There has been a general unwillingness in the profession to grapple seriously with the arguments of Charles Sellers's The Market Revolution. This is unfortunate, for Sellers's book demands close scrutiny because it raises important questions about the significance of the Jacksonian era, the relationship between public policy and democracy, and the fundamental purpose of history. In their helpful comments, Herbert Hovenkamp and Iver Bernstein challenge directly very few of my criticisms of the book. Silence may or may not be acquiescence, but I see no purpose in repeating my arguments. Since after several weeks of trying Sellers abandoned his attempt to write a response, readers can read his book, my critique, and Hovenkamp's and Bernstein's comments and make up their own minds.