Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington’s Virginia. By Charles S. Sydnor. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press (1952), 180 pp.

Charles Sydnor’s Gentlemen Freeholders operates quite differently on two distinct levels. As a thick description of the actual machinations of Virginian government during the colonial and early American periods, his work is excellent and engaging. As an argument that these often patently undemocratic machinations are primarily responsible for the uncommonly numerous contribution by Virginia of excellent Revolutionary-era political statesmen, it falls far short of convincing the reader that the means actually produced the ends. Sydnor does, however, show quite clearly that the political culture in which men like Washington and Jefferson were reared influenced their perceptions of democracy and political participation.

Sydnor first notes that the planter aristocracy possessed a lifestyle that afforded their children opportunities for education and civic service not available to the common farmer of the era. Many of the finest sons of the finest families went to study at Princeton or William and Mary; the latter, located in the capital, offered its students, like a young Thomas Jefferson, the opportunity to watch the operation of the House of Burgesses from its doorway. Sydnor also emphasizes the practical lessons of management and social relations acquired by many of these same students upon receiving their inheritance and entering the world of Virginia planters. The demonstrable links between the planter aristocracy and political service give way to the generalization that “there existed in Virginia…the firm attachment to government of the rich, the well-born, and the able.” (3)

Sydnor moves next to more specific examinations of the parts comprising the whole of Virginia government. He first describes the process of county elections, wherein white male landowners of at least 21 years of age could cast their ballot for a candidate who was personable, but who would not electioneer. Sydnor posits that these common men would not be swayed by politicking, and that their sober common sense helped elect this generation of statesmen to their first political offices. He praises this practice, noting that the individual voter, at the time of casting his ballot, invested himself in the process of self-government. He similarly praises the sensibilities of the common men, but seems to contradict himself by later describing the ways in which candidates actively sought political support. Although perhaps not electioneering by our contemporary, mass-media standards, food, drink, and campaign promises sufficiently woo voters to be considered “campaigning.” Indeed, Sydnor paradoxically describes how this proves that the “freeholders had a large measure of political power which they freely exercised.” He extends the paradox in the next two sentences: “Political power truly rested in the people; democracy was a real and active force. At the same time a large measure of political power was vested in the few; aristocracy was also a strong and positive force in politics.” (60)

Although he later notes that these men did not view this pairing as incompatible, Sydnor here seems to defend a sort of political Darwinism simply by noting that Virginia produced some of the early Republic’s greatest statesmen, and thus do the ends justify the means. In dismissing some of the system’s most undemocratic features, Sydnor suggests that they were necessary until the Jacksonian era, by which time the common man could properly participate in the governing aspect, not just the choosing or voting, of self-government. If correlation does not prove causation, as statisticians warn, Sydnor’s argument is on shaky ground both philosophically and evidence-wise.

This aside, a good portion of Sydnor’s book is devoted to richer, more objective descriptions of the pathways to political power in Virginia. From election by the freeholders to justice of the peace, from which seat one would serve as a member of the county court, a young politician might next seek election to the House of Burgesses. Upon impressing his peers, a member of the House might go on to service in a prominent committee, or perhaps serve as Speaker of the House, a delegate to the Continental Congress, Governor, or a U.S. Senator. Sydnor describes this as a “double screening,” where a statesmen needed the approval of the gentry and freeholders to win election to the House, and the approval of his fellow statesmen to advance beyond that point. A far more reasonable statement than those discussed above is that this “helps to account for an unusual and valuable quality in many of Virginia’s political leaders.” (117) This is a more objective and defensible argument, and better suited to understanding Sydnor’s lasting contribution to the historiography. As a defense of oligarchy as a sort of democracy-in-training, Sydnor’s work is utterly lacking. Viewed instead as an inquiry into how Virginia’s political processes set a high bar for those who would represent the state on the national level, it succeeds. Were it to consider this in light of the practices of other colonies-turned-states, it might ring even truer.

Gentlemen Freeholders: Political Practices in Washington’s Virginia. By Charles Sydnor. 1952

Charles Sydnor earned his PhD. From John Hopkins university in 1923 and became a full professor at Duke University in 1938.  He was a visiting professor at Hopkins, Duke, Cornell, North Carolina and Harvard universities.  He died in 1954.  He states in his book, Gentlemen Freeholders that, “Democracy must do two things and do them well:  develop men who are fit to govern, and select for office these men rather than their less worthy contemporaries.  To understand the making of any one of the leaders of revolutionary Virginia one should know much about the ancestry and family life, the education and friendships, and the host of other particular influences which made him the man he was.”

Sydnor explores the nuances of the great men, gentlemen freeholders, of revolutionary Virginia.  He puts great emphasis on documenting the motives and means by which these men came to be the great political and social men of Virginia.  He explains how power or the perceived status of rising men in society used political influences, family ties, marriage, wealth, patriotism, and a sense of public responsibility to gain their dominance.  The custom of giving positions to planters’ sons groomed them for future office holdings in sophisticated society and eventually the great cities.  Superior home libraries and the ability of fathers to lavish expensive educations upon these planters’ sons allowed great advantages; this allowed for the original Congress to consist of college graduates.  This perpetuated the furthering generations of an elite planter class and their entrepreneurial sons in American society.  This elite class became well connected, and those who sought public office or personal interests could have the ear of established businessmen or those holding government office.  The author explains clearly how the sons perpetuated the legacy of the planter class when they managed their own plantations and developed large estates.  If they were successful then awards came to the planters by means of offices.  Successful businessmen could obtain a position as sheriff, clerk, or seats in the county legislature and county courts. Sydnor claims that few offices went to those who failed in handling their own affairs well. Only the successful could be trusted to the important management of public affairs.

Sydnor details the timing of the revolution as very significant; it came at a time when Americans could borrow from the ideals of the British government and the philosophies of the Enlightenment.   The readings of Harrington, Locke, and Montesquieu combined with local political experiences influenced the Virginia planter concerning self-government, public elections, and the formation of American politics. According to the author, the successful candidate was a man who understood the voters.  Candidates did not reflect the same interests or manners of voters, but they knew how to gain the public mans’ favor.

The development of county government before the revolution influenced the American revolutionary model of self-government.  Sydnor describes the previous established county courts, colonial interests, public acts, and the House of Burgesses itself as a self-perpetuated body beyond the control of Royal appointees. This type of self-rule long established by the freeholders became the method of conduct until the revolution began.

Sydnor divides his study into concise subjects regarding: class status, county oligarchies, Virginia burgesses, development of governmental offices, transitions from the 18th century to the 20th century for America and voting statistics in 1783-1790. He writes in a clear and easy to understand prose.  It is a short volume and it casually explores the bigger issues such as slavery, the subordinate classes role in self-government, and Jacksonian democracy.  The authors’ thesis deals mainly with the establishment of self-government, perceptions of a ruling planter class, and how prominent men of the revolution came into power. Sydnor provides an interesting snapshot into the beginning political callings and motives in the families of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Marshall.  His writings tend to foreshadow a little hero worship.  He claims that no family was beyond reproach concerning their motives to attain status in the eighteenth century, but the book fails to give the reader full disclosure of the great men’s past histories.  It does cover some of the very important issues leading to self government by leading men who came into power, what influenced these leaders, and how they managed the birth of a nation during an ominous time.

Jeff Tucker