No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Character and Function of a Pioneer Elite: Rural California 1848–1880
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
The history of the United States has been described again and again as the history of change, motion and instability. From Tocqueville to Turner, from Bancroft to Billington, from Berthoff to Thernstrom, the accent has been laid on the dynamic — whether it be democratisation, westward expansion, immigration, internal migration or “Americanisation.” It would appear almost incontrovertible that by 1900 the American people were unsettled, in search of order, pressured by the “M Factor,” responding unhappily to industrialism. Yet a number of questions may be asked: where, leaving aside the American Civil War as a very special case, is the evidence of large-scale dissatisfaction with and rebellion against the status quo; where is the evidence that, as the nation expanded west and its institutions extended over ever wider territories, they weakened and fell into disrepute; why did the United States succeed in reaching the Pacific in one piece rather than as several republics, as some of the Founding Fathers feared? One answer might be that the American people formed a consensus after all, but that is not the argument here. It is not necessary to involve the whole American people in an explanation of continuities, for the purpose here is to show how conservative, stabilising cultural control was in one case successfully provided by the few and not the many.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981
References
R. A. Burchell is Senior Lecturer in American History and Institutions in the Department of American Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL. He wishes to thank the British Academy, the Sir Ernest Cassel Educational Trust, the Social Science Research Council and the University of Manchester for help in making this study possible.
1 Two articles introduce the reader to some of these themes. Alcorn, Richard S., “Leadership and Stability in Mid-Nineteenth-Century America: A Case Study of an Illinois Town,” Journal of American History, 51 (1976), 685–702Google Scholar, comes to conclusions that parallel those of the present study. Collins, B. W., “Community and Consensus in Ante-Bellum America,” The Historical Journal, 19 (1976), 635–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar, finds division and anxiety rather than stability and consensus, but is not concerned with the mechanisms of social or cultural control. Alcorn's article, footnotes two and three, contains valuable bibliographical information.
2 The following county histories were used in preparation of this article (short title with publisher): History of Alameda County (Oakland: M. W. Wood, 1883)Google Scholar; History of Amador County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1881)Google Scholar; History of Butte County (2 vols. in one, San Francisco: H. L. Wells, 1882)Google Scholar; Calaveras County Illustrated and Described (Oakland: W. W. Elliott, 1885)Google Scholar; Colusa County (San Francisco: Elliott and Moore, 1880)Google Scholar; History of Contra Costa County (San Fransisco: W. A. Slocum, 1882)Google Scholar; Historical Souvenir of El Dorado County (Oakland: Paoli Sioli, 1883)Google Scholar; History of Fresno County (San Francisco: W. W. Elliott and Co., 1882)Google Scholar; History of Kern County (San Francisco: W. W. Elliott and Co., 1883)Google Scholar; History of Los Angeles County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1880)Google Scholar; History of Marin County (San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co., 1880)Google Scholar; History of Mendocino County (San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co., 1880)Google Scholar; History of Merced County (San Francisco: Elliott and Moore, 1881)Google Scholar; History of Monterey County (San Francisco: Elliott and Moore, 1881)Google Scholar; History of Napa and Lake Counties (San Francisco: Slocum, Bowen and Co., 1881)Google Scholar; History of Nevada County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1880)Google Scholar; History of Placer County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1882)Google Scholar; Illustrated History of Plumas, Lassen and Sierra Counties (San Francisco: Fariss and Smith, 1882)Google Scholar; History of Sacramento County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1880)Google Scholar: History of San Bernardino County (San Francisco: W. W. Elliott, 1883)Google Scholar; History of San Joaquin County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1879)Google Scholar; History of San Luis Obispo County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1883)Google Scholar; History of San Mateo County (San Francisco: B. F. Alley, 1883)Google Scholar; History of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1883)Google Scholar; History of Santa Clara County (San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co., 1881)Google Scholar; Illustrations of Santa Cruz County (San Francisco: W. W. Elliott, 1879)Google Scholar; Shasta County (Oakland: W. W. Elliott, 1885)Google Scholar; History of Siskiyou County (Oakland: D. J. Stewart and Co., 1881)Google Scholar; History of Solano County (San Francisco: Wood, Alley and Co., 1879)Google Scholar; History of Sonoma County (San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co., 1880)Google Scholar; History of Stanislaus County (San Francisco: Elliott and Moore, 1881)Google Scholar; History of Sutler County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1879)Google Scholar; Tehema County (San Francisco: Elliott and Moore, 1880)Google Scholar; History of Tulare County (San Francisco: W. W. Elliott and Co., 1883)Google Scholar; History of Tuolumne County (San Francisco: B. F. Alley, 1882)Google Scholar; Illustrated Atlas and History of Yolo County (San Francisco: De Pue and Co., 1879)Google Scholar; History of Yuba County (Oakland: Thompson and West, 1879)Google Scholar.
3 See History of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties (1883; rept. Riverside, Ca.: Riverside Museum Press, 1965)Google Scholar, Introduction; History of San Luis Obispo County (1883; rept. Berkeley: Howell-North, 1966), p. DGoogle Scholar; Lewis, Oscar, Mug Books: A Dissertation Concerning the Origins of A Certain Familiar Division of Americana (New York: Colophon, 1934), pp. 3–5Google Scholar.
4 The number, in parenthesis, and percentage of the pioneer elite by major group was: Native-born (6,525) 70·6; British North American-born (369) 4·0; English-born (438) 4·7; Irish-born (474) 5·1; German-born (719) 7·7.
5 See Blessing, Patrick J., West Among Strangers: Irish Migration to California, 1850–80 (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Los Angeles, 1977), passim.Google Scholar
6 76 percent of the native-born, 81 percent of the German-born, 81 percent of the English-born, 87 percent of the Irish-born and 60 percent of the British North American-born elite were over forty years of age. The British North American population was generally younger than that of the United States of this period. See Urquhart, M. C. and Buckley, K. A. H., Historical Statistics of Canada (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1965), p. 16Google Scholar.
7 Turner, Frederick Jackson, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1921), pp. 19–21Google Scholar.
8 Percentages by foreign-born group were: German-born, 83; Scottish-born, 83, English-born, 83; British North American-born, 87; Irish-born, 83; Swiss-born, 88; and Welsh-born, 88.
9 The 17 counties sampled were Alameda, Amador, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Marin, Napa, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura, Sierra and Sonoma.
10 de Tocqueville, Alexis, Democracy in America, ed. Bradley, Phillips (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945), 2, 283–90Google Scholar.
11 See Cammett, John M., Antonio Gramsci and the Origins of Italian Communism(Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1967), p. 202Google Scholar; Pozzolini, A., Antonio Gramsci: An Introduction to His Thought (London: Pluto Press, 1970), pp. 112–3Google Scholar.
12 History of San Luis Obispo County, pp. 132–33; History of Santa Barbara County, pp. 79–80.
13 Young, Edwin W., “The Adoption of the Common Law In California,” American Journal of Legal History, 4 (1960), 355–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Bakken, Gordon M. does try to make a case for an amended common law in the Far West but his argument is a narrow one resting on particular and not basic philosophical changes. See his “English Common Law in the Rocky Mountain West,” Arizona and the West, 2 (1969), 109–28Google Scholar.
14 Rohrbough, Malcolm J., The Trans-Appalachian Frontier: People, Societies, and Institutions 1775–1850 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 49–57Google Scholar; Harris, Michael H., “The Frontier Lawyer's Library: Southern Indiana, 1800–1850, as a Test Case,” American Journal of Legal History, 16 (1972), 239–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hamilton, W. B., “Transmission of English Law to the Frontier of America,” South Atlantic Quarterly, 67 (1968), 243–64Google Scholar; Carter, Clarence F., “The Transit of Law to the Frontier,” Journal of Mississippi History, 16 (1954), 183–92Google Scholar.
15 History of Santa Barbara County, pp. 144, 166, 442–54. See also History of San Luis Obispo County, pp. 285–86.
16 See “Report of Mr. Crosby on Civil and Common Law,” p. 464, in California, Senate Journal, 1st Session (San Jose: State Printer, 1849–1850)Google Scholar. The political code was quoted as a control by The Amador Sentinel, 16 June 1880.
17 Figures for 1849 taken from The Names of the President and Senators of the First Senate of the State of California (n.p., n.d.); for 1860 from Lambert, Richard, comp., Homographic Chart… Eleventh Session (Sacramento: J. Anthony and Co., 1860)Google Scholar; for 1869 from Ransom, W. A., Anthropographic Chart… Eighteenth Session(Sacramento: Jefferis, ?1869)Google Scholar; for 1880 from Mohan, Hugh J. et al. , Pen Pictures of Our Representative Men (Sacramento: H.A. Weaver's Valley Press Printing House, 1880), passim.Google Scholar
18 Data from Vivian, T. J. and Waldron, D. G., eds., Biographical Sketches of the Delegates to the Convention to Frame a New Constitution for the State of California, 1878 (San Francisco: Francis & Valentine, 1878), passim.Google Scholar