Apparently, then, a society of relative economic equals existed only
in rural or less developed areas. But the issue is not quite that simple.
Imagine, for example, a society in which all people began their lives
as equals and achieved at an equal rate. Inequality would result, for
some people would be just starting to accumulate wealth while others
would have been building their holdings for many years. Achievement
produces inequality, and in such an open society wealth ownership
would be a function of age. We know that young people went to
cities in large numbers. Thus, skewed urban wealth distributions may
be primarily a consequence of an urban age structure in which young
adults predominated. A second set of issues emerges. How was wealth
distributed? How were distributions related to economic activity and
innovation, and were equitable distributions to be found only in less
developed areas? To what extent did wealth ownership reflect not
equality but an open society given to achievement in which owner-
ship was essentially a function of age?

In an open society composed of people of a middling sort, it would
also be expected that there would be no great fortunes, that elites
would be unstable, that entry into wealthy groups would be relatively
easy, and that the same wealthy groups would not long dominate
power (i.e., that power would circulate among groups). Edward
Pessen found an opposite tendency in eastern seaboard cities: a stable
rich class which was difficult to enter. He discovered that most of
Boston's rich in 1848 had either been rich 15 years before or had been
members of the city's affluent families. Seventy-five percent of the
men worth $50,000 in 1848 had been among the richest 21/2% of the
population in 1833. Comparable conditions existed in New York City,
where 76% of the city's most affluent citizens in 1845 had been rich
17 years before. Pessen concludes that "the pursuit of wealth in the
antebellum decades was marked not by fluidity but by stability." ⁹

This stable rich group wielded considerable power. Most municipal
political offices were held by affluent merchants, lawyers, financiers,
and businessmen. The very rich did not often run for election, but a
second level of well-to-do men prevailed and their influence was not
seriously challenged from below by manufacturers or any other
group. The most notable change found by Pessen was an increase of
artisan officeholders, but they occupied only about 10% of the posi-
tions in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia between 1838 and
1850. ¹⁰

Pessen's findings on elite continuity and power are somewhat sur-
prising since they seem to contradict other theories about elite behav-
ior during the decades prior to the Civil War. Many historians have

-6-