Suchergebnisse

Cover Page -- Half Title Page -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Introduction to the Transaction Edition -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Introduction -- PART I Wealth -- 2 Were There Truly Rich Americans in the "Era of the Common Man"? -- 3 The Distribution of "Wealth in the "Age of Egalitarianism" -- 4 The Sources of Antebellum Wealth in the Urban Northeast -- PART II Social Mobility -- 5 Were Rich Americans in the "Era of the Common 'Man Self-Made "Men? -- 6 The Backgrounds of the Urban Rich -- 7 Did Fortunes Rise and Fall Mercurially During the "Age of Fluidity?" -- 8 Equality of Opportunity -- PART III Class -- 9 The Streets "Where They Lived -- 10 The "Marital Theory and Practice of the Rich and Elite -- 11 The Private "World and the Social Circle of the Rich and Elite -- PART IV Influence and Power -- 12 The Role of the Rich and Elite in Local Voluntary Associations -- 13 Who Qoverned the Nation's Cities in the "Era of the Common Man?" -- 14 Conclusion -- Appendixes -- Appendix A Some Reflections on the Values of the Rich -- Appendix B Moses Beach Revisited -- Appendix C The Wealthiest Persons in the Great Northeastern Cities During the Second Quarter of the Nineteenth Century -- New York City's Wealthiest Two Hundred in 1828 -- The Wealthiest Taxpayers in Brooklyn, 1841 -- Reputedly Wealthiest Philadelphians in 1846 -- Boston's Wealthiest One Hundred in 1833 -- Bibliography -- Index

That Stephan Thernstrom's Poverty and Progress is widely regarded as a classic is clear from the very fact that a symposium of this type is being held. Nor is the book's reputation unwarranted. Thernstrom (1964: 1) himself wrote that "one of the most glaring gaps in our knowledge of 19th century America is the absence of reliable information about the social mobility of its population, particularly at the lower and middle levels of society." Thanks to his study of Newburyport and the many studies of other communities that his research has helped inspire, that gap in our knowledge has been narrowed and we are all the wiser. Before Thernstrom, American historians were prone to speak of large-scale upward mobility on the basis of a handful of success stories. He showed us a better way.Some scholars, and they include admirers of Thernstrom's work, have recently questioned both the importance of social mobility and the extent to which it influenced the minds of working people (Henretta, 1977; Katz, 1975; and Dawley, 1976). Their argument is interesting but highly conjectural. Most of us continue to believe, and rightly so, that research such as Thernstrom's has significantly illuminated nineteenth-century American society.

In his 1978 essay in this journal, Robert E. Gallman praised but also criticized my work on the "egalitarian myth," arguing that it had not in fact "dealt a death blow to the 'egalitarian hypothesis'" (1978:194). In my response the following year, I tried to show that his criticism was based in large part on a misreading of what I had written, attributing to me "statements I had never made and viewpoints I do not hold." He thus had created "an elaborate model to refute a point that I had not made" (1979a: 208). Although I argued that his overall criticism was invalid, primarily because it was not based on "germane historical evidence," I closed by praising the "admirably reasoned spirit that infuses Professor Gallman's essay," praise I publicly repeated in the American Historical Review (1979a: 224, 1980b: 1163).

In his recent essay in this journal on my writings on the "egalitarian myth," Robert E. Gallman is kind enough to express admiration for "the scope of Pessen's empirical undertaking, the skill and ingenuity with which he carried it out, his learning, and his grasp of his materials." If praise from any source is sweet, praise from so admired a scholar as Professor Gallman is doubly sweet. Yet, "one may doubt," he continues, that I have "in fact dealt a death blow to the egalitarian hypothesis." Criticism, while not nearly so pleasing, alas, is to be expected, particularly for work such as mine that challenges a most influential, durable, and still popular thesis and challenges it on the basis of admittedly partial data. Scholarly disagreement on important issues is of course inevitable. For, as Peter M. Blau and Otis D. Duncan have observed, even collaborators in a joint study will interpret their data differently. I have taken pen in hand and availed myself of the opportunity graciously afforded me by a managing editor of Social Science History to publish my "observations on Gallman's essay," not because that essay criticizes my work but because a number of its references to my work are misleading and inaccurate.