Interview with Catherine Allgor, author of Parlor Politics

Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government

by Catherine Allgor

An Interview with Catherine Allgor, author of
Parlor Politics

In his comment on your book, Jefferson biographer Joseph Ellis describes you as arguing that Washington government in the early republic actually needed women to function. What did these women do?
Well, the official men of Washington had two conflicting jobs. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and his followers wanted to build a capital city and a federal government, ensuring the stability of the nation. At the same time (and here's the problem) they wanted to do it using a political theory called "republicanism," which had never been tried in a modern context. Republicanism was against a lot of what we would call politics, including the interplay of politicians working for interests, the use of social events for political purposes (schmoozing!), and the presence of women and families in political systems. It was a very virtuous, high-minded theory. But unfortunately, when you want to build a government, a nation, and a capital, you need politics.

So while their menfolk were trying to appear as "republican" as possible, the women of political families took over the dirty work of politics. Using social events, they built the extraofficial structures that government needs, they got legislation passed and jobs for constituents, and they forged networks of interests among the other ruling families at the capital. They created an alternative political culture, one parallel to the official structure--they built the political machine.
So would you say these women worked behind the scenes?
That is something people will assume about women's work, but I'd like to get rid of that image of women "backstage." I feel silly saying something so obvious to Washington folks, but when it comes to politics and power there is no behind the scenes--it is all centerstage. Let us take our cue for understanding by noting how many times in letters home from Washington people like Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams paraphrased Shakespeare's famous quote--"All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players." Behind the scenes, behind closed doors, on the floor of the Senate--all of these are political stages, and women took leading roles.
* * * * *
In moving to Washington, women left the female private sphere for the public sphere, and left diverse backgrounds to adapt themselves to the tasks of politics. Of the various women you discuss in Parlor Politics, who do you think was most successful at this?

Without question, Dolley Madison. They didn't call her "Queen Dolly" for nothing. In particular, she was the Queen of Patronage. Giving away jobs and favors for political gain is seen now as corrupt and suspect, but any administration (especially one in the first uncertain years of the new republic) needs to surround itself with friends and supporters. And patronage allows people with similar interests to build alliances and get politics done.

Dolley Madison played a large part in staffing the federal government with kin and supporters, and as we know--personnel counts. It does matter who holds what office. The problem with focusing on Dolley, though, is that she was such a spectacular political wife, that she can seem like an exception. There were plenty of other women who got legislation passed and influenced votes, who won supporters for their families through patronage--even if they weren't famous. Some of the names may be familiar: Margaret Bayard Smith, Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams, Martha Jefferson Randolph, Hannah Nicholson Gallatin.
Were these women feminists?
Not at all--that is what is so quirky. These were white women of the middling and upper classes who belonged to families for whom politics was the family business. They participated in the family business in the same way that other women ran shops with their husbands or worked on family farms. (That's why I call them "politicians"--in my opinion, women who work on farms are farmers and women who work in shops are shopkeepers!) These women had a great deal of power, though they did not see themselves (for the most part) as powerful. They understood their work, and their sometimes quite aggressive efforts, as part of their family obligations. They did what they did NOT to amass personal power, but because they were good wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, and nieces.
* * * * *
Dolley Madison established a charismatic presence in Washington while charting new social ground--renovating the White House, lengthening the social season from six to ten weeks, and organizing "drawing room" soirees where all sorts of political alliances were formed. Did her role in the public spotlight ever overshadow her husband? Did the ladies of early Washington ever feel pressure to curb their activity in the social sphere in deference to men?

Dolley did overshadow her husband--even though they were the same height, she was the standout in any crowd, while sometimes people at his own parties didn't even notice James Madison. But that was all right--people loved Dolley's charisma, and the fact that James was so easily overlooked--it proved his republican virtue. Republican theory feared the charismatic male leader; it was thought that such a man would wield too much power. The perfect republican leader worked for the public good and didn't care about how he looked or his own personal power--he was the opposite of a powerful monarch. If you look at the paired portraits of husbands and wives of the Founding Generation (including Dolley and James), you'll see that the men are painted very simply, and their clothes almost fade into the background. In contrast, the portraits of the women are glamorous and colorful, with the political wives wearing rich fabrics and jewelry and often holding props that signify elite status, like musical instruments.

It's funny--the early nineteenth century was a MUCH more restricted time for women. Now women cross boundaries and break barriers all the time, and some people find that threatening. The Washington women I write about were eminently respectable and so, if they stayed in their sphere--whether at social events or in the galleries of Congress and the Supreme Court--they were not only allowed to be prominent, but were judged approvingly for being so.
* * * * *
At one point in the book you write, "if a woman attracted the wrong kind of visibility, putting her charisma to the service not of her family (or her country) but of her personal ambition, she broke a sacrosanct rule." Do you think that this standard has been applied to Hillary Clinton in her pursuit of her own political agenda?

But right from the start, Hillary Clinton has come in for torrents of criticism, even when "her political agenda" was her husband's. I think there's a different visibility problem--she wanted to be taken seriously in the official sphere of politics. This is not a misguided ambition; well-educated women are leaders in the official sphere of business and politics now. But in some ways the office of First Lady is a throwback to an earlier time, and the horror with which many Americans greeted Mrs. Clinton's foray into the health care arena was very nineteenth-century. Ironically, the American people are probably less threatened by a woman who is unabashedly running for president.
* * * * *
This being an election season, one can't help but think about Tipper Gore and Laura Bush when we read in your book about Louisa Catherine Adams maneuvering to ensure her husband's election in 1824. What do you think about the two prospective First Ladies as parlor politicians?

Yes, I think that both women will know how to make the unofficial sphere of politics work for them and their husbands. They have both lived in a southern culture, and so they have a fine sense of female boundaries. Indeed, they have both made choices to shape their careers around their husbands' work. If they came to me for advice about any other career move, I, of course, would tell them to pursue their goals as straightforwardly as any man. But, First Lady is probably the only job where I would find myself sounding like my mother (and probably theirs!) and say, "Be a Lady."

http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/allgor_interview.html

Revised 10/27/00

		Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a Government
		by Catherine Allgor

		An Interview with Catherine Allgor, author of Parlor Politics In his comment on your book, Jefferson biographer Joseph Ellis describes you as arguing that Washington government in the early republic actually needed women to function. What did these women do? Well, the official men of Washington had two conflicting jobs. In 1800, Thomas Jefferson and his followers wanted to build a capital city and a federal government, ensuring the stability of the nation. At the same time (and here's the problem) they wanted to do it using a political theory called "republicanism," which had never been tried in a modern context. Republicanism was against a lot of what we would call politics, including the interplay of politicians working for interests, the use of social events for political purposes (schmoozing!), and the presence of women and families in political systems. It was a very virtuous, high-minded theory. But unfortunately, when you want to build a government, a nation, and a capital, you need politics. So while their menfolk were trying to appear as "republican" as possible, the women of political families took over the dirty work of politics. Using social events, they built the extraofficial structures that government needs, they got legislation passed and jobs for constituents, and they forged networks of interests among the other ruling families at the capital. They created an alternative political culture, one parallel to the official structure--they built the political machine. So would you say these women worked behind the scenes? That is something people will assume about women's work, but I'd like to get rid of that image of women "backstage." I feel silly saying something so obvious to Washington folks, but when it comes to politics and power there is no behind the scenes--it is all centerstage. Let us take our cue for understanding by noting how many times in letters home from Washington people like Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams paraphrased Shakespeare's famous quote--"All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players." Behind the scenes, behind closed doors, on the floor of the Senate--all of these are political stages, and women took leading roles. * * * * * In moving to Washington, women left the female private sphere for the public sphere, and left diverse backgrounds to adapt themselves to the tasks of politics. Of the various women you discuss in Parlor Politics, who do you think was most successful at this? Without question, Dolley Madison. They didn't call her "Queen Dolly" for nothing. In particular, she was the Queen of Patronage. Giving away jobs and favors for political gain is seen now as corrupt and suspect, but any administration (especially one in the first uncertain years of the new republic) needs to surround itself with friends and supporters. And patronage allows people with similar interests to build alliances and get politics done. Dolley Madison played a large part in staffing the federal government with kin and supporters, and as we know--personnel counts. It does matter who holds what office. The problem with focusing on Dolley, though, is that she was such a spectacular political wife, that she can seem like an exception. There were plenty of other women who got legislation passed and influenced votes, who won supporters for their families through patronage--even if they weren't famous. Some of the names may be familiar: Margaret Bayard Smith, Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams, Martha Jefferson Randolph, Hannah Nicholson Gallatin. Were these women feminists? Not at all--that is what is so quirky. These were white women of the middling and upper classes who belonged to families for whom politics was the family business. They participated in the family business in the same way that other women ran shops with their husbands or worked on family farms. (That's why I call them "politicians"--in my opinion, women who work on farms are farmers and women who work in shops are shopkeepers!) These women had a great deal of power, though they did not see themselves (for the most part) as powerful. They understood their work, and their sometimes quite aggressive efforts, as part of their family obligations. They did what they did NOT to amass personal power, but because they were good wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, and nieces. * * * * * Dolley Madison established a charismatic presence in Washington while charting new social ground--renovating the White House, lengthening the social season from six to ten weeks, and organizing "drawing room" soirees where all sorts of political alliances were formed. Did her role in the public spotlight ever overshadow her husband? Did the ladies of early Washington ever feel pressure to curb their activity in the social sphere in deference to men? Dolley did overshadow her husband--even though they were the same height, she was the standout in any crowd, while sometimes people at his own parties didn't even notice James Madison. But that was all right--people loved Dolley's charisma, and the fact that James was so easily overlooked--it proved his republican virtue. Republican theory feared the charismatic male leader; it was thought that such a man would wield too much power. The perfect republican leader worked for the public good and didn't care about how he looked or his own personal power--he was the opposite of a powerful monarch. If you look at the paired portraits of husbands and wives of the Founding Generation (including Dolley and James), you'll see that the men are painted very simply, and their clothes almost fade into the background. In contrast, the portraits of the women are glamorous and colorful, with the political wives wearing rich fabrics and jewelry and often holding props that signify elite status, like musical instruments. It's funny--the early nineteenth century was a MUCH more restricted time for women. Now women cross boundaries and break barriers all the time, and some people find that threatening. The Washington women I write about were eminently respectable and so, if they stayed in their sphere--whether at social events or in the galleries of Congress and the Supreme Court--they were not only allowed to be prominent, but were judged approvingly for being so. * * * * * At one point in the book you write, "if a woman attracted the wrong kind of visibility, putting her charisma to the service not of her family (or her country) but of her personal ambition, she broke a sacrosanct rule." Do you think that this standard has been applied to Hillary Clinton in her pursuit of her own political agenda? But right from the start, Hillary Clinton has come in for torrents of criticism, even when "her political agenda" was her husband's. I think there's a different visibility problem--she wanted to be taken seriously in the official sphere of politics. This is not a misguided ambition; well-educated women are leaders in the official sphere of business and politics now. But in some ways the office of First Lady is a throwback to an earlier time, and the horror with which many Americans greeted Mrs. Clinton's foray into the health care arena was very nineteenth-century. Ironically, the American people are probably less threatened by a woman who is unabashedly running for president. * * * * * This being an election season, one can't help but think about Tipper Gore and Laura Bush when we read in your book about Louisa Catherine Adams maneuvering to ensure her husband's election in 1824. What do you think about the two prospective First Ladies as parlor politicians? Yes, I think that both women will know how to make the unofficial sphere of politics work for them and their husbands. They have both lived in a southern culture, and so they have a fine sense of female boundaries. Indeed, they have both made choices to shape their careers around their husbands' work. If they came to me for advice about any other career move, I, of course, would tell them to pursue their goals as straightforwardly as any man. But, First Lady is probably the only job where I would find myself sounding like my mother (and probably theirs!) and say, "Be a Lady."
		http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/allgor_interview.html
		Revised 10/27/00