This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Reference notes
Gunnar Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose,An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (NY: Harper and Brothers, 1944), p. 3. Also see the discussion of Myrdal's work in chapter IV of Stanford M. Lyman,The Black American in Sociological Thought: A Failure of Perspective (NY: Capricorn Books, 1972).
John P. Diggins,The Lost Soul of American Politics: Virtue, Self-Interest, and the Foundations of Liberalism (NY: Basic Books, 1984), has recently reasserted the primacy of Locke and of liberalism generally in influencing the construction of American government. Many contemporary historians have questioned the judgment of previous generations of historians, who saw Locke as very nearly the only intellectual and ideological source for America's political founders, and have instead asserted the influence of the English Commonwealth tradition. Diggins disparages the influence of the latter in returning Locke to his former prominence, but he as well as some Commonwealth historians have tended to overlook some similarities between these two ideological sources, and have neglected the extent to which both ideological frameworks have parallels in the theology of indigenous American Puritanism. For example, see Michael W. Hughey, “The National Covenant: Protestantism and the Creation of the American State,”State, Culture, and Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall 1984; 113–156.
The literature on the Commonwealth tradition and its influence on the American founders has grown vast over the past few decades. Some of the most important works in this literature include: Bernard Bailyn,The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967); Bailyn,The Origins of American Politics (NY: Vintage, 1968); Pauline Maier,From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765–1776 (NY: Vintage, 1972); J. G. A. Pocock, J. G. A., “Machiavelli, Harrington, and English Political Ideologies in the Eighteenth Century,”William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 22 (1965); 549–83; Pocock,The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975); Caroline Robbins,The Eighteenth Century Commonwealthman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961); Gordon S. Wood,The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 (NY: Norton, 1969).
See Hughey,op. cit.. for a discussion of how the political ideas inherent in Puritanism found secular expression in the organization of American government.
The univeralistic side of the American dilemma, Myrdal wrote, is defined by “the valuations preserved on the general plane which we shall call the ‘American Creed,’ where the American thinks, talks, and acts under the influence of high national and Christian precepts....“ In Myrdal,op. cit.,, p. xlvii.
John Winthrop's “A Model of Christian Charity,” from which this quote is taken, is generally regarded as the best articulation of the covenant ideal in the literature of American Puritanism. Winthrop's sermon is reprinted in Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson (eds.),The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (NY: Harper and Row), Vol. 1, p. 198.
“I dare take upon me,” Nathaniel Ward preached, “to be the Herauld of New-England so farre, as to proclaim to the world, in the name of our Colony, that all Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts, shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such as will come to be gone as far as they can, the sooner the better. Secondly, I dare averre, that God doth no where in his word tolerated Christian States, to give Tolerations to such adversaries of his Truth, if they have power in their hands to suppress them.” See Ward's “The Simple Cobler of Aggawam” inibid.Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson (eds.),The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (NY: Harper and Row, p. 227.
Alan Simpson,Puritanism in Old and New England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), p. 24.
Max Weber examined the institutional dynamics and implications of this screening process in his essay “The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism,” reprinted in Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.),From Max Weber (NY: Oxford University Press, 1946). The specific criteria used to separate sheep from goats in New England is discussed by Edmund S. Morgan,Visible Saints: The History of a Puritan Idea (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1963), pp. 36–44.
J. Franklin Jameson (ed.)Johnson's Wonder Working Providence, 1628–1651 (NY: Original Narratives of Early American History, 1910), pp. 28–32. Reprinted in Robert T. Handy (ed.),Religion in the American Experience, (NY: Harper and Row, 1972), pp. 3–6.
John Winthrop, “A Declaration in Defense of an Order of Court Made in May, 1637.” Reprinted in Edmund S. Morgan (ed.),Puritan Political Ideas, 1558–1794 (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), pp. 144–149.
See Herbert W. Schneider,The Puritan Mind (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1958), pp. 67–73.
See the excellent discussion by Michael Zuckerman, “The Social Context of Democracy in Massachusetts,”William and Mary Quarterly 25, 3rd Series (October 1968), pp. 523–544. Also see hisPeaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the Eighteenth Century (NY: Knopf, 1970).
Quoted in Zuckerman, 1968,Ibid. “The Social Context of Democracy in Massachusetts,”william and Mary Quarterly 25, 3rd Series (October 1968), pp. 536.
Josiah Benton,Warning Out in New England (Boston: W. B. Clarke Company, 1911) provides the most comprehensive treatment of this practice, but some discussion of it is also found in Zuckerman, 1968,op cit.
These connections are elaborated in Hughey,op. cit.,.
Max Weber's well known conception of this same idea is perhaps more elegant: “Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men's conduct. Yet very frequently the ‘world images’ that have been created by ‘ideas’ have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamic of interest.” See Weber's “The Social Psychology of the World Religions” in Gerth and Mills,op. cit..
Alexis de Tocqueville,Democracy in America (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1969), p. 398.
For example, James Fenimore Cooper,Notions of the Americans, Vol. II (NY: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., pp. 108–109), avowed that “I have never seen a nation so much alike in my life, as the people of the United States.” Many contemporary historians have also recognized the broad agreement of post-revolutionary Americans on political principles. See, for example, John Higham, “Hanging Together: Divergent Unities in American History,”Journal of American History, Vol. 61 (1974), pp. 5–28; Sidney Mead, “Abraham Lincoln's ‘Last, Best Hope of Earth’: The American Dream of Destiny and Democracy,”Church History, XXII (March 1954), pp. 3–16; Sacvan Bercovitch,The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978); and Donald G. Mathews, “The Second Great Awakening as an Organizing Process, 1780–1830,”American Quarterly. XXI (1969); pp. 23–43.
This, of course, is Tocqueville's,op. cit.,, p. 435, argument. “In times of equality,” he suggested, “men, being so like each other, have no confidence in others, but this same likeness leads them to place almost unlimited confidence in the judgment of the public. For they think it not unreasonable that, all having the same means of knowledge, truth will be found on the side of the majority.”
David Riesman, et al.,The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950).
It is perhaps partly due to this almost complete reliance on ideological conformity to preserve American unity that disputes between Federalists and Jeffersonians were so vituperative. The contending parties appear as factious sectarians who, while agreeing on most basic principles, are unable to tolerate deviations from what each perceives to be the True Faith on which the nation was presumed to be founded. See John Howe, Jr., “Republican Thought and the Political Violence of the 1790s,”American Quarterly 19 (1967), pp. 147–165; and Richard Buel, Jr.,Securing the Revolution: Ideology in American Politics, 1789–1915 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972). To be sure, of course, neither the bitterness of their disputes nor the substantive issues over which they fought were entirely ideological. Vital political and economic interests were also at stake, for the struggle was ultimately to determine which faction would appropriate control of the political covenant.
On the unifying role of the Awakening, see Alan Heimert,Religion and the American Mind: From the Great Awakening to the Revolution Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), pp. 139–148; William McLoughlin, “The Role of Religion in the Revolution: Liberty of Conscience and Cultural Cohesion in the New Nation,” in Stephen G. Kurtz and James H. Hutson (eds.),Essays on the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), p. 198; H. Richard Niebuhr,The Kingdom of God in America (NY: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 126.
See James Bryce,The American Commonwealth, Vol. II (Philadelphia: J. D. Morris, 1906). The quotation is from Tocqueville,op. cit., Alexis de Tocqueville,Democracy in America (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1969), p. 292 Tocqueville's judgment, incidentally, was confirmed several times in the 19th century by the courts, the established arbiters of the political covenant. In 1811, Chief Justice Kent of the New York Supreme Court sustained the conviction of blasphemy against a man named Ruggles on the grounds that “we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity.” Cited in Mark De Wolfe Howe,The Garden and the Wilderness: Religion and Government in American Constitutional History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 28–29. As late as 1892, Justice Brewer of the United States Supreme Court announced that “this is a Christian nation” (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471; 1892).
See Wood,op. cit.,, Ch. 2.
Hughey, 1984.
Horace Bushnell,Crisis of the Church (Hartford, 1835). Quoted in J. R. Pole,The Pursuit of Equality in American History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 89. Also see William Gribbin, “Republican Religion and the American Churches in the Early National Period,”The Historian, 35 (1972), pp. 61–74.
This is an obvious paraphrase of the famous passage in William Stoughton's election sermon: “God sifted a whole Nation that he might send choice Grain over into this wilderness.” From “New England's True Interest” (1670), reprinted in Perry Miller and Thomas H. Johnson (eds.),The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (NY: Harper & Row, 1963), 243–246.
Jonathan Edwards, “Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion in New England,” inThe Works of President Edwards, IV (NY: S. Converse, 1830), pp. 128–133. Relevant portions are also reprinted in Conrad Cherry (ed.),God's New Israel (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 55–59.
Outstanding discussions of the casuistries by which the clergy incorporated liberty into the context of Protestant millenialism are contained in two works by Nathan O. Hatch:The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); and “The Origins of Civil Millennialism in America: New England Clergymen, War With France, and the Revolution,”William and Mary Quarterly, 31, 3rd Ser. (1974).
Ibid..
The secularization of Protestant millennialism into American nationalism is too well-known and well-documented to require greater elaboration here. See, for example, Ernest Lee Tuveson,Redeener Nation: The Idea of America's Millennial Role (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); Hatch, 1977,op. cit. The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican Thought and the Millennium in Revolutionary New England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977); Russel B. Nye,The Almost Chosen People: Essays in the History of American Ideas, (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1966); Yehoshua Arieli,Individualism and Nationalism in American Ideology (1964); James Maclear, “The Republic and the Millennium,” in John H. Mulder and John F. Wilson (eds.),Religion in American History: Interpretive Essays (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1978); Christopher Beam, “Millennialism and American Nationalism, 1740–1800,”Journal of Presbyterian History, Vol. 54 (1976).
Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity” (1630), reprinted in Miller and Johnson,op. cit.,, p. 198.
On the Puritan jeremiad, see Perry Miller,The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1953), especially chapters 1 and 2. Sacvan Bercovitch,op. cit., The American Jeremiad (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978) while differing with Miller on the nature of the jeremiad—regarding it to be an expression of optimism as much as lamentation—traces its political and cultural transformation.
See Gribben,op. cit.
John Adams captured both the covenant framework and sense of American responsibility in his defense of the Constitution. “The people of America,” he wrote, “have now the best opportunity and the greatest trust in their hands that Providence ever committed to so small a number since the transgression of the first pair; if they betray their trust their guilt will merit even greater punishment than other nations have suffered and the indignation of Heaven.” From Adam'sA Defense of the Constitutions of the United States of America (1787–1788), quoted in Bercovitch,op. cit.,, p. 135.
That Protestantism alone could save the American people and preserve their republican institutions was a primary motivating sentiment behind the organized evangelical movements of the mid-19th century. For a detailed discussion of these movements and their aims, see Peter Dobkin Hall,The Organization of American Culture 1700–1900: Private Institutions, Elites, and the Origins of American Nationality (NY: New York University Press, 1984); Charles C. Cole,The Social Ideas of the Northern Evangelists, 1820–1860 (NY: Octagon Books, 1954); Charles I. Foster,An Errand of Mercy: The Evangelical United Front, 1790–1837 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960); Clifford S. Griffin,Their Brothers' Keepers: Moral Stewardship in the United States, 1800–1865 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1960); Clifford S. Griffin, “Religious Benevolence as Social Contorl, 1815–1860,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV, 1857–1958, pp. 423–444; Lois Banner, “Religious Benevolence as Social Control A Critique,”Journal of American History, LX (June 1973), pp. 23–41; Richard Lyle Power, “A Crusade to Extend Yankee Culture, 1820–1865,”New England Quarterly, XIII (1940), pp. 638–653; Timothy L. Smith, “Righteousness and Hope: Christian Holiness and the Millennial Vision in America, 1800–1900,”American Quarterly, 31, 1 (Spring 1979), pp. 21–45.
Quoted in Wood,op. cit.,.
See John R. Howe,op. cit.“
That nativism has in fact been a sporadic rather than permanent feature of American history is clearly demonstrated by historians of the subject. See, for example, Ray Alan Billington,The Protestant Crusade, 1800–1860: A Study of the Origins of American Nativism (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973) for a concentration on anti-Catholicism. An excellent work that deals with all forms of American nativism is John Higham,Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925 (NY: Atheneum, 1978).
See David Brion Davis, “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1960), p. 208. Davis's comments were made with reference only to Masons, Mormons, and Catholics, but they fit the stereotypes of Jews and communists equally well.
Edward Beecher,The Papal Conspiracy Exposed, and Protestantism Defended in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture (Boston, 1855), p. 29. Quoted in Davis,Ibid., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1960), p. 208. Lest these sentiments be regarded as quaint relics of a previous century or as merely the thoughts of an unenlightened moralist, consider the views of Talcott Parsons, writing in 1940: “... in general the Anglo-Saxon Protestant traditions supply the solidest foundations for this kind of loyalty [i.e., resistance to subversive influences]... Those who do not possess the strong Anglo-Saxon tradition of responsibility in the affairs of the community ... are ... apt to be particularly pliable material in the hands of any strong leadership which is able to exploit their characteristics and position.” Parsons further suggested that some religions, such as Catholicism and Lutheranism, predispose their members toward disloyalty: Due to the “authoritarian element in the basic structure of the Catholic Church ... individual self-reliance and valuation of freedom” could be weakened. Those with “Lutheran background. ... are apt to be partial to be political authoritarianism and old-fashioned legitimist conservations.” These comments are quoted from Parson's unpublished “Memorandum for Council on Democracy” by William Buxton,Talcott Parsons and the Capitalist Nation-State (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), p. 100. Also see Arthur J. Vidich, “State, Society and Calvinism: Parsons and Merton as Seen From Abroad,”The International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Fall 1988), pp. 109–125.
The comment is by Josiah Strong,Our Country. Edited by Jurgen Herbst (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 109.
This charge was also leveled at Catholicism and Masonry. See, for example, David Brion Davis, “Some Ideological Functions of Prejudice in Ante-Bellum America,”American Quarterly, XV (Summer 1963).
Speech by Samuel W. Dexter,The Proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention (NY, 1830). Reprinted in David Brion Davis (ed.),The Fear of Conspiracy: Images of Un-American Subversion from the Revolution to the Present (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971), p. 9.
Reprinted in Davis,op. cit., 1971, p. 77.
A good discussion of Adams's anti-Semitism may be found in Barbara Miller Solomon,Ancestors and Immigrants: A Changing New England Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. 32–42. Many of Adams's anti-Semitic utterances can be found in his ownLetters of Henry Adams, 1892–1918, edited by Worthington Chauncy Ford (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1938).
Richard Ely, “Recent Phases of Socialism in the United States,” (1884), reprinted as “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 166.
Richard Hofstadter,The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays (NY: Knopf, 1965).
A frequently raised and widely accepted argument in American through the 19th century was that political and ecclesiastical tyranny are complementary systems and that both constitute grave dangers to liberty. The best, and probably best-known, explication of this thesis is John Adams, “Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law,” inThe Works of John Adams, Vol. 3, edited by Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851).
On nativist fears of a Catholic conspiracy to conquer America, see Billington,op. cit., also Lyman Beecher, “A Plea for the West,” (1835); and W. J. H. Traynor, “The Aims and Methods of the ‘A.P.A.’” (1894). Relevant portions of the Beecher and Traynor works are reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1960), pp. 85–94 and 180–187, respectively.
Samuel F. B. Morse,Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, 6th edition (NY, 1844); relevant portions are also reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), pp. 94–99. Billington,op. cit., provides some discussion of the anti-Catholicism of both Beecher and Morse.
Michael F. Holt, “The Politics of Impatience: The Origins of Know Nothingism,”Journal of American History, IX (September 1973), pp. 309–331.
Storng,op. cit., p. 109.
Speech of Samuel W. Dexter,Proceedings of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention, reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 80.
From theProceedings of the Antimasonic Republican Convention of the State of Maine, Held at Hallowell, July 3rd, and 4th 1883 (Hallowell, ME (1834); reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 84.
Such a conspiracy was routinely charged in the pages of Ford'sDearborn Independent. See the reprints of relevant portions of articles from theIndependent in Davis,op. cit., 1971, pp. 228–238, 239–240.
See John Higham, “American Anti-Semitism Historically Reconsidered,” in Charles Herbert Stembler, et al. (eds.),Jews in the Mind of America (NY: Basic Books, 1966), pp. 237–258. Considering the virulent anti-Semitism ofPosse Comitas and other contemporary versions of radical populism, the argument apparently still holds true.
SeeInvestigation of Un-American Activities and Propaganda. Report of the Special Committee on Un-American Activities ...January 3, 1939, (Washington, 1939); also Martin Dies,The Trojan Horse in America (NY: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1940). Relevant Portions of each are reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), pp. 279–282 and 282–284, respectively.
A. Mitchell Palmer, “The Case Against the “Reds’,”Forum (February 1920), pp. 173–176. Reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), pp. 226–227.
Good discussions of the Palmer raids can be found in Robert K. Murray,Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955); and Robert D. Warth, “The Palmer Raids,”South Atlantic Quarterly, XLVIII (1949), pp. 1–23.
Morse,op. cit.,Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States, 6th edition (NY, 1844) reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 76.
Address of the United States Anti-Masonic Convention (1830), reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 76.
Michael J. Schaak,Anarchy and Anarchists: A History of the Red Terror and the Socialist Revolution in America and Europe (Chicago, 1889). Relevant portions reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), pp. 176–180.
Davis,op. cit.,. and 1963, makes much of the refusal of these groups to submit to public opinion in his essays on nativism.
So confident were Americans in the late 18th and early 19th centuries that truth would ultimately triumph in open, public discussion that, as Wood suggests, public opinion “soon came to dominate all of American intellectual life.” Although Wood does not note the connection, as the “transcendent consequence of many utterances, none of which deliberately created it,” public opinion in effect replaced God's word as the highest moral authority in the secular, democratic state. See Gordon S. Wood, “The Democratization of the Mind in the American Revolution,” in Library of Congress Symposia on the American Revolution,Leadership in the American Revolution (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1974), pp. 63–88.
All of these examples are documented in Davis,op. cit.,.
Davis,op. cit..
Gordon Clark,Shylock: As Banker, Bondholder, Corruptionist, Conspirator (Washington, 1894). Relevant portions are reprinted in Davis,op. cit., “The Identification of America's True Enemy” in Davis,op. cit., “Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic, and Anti-Mormon Literature,”Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVII (September 1971), p. 196.
Billington,op. cit.,, provides a good account of such event.
Tocqueville,op. cit., p. 237.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hughey, M.W. Americanism and its discontents: Protestantism, nativism, and political heresy in America. Int J Polit Cult Soc 5, 533–553 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419555
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419555