| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 93.3

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 194 words from this article are provided below; about 364 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 93.3 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture. By Todd Estes. (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006. xii, 267 pp. $34.95, ISBN 1-55849-515-0.)

The study of early American diplomacy is a lonely field, stemming from the perception that it has remained outside the recent scholarship that has transformed the study of the early republic. Todd Estes bridges that gap in The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of the Early American Political Culture. Building on the work of Simon P. Newman and David Waldstriecher, Estes uses the Jay Treaty debate to explore the creation of a public sphere and the transformation from a deferential political culture to a more democratic one. Paradoxically, the Federalists were at the center of that transformation. Estes argues that "while the Federalists were often ideologically elitist, they were also operationally democratic" (p. 9). He adjusts David Hackett Fisher's conclusion in arguing that all Federalists were willing to use the tools of mass politics as early as 1793, if not before. Ironically, the tools used to win the Jay Treaty debate would eventually destroy the Federalist party.

. . .

There are about 364 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.