Mired in Politics: Science in Antebellum America

Abstract

In 1966 University of Pennsylvania historian Charles Rosenberg challenged colleagues to pay greater attention to the important but largely unexplored relationship between American science and American social history. was, said Rosenberg, rich and complex relationship between science and American social and because it . . . had comparatively little attention paid it by American historians . . . it the task of historians to explore specific instances and define the texture of specific relationships. Potential gains for both individuals and the discipline were large. There Rosenberg thought, aesthetic of complexity in history. Any way in which seemingly disparate developments can be brought together, any way in which the juxtaposition of unfamiliar materials can shed light on the interdependence of human life and thought, is, in itself, inherently laudable. Certainly, the interaction between science and social thought one such relationship.' Whether Rosenberg's challenge energized colleagues to shift attention from traditional areas or whether he merely impelled a shift already underway, the fact was that by the late 1960s monographs and edited collections examining the science-society relationship in America were appearing in increasing numbers. The collection bearing Rosenberg's challenge was itself a sort of first fruit. Science and Society in the U.S. (1966), edited by David Van Tassel and Michael Hall, ranged widely over the American experience (touching industrialization, medicine, philanthropy, higher education, the federal government, etc.), showing how science affected or was affected by each facet. The aim of the collection, said its editors, voicing a note that would resonate in other later writing, is to provide an introduction to the ways in which the modern scientific revolution has become interwoven in the political, economic, and social institutions of the United States. It was also rooted