Internal Improvement: National Public Works and Promise of Popular Government in Early United States. By John Lauritz Larson. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Illustrations, maps. Pp. xv, 324. Cloth, $55.00; paper, $19.95.) This engaging, gracefully written, and provocative study of internal improvement in antebellum America begins with George Washington and ends, oddly enough, with Jay Gould. These starkly contrasting individuals serve, in effect, John Lauritz Larson's alpha and omega in a public works story that reads much like a morality play. Washington is, of course, quintessential representative of American of late eighteenth century and a proponent of positive use of government power for internal improvement. Railroad tycoon Gould, on other hand, is notorious Wall Street scoundrel (261) of late nineteenth century. He represents, in Larson's view, a sinister figure-namely, entrepreneurial revolutionary-who disturbed Eden. Gould, and others who preceded him, epitomize triumph of laissez faire. They were agents of industrial capitalism who captured the promise of American republicanism (7). In so doing, these men adversely altered ideological and economic environment of America while enhancing its physical landscape. Larson begins his appealing narrative with 1790s, a time when monied gentry (chap. 1) promoted various plans for public works. Led by George Washington, most of these men focused upon navigational improvements, but few of them shared president's grander vision. The failures and disappointments that marked many of these early projects fostered a jaded popular view, causing some citizens to denounce internal as games of visionary gentlemen, thieves, and selfappointed engineers (36). Despite such attitudes, Congress eagerly embraced coastal navigation projects-without any apparent constitutional scruples. Congress also launched and resolved a debate about its role regarding postal routes and roads. During Jefferson's presidency there was renewed interest at national level in internal improvements. Indeed, president realized that some of his followers were much more willing than he to support federally-funded projects. Yet nation's finances improved, Jefferson himself became more enthusiastic about such proposals. Not surprisingly, however, he favored enactment of a constitutional amendment that would clarify proper role of central government. In first quarter of nineteenth century, there were, according to Larson, two highlights in story. One occurred in 1817, in waning days of Madison administration, with passage of Bonus Bill, thought to be entering wedge for a vigorous national program. But president, who disliked aspects of bill, threw extremely cold water on any hopeful aspirations by vetoing it. The second breakthrough came seven years later, in 1824, during Monroe presidency, when Congress adopted General Survey Bill. Monroe's administration had been marked by a thorough debate about national public works but had been marred by Panic of 1819. The president, an advocate of internal improvement, favored a constitutional amendment but nonetheless signed Survey Bill. With some exaggeration, Larson labels bill the central piece of legislation in national campaign for a system of internal improvements (139). According to Larson, one of consequences of Bonus Bill veto was to shift burden of internal to states and private enterprises. …