Michael J. Connolly's clearly written monograph advances an important thesis about early American railroad development. Unlike social historians who sometimes divide the Early Republic between “capitalists” and “non-capitalists,” Connolly argues that political factions of almost every stripe supported markets and commerce. Borrowing from Joseph Schumpeter, he argues that the real debate centered on “liberal capitalism” dominated by small-scale entrepreneurs and “illiberal capitalism” focused on politically privileged corporations. Jacksonian Democrats, Connolly argues, opposed railroads on grounds that it would endanger liberal capitalism, while “Whigs never worried over illiberal capitalism. If anything, they welcomed it” (p. 190).

Connolly does not cover all of New England—he instead focuses on New Hampshire and Essex County, Massachusetts. Such limited geographic coverage sometimes makes Connolly's broader claims about “Jacksonian America” unconvincing, but it gives him the ability to carefully analyze policy debates. He shows that radical Democrats often viewed railroads with hostility and suspicion because they threatened the precarious divide between private interests and public power. In 1840, for example, New Hampshire Democrats stripped railroads of their eminent domain powers, forcing the corporations to negotiate with individual landowners. Dissenting Democrats and their Whig allies argued that the public benefits of railroads (improved transportation, improved trade, and so forth) justified grants of public power, whether in the form of eminent domain privileges or government subsidies. The Whig position eventually prevailed—in part because fierce commercial rivalries created strong support for railroads—but continued Democratic opposition nevertheless showed that the victory of the railroad corporation was hardly complete.

Connolly excels at highlighting the complex ideological positions on the railroad taken during the Jacksonian era. He is particularly adept at analyzing divides within parties. In one particularly fascinating divide, “Vested Right Whigs” ended up opposing new railroads because such ventures threatened the economic vitality of older works and would spark unhealthy speculation. “Opportunity Whigs,” on the other hand, strongly supported more railroads and the competition they fostered. Not surprisingly, “Opportunity Whigs” found strong support in towns that had been bypassed by the earliest companies. The “Opportunity Whigs” triumphed, especially in Essex County, Massachusetts, which developed one of the densest railroad networks in the country.

The division between “Vested Right Whigs” (those with clear connections to older enterprises) and “Opportunity Whigs” (those who stood to benefit from new enterprises) highlights the important relationship between economic interests and political ideology. Although Connolly does not ignore the interplay between interest and ideology, analysis of the railroad companies themselves would have added more nuance and depth to the study. Connelly's evidence is drawn largely from newspapers, speeches, and correspondence; the bibliography does not list the papers of a single railroad or even their annual reports. The basic questions regarding the profitability of roads or how much the companies paid to settle land disputes are not asked, much less answered. Although Connolly uses basic quantitative evidence on population and industrial production to chart the impact of railroads, his conclusion that railroads helped some communities and hurt others is rather unremarkable. The book is clearly written, but the lack of detailed railroad maps makes it hard to follow the detailed political battles between rival lines.

Connolly concludes that the Whig support of “illiberal capitalism” showed a lack of economic sophistication. If the Whig boosters who saw railroads an economic panacea were simplistic, so, too, were Jacksonian Democrats, who feared that railroads would end innovation and entrepreneurship. In this sense, Connolly's use of “illiberal capitalism” is too static to describe New England's fast-changing economy. Even railroads, despite their considerable economic and political power, would themselves eventually succumb to Schumpterian “creative destruction.”