Review by Choice Review
Sheidley argues that the nationalism associated with Boston's antebellum elite was a conservative response to the profound changes wrought by the market revolution. A small, kinship-based group, the elite attempted to maintain the deference-based republicanism of the Revolutionary era. This resulted in a highly sectional form of nationalism that rested on culture, especially history. Their interpretation of the past selectively focused on their forebears' contributions to the US, with special attention paid to the Revolutionary generation. The contributions of other regional elites, especially those identified as competitors for national dominance, were often denigrated. Daniel Webster's "Second Reply to Hayne" epitomized the elite viewpoint and represented the transformation of Hartford Convention sectionalism into a forceful statement of nationalism. Many of the assertions found here echo those of other works on the subject, but the author has produced an impressive synthesis that offers a convincing explanation of this transformation. Well researched and elegantly written, the work's only weakness (and a small one at that) is its failure to more carefully examine the economic issues that contributed to Massachusetts's increasingly nationalist outlook. Graduate, faculty. J. C. Arndt; James Madison University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
