnished.
Parrington’s book reminds us of how truly sprawling this country was in the 19th century, especially before the telegraph and the transcontinental railroad. There truly was “wilderness,” and a frontier, and “Indian country,” and backwoodsmen who live primitive lifestyles, as well as Eastern cities, grand balls, and the rising prominence of wealthy industrialists.
Since Parrington’s work is an effort to cover writers and to explore their points of view, their intellectual heritage as well as their legacy, this is not a standard “history” and should not be approached as such. However, this method also ensures that he connects writers, events, and major concerns with the wider developments of their regions and the country at large.
A good book for thoughtful readers IF you remember the caveat about the treatment of the “Old South.”
July 10, 2025
Extensive insight to the political mindset of the 1800s, puts modern politics in context.
July 30, 2015
Read in Bordeaux while preparing my thesis
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews