"Let a Common Interest Bind Us Together": Associations, Partisanship, and Culture in Philadelphia, 1775–1840

by Albrecht Koschnik

After examining American society in 1831-32, Alexis de Tocqueville concluded, "In no country in the world has the principle of association been more successfully used or applied to a greater multitude of objects than in America." What he failed to note, however, was just how much experimentation and conflict, including partisan conflict, had gone into the evolution of these institutions. In "Let a Common Interest Bind Us Together": Associations, Partisanship, and Culture in Philadelphia, 1775-1840, Albrecht Koschnik examines voluntary associations in Philadelphia from the Revolution into the 1830s, revealing how--in the absence of mass political parties or a party system--these associations served as incubators and organizational infrastructure for the development of intense partisanship in the early republic. In this regard they also played a central role in the creation of a political public sphere, accompanied by competing visions of what the public sphere ought to comprise. Despite the central role voluntary associations played in the emergence of a popular political culture in the early republic, they have not figured prominently in the literature on partisan politics and public life. Koschnik looks specifically at how Philadelphia Federalists and Republicans used fraternal societies and militia companies to mobilize partisans, and he charts the transformation of voluntary action from a common partisan tool into a Federalist domain of interlocking cultural, occupational, and historical institutions after the War of 1812. In the long run, Federalists--a political minority of less and less significance--shaped and dominated the associational life of Philadelphia. "Let a Common Interest Bind Us Together" lays the groundwork for a new understanding of the political and cultural history of the early American republic.

384 pages, Hardcover

First published June 15, 2007

Reviews

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Topic and scope of the book:
Koschnik addresses the rise of voluntary societies in revolutionary and early republican Philadelphia, and the way in which the relationship between the societies and the political realm shifted during the same period. He briefly compares events in Philadelphia to those in Boston and New York, as well.
Thesis:
Voluntary societies, Koschnik argues, served various functions in early republican Philadelphia. Traditionally, treatments of these functions have been framed by Alexis de Tocqueville’s model; however, this model, Koschnik argues, is too static, based as it is on a single, nine-month period of observation. Rather, the role of the societies was marked by change, and, particularly, by change in response to political realities. Early voluntary associations - for example, the Democratic Society, or the partisan militias- were openly political in nature; however, anti-partisan sentiment worked against their continued existence. A constant fear that partisan organization would lead to revolution was (understandably) aggravated by the explicitly political and military organization of the parties.
These associations would be replaced by groups that, while avowedly non-political and non-military, were still in actuality partisan. These groups - for example, the Philadelphia Athenaeum, the Pennsylvania Academy, and the Philadelphia Historical Society - organized public life, as opposed to political life. The Federalists, driven from political power after the election of 1800, were especially given to forming these non-political, non-military partisan organizations; rather than seek reentry into political life, they established means by which they could attempt to shape public life, and contribute to the public good apart from political involvement.
Author’s point of view:
Koschnik, a German scholar of American history, has a unique vantage point from which to write. He seems to prefer the Federalists somewhat, but the later Federalists, whom he characterizes as a sort of martyred aristocracy who continue to work for (and contribute financially to) the public good even when they are exiled from involvement in political life.
Use of evidence:
Koschnik’s bibliography is extensive; he seems to have collected nearly every instance of ink being put on paper in Philadelphia during his period. He uses sermons, statutes, newspaper articles, meeting minutes, letters, militia rolls, and various ephemeral pieces gathered from the societies’ papers.
Contribution to knowledge:
“Let a Common Interest Bind Us Together” offers a comprehensive overview of the formation, collapse, and re-organization of partisan voluntary organizations in Philadelphia in the early republic. It also does much to present a more nuanced understanding of the substantial differences between the parties of the “First Party System” and those of later American politics.

[Christopher Minty · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought Koschnik's dissertation was stronger, but this is still an important book, one which all early Americanists should contend.