Yes, these two intellectual "heavy hitters" (Hannity and Gingrich) have succumbed to that ageless American tradition of proclaiming to one and all that early America was a perfect Utopian world free from political strife, where all Americans embraced political unity and shared in the superior intellect and understanding that was exclusively unique to only that generation of Americans.
Only one problem: early America wasn't all a "happy, happy, joy joy" time. As Historiann points out:
Let’s not romanticize the early Republic, m’kay? This is a period in which the modest revolutionary promise of the 1770s was thoroughly and utterly strangled. Maybe this is why I’ve never been drawn to do research in this period: I find it to be an utterly depressing and demoralizing period in American history, but many people like to pretend it was totally awesome for every American, when clearly, it wasn’t: there’s ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the Northwest Territory and later in Cherokee country, Anglo-American women are being told to shut up and sing louder about how awesome things are, and get this: slavery is going to become even more dehumanizing and unendurable! More African American families will be further destabilized because of the invention of the Cotton Gin and the expansion of cotton culture into the Old Southwest. States like Maryland and Virginia that have been aggressively farmed since the seventeenth century discovered that their most profitable export crop would be slaves.And though I certainly do not share her utterly depressing view of early America (I am probably biased...it's my favorite era of history to study) I do agree that the founding era of this country is often misrepresented in our current pop-culture. Life wasn't pure bliss for many women, poor families, Native Americans, Blacks (free and slave), immigrants, etc. Now, with that said I also agree with historian Gordon Wood who states in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, that of all the places to live on planet earth in the 18th century, the American colonies/early America was probably at or near the top of the list. Let's just be careful with assuming that it was a PERFECT society, shall we!
And then of course there is Newt's "brilliant" statement that ALL the founding fathers would be united in their disgust for the current Obama Administration. Now, perhaps Newt is right in part. The founders would be utterly shocked to see a Black man as president. After all, they lived in an era where African Americans had zero say in government affairs, so I guess Newt is right in a roundabout way. However, if we put the racism of early America aside, I think Newt gets this one wrong.
Sure, several of the founders would be appalled at the current economic plan of the Obama Administration (and the Bush Administration before him). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison certainly come to mind. Jefferson was, among other things, passionately against government involvement in almost every facet of life. He strongly believed that government intervention in the affairs of man could be equated to slavery. In essence, Jefferson was very much a Libertarian. However, there are others who would be extremely happy with America's massive bureaucracy and federal involvement with the economy. To be certain, Alexander Hamilton is probably not be rolling over in his grave with anger but is instead smiling with glee. After all, this is the man who essentially proposed America's first ever "bail out" (a topic I have written on before and which you can read by clicking here). In addition, most of the Federalists would probably be close to as happy with things as Hamilton.
And this brings me to an important point: this whole argument over government intervention v. individual autonomy is far from new in the American experience. In fact, it's as old as is the nation itself. It was this debate which caused Vice President Jefferson to openly attack his "superior," President John Adams, who in return passed the unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts which he hoped would squash any and all of his critics. It was this basic issue that caused Jefferson to dramatically reduce federal spending in virtually all arenas during his presidency, and which caused his successor, James Madison, to confront the British in the War of 1812 with almost zero military of any kind. It is this basic issue that even caused the "father" of our nation, George Washington, to create the unpopular but economically driven Jay Treaty with Britain; a treaty that cost Washington a great deal of political support as his critics (again, led by Jefferson) openly questioned the president's bold decision.
In conclusion, I have no problem with Gingrich's questioning of Obama. I myself am against massive government spending. With that said, whenever I hear someone exclaim "What would our founding fathers do if..." or "I'm sure the founding fathers would be flipping in their graves over..." it tends to get my blood boiling. Like today, there was no consensus in early America over these and other issues. In reality, early America was arguably one of the most contentious eras we have ever seen (with an obvious exception being made for the Civil War of course).
So, let's quit "hijacking" the legacy of the founders just to make us feel better or to garner support for our respective positions. Chances are, no matter what you believe, that there are SEVERAL founders out there who would disagree.
41 comments:
OK, we got that you probably don't vote Republican. Besides that, what are your specific disagreements with Gingrich? Perhaps we can sort out your thinking...
;-}
Funny! Actually, I vote almost exclusively Republican.
Well, get into the reasons you're trashing Gingrich, then, Brad. I found the Historiann blog infantile, violating the first rule of historical study, judging the attitudes of past times by contemporary standards. African American and women's rights indeed.
;-P
That there seemed to be several teachers there made me shudder at what bilge they must be pumping into the young skulls full of mush.
As for the Federalist push for spending, this is not an area I know much about, so I'll just crib this, in support of Gingrich's thesis, from the internet:
In sum, although Alexander Hamilton and other leaders of the Federalist Party argued for an expansive reading of the spending power, their reading was, on the whole, rejected both by Congress and, after the election of 1800, by the executive. Indeed the differing views on the scope of federal power was a principle ground on which the 1800 presidential-election contest between Jefferson and incumbent Federalist President John Adams was waged. As Jefferson would note in an 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, the different interpretations of the spending clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, were “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalist from the republicans.” Jefferson won that election, and, save for a brief interlude during the one-term Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the more restrictive interpretation of spending power was adopted by every president until the Civil War.
President Madison vetoed as unconstitutional an internal improvement bill that was passed by congress at the very end of his presidency. President James Monroe also rejected the expansive Hamiltonian view of the Spending Clause (albeit on slightly different grounds then Madison had), vetoing various attempts at internal improvement bills during most of his two terms. But in the last year of his presidency, James Monroe, finding the line between “general” welfare and local welfare a hard one to define, signed a few bills to fund surveys for some local internal improvement projects. He thus opened a gate through which flowed a flood of spending on local projects during the administration of President John Quincy Adams. But Adams’s resurrection of the Hamiltonian position became the focus of the next presidential election, contributing to Adams’s defeat at the hands of Andrew Jackson, who promptly put to rest “this dangerous doctrine” by vetoing a $200 million appropriation for the purpose of stock in the Mayville and Lexington Turnpike Company and for the direct construction of other “ordinary” roads and canals by the government itself. So strong was his veto message that for four years Congress did not even try to pass another such bill, and when in 1834 it passed an act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River, Jackson again responded forcefully, rejecting as a “fallacy” the contention that the Spending Clause conferred upon Congress the power to do what ever seemed “to conduce to the public good.”
Well, you're every bit as predictable as every other person you whine about on this blog. My point was simple. Lots of people throw out that "What would the founders think of..." around like nothing these days. It gets a little annoying...sort of like when people take blog posts too seriously.
That's all. Nothing special. Just a simple blog post on a simple topic.
I don't see how I'm predictable, because I don't address contemporary partisan politics on our main page. That's why I view mocking Gingrich as a "heavy hitter" [scare quotes] completely inappropriate, especially since you offered no facts in rebuttal.
Further, if that essay I grabbed is factual, Gingrich seems to be quite grounded in at least arguable facts, certainly more than you or whoever the hell Historiann is ["some historians?" Really, Brad.]: the Hamilton view of big and free-spending government was roundly rejected by the Founding era. Invoking the Founders against "the contention that the Spending Clause conferred upon Congress the power to do what ever seemed 'to conduce to the public good'" is the only type of argument that might stand against jumping off this looming cliff.
You' predictable because you always whine against posts that go against your very narrow view of history. If somebody disagrees you try to "run them off" (I recall such an attitude in several of your emails). Remember the "epitome of worthlessness" garbage?
And yes, Hamilton was for a large federal government as were others. That's sort of my point. You can find founders who supported almost anything you like...that's why Gingrich was wrong. There was no "consensus" amongst the founders. Early America was quite a convoluted political mess. Not sure how you are seeing differently.
If we are to accept YOUR idea for this blog it would become quite narrow. Try to embrace John Lennon's admonition to "Let it be." Having a plethora of views and posts is sort of the strength of this blog. We shouldn't try to get rid of it.
To be certain, Alexander Hamilton is probably not be rolling over in his grave with anger but is instead smiling with glee.
This is just historically inaccurate. Though Alexander Hamilton certainly desired to create a more energetic government than what existed during the pre-Constitutional era, he was not a proponent of what we would today call "big government." He wanted a government that was efficient and energetic in dealing with the limited scope of issues that it had power over. Would he have been gleeful over a government controlling an entire industry? Doubtful.
Indeed, it is the Jeffersonian model that gets us to "big government." Sure Jefferson was himself a proponent of limited government, but the Jeffersonian democratic creed is what led the Nation down the path to where we now contemplate government expansion into every nook and cranny of our lives. So it's actually Jefferson and not Hamilton that gets us to where we are now, though perhaps not by conscious design.
It's not historically inaccurate. My guess is that it simply fits with YOUR political agenda, which is why you make that statement.
Hamilton wanted to eliminate the states completely, make the presidency a life-long position AND have the federal powers that be control the economy (his plan of assumption should ring a bell).
It's no wonder why he freaked out when Jefferson became president. Hell, the guy thought that the guillotine was sure to pop up in America. As historian Woody Holton points out in his book, Unruly Americans Hamilton wanted to RESTRICT the sovereignty of the masses, not give it more autonomy. In other words, he wanted bigger more powerful government.
I'm glad you haven't left us, Paul!
Hamilton wanted to RESTRICT the sovereignty of the masses, not give it more autonomy. In other words, he wanted bigger more powerful government.
Hamilton, like Madison and just about most of the Framers, did want to put the breaks on mass democracy. However, that's a completely different issue than whether or not Hamilton advocated a government of massive powers. Again, while it's true that his advocacy of the Constitution was based in part on the fact that provided for a more energetic and efficient government than what came before it, he also did not think that the powers of the federal government were so much more expansive than was outlined in the Constitution. Certainly he pushed the boundaries of the constitutional limits further than Madison was comfortable with, but it is a mistake to assume that he therefore would have applauded the massive government overreach of today. He certainly would have opposed government intervention when it would have stifled commercial growth, and while he would have welcomes some level of governmental involvement in the healthcare market, it is very dubious that he would have ever contemplated this level of intervention.
I don't think you are trying to make Hamilton fit your political agenda, but I think you are falling prey to an evaluation of Hamilton that is based on a badly formed caricature. Hamilton simply was not the big government monarchist that certain historians have made him out to be.
If a "badly formed caricature" consists of historians Joseph Ellis, Gordon Wood, James Roger Sharp and Woody Holton (all award-winning historians) then yes, I am guilty of a "badly formed caricature," since it's from their works that I get this opinion of Hamilton (and why I think Gingrich is dead wrong to assume that ALL founders would be united against the current state of the U.S.).
-Positions in federal government for life: check
-Weak local governments appointed by the FEDERAL government: check
-Economic control given to federal government: check
-Attempted to eliminate the states (and thus their sovereignty) altogether: check.
I think sometimes we assume that Hamilton would go along with other founders (who opposed strong government) because he fought to secure passage of the Constitution. But remember that he did so RELUCTANTLY. Hamilton was not (as Tom would say) "atall" pleased with how the Constitution turned out. He wanted it to be STRONGER.
But remember that he did so RELUCTANTLY.
So reluctant that he penned 50+ (I forget the exact number he was responsible for) essays for New York audiences urging people to vote for ratification. It is true that he was not pleased with the final document - none of the Framers were 100% pleased with what came out of Philadelphia - but he certainly viewed it as sufficient for dealing with the commercial and financial issues he was most concerned about.
Also, I don't know which sources you are using here to cite Hamilton's true feelings, but if it is his constitutional convention speech, then some of that should be taken with a grain of salt as it is possible that Hamilton's true aim was to demonstrate the extremes the drafters could go to in order to nudge the small states.
Again, you simply have not demonstrated how Alexander Hamilton would have come to support such massive levels of government intervention in the economy. You make general references to certain historians as though that's supposed to convince someone who has read those gentlemen and many, many others.
Sorry, that last sentence came off a bit awkwardly and snooty. A better way to put it is that while I appreciate what Wood and others have written about Hamilton (though I don't think they even go as far as you in your depiction of Hamilton), there are not only others who formulate a different view of his thinking, his own writing (beyond just the Federalist Papers) doesn't quite indicate that he believed that the government should truly be a leviathan.
Paul writes:
none of the Framers were 100% pleased with what came out of Philadelphia - but he certainly viewed it as sufficient for dealing with the commercial and financial issues he was most concerned about
Except that AFTERWARDS he continued to push for more government power in all of these areas...again, assumption should ring a bell.
Sorry Paul, but you have
not demonstrated how Alexander Hamilton would have NOT come to support such massive levels of government intervention in the economy. You make general assertions based on your own readings that's supposed to convince someone who has read those gentlemen and many, many others.
Sorry, but the door swings both ways here.
I will say that it never ceases to amaze me how all of us can start on one topic and see it shift to something a little different. It's what I like about the comments sections!
And usually new posts spring from this stuff!
Is anybody up on the canal controversies of that time? I'm aware of it, but haven't researched it enough to argue one side or another. But I think it would shed some light.
And as for my "narrow" view of history, Brad, it's imprecision and broad brushes that I find worthless. Masonry is not a religion, and even Gordon Wood overstepped in attempting to characterize what the Founding-era Masons believed in their hearts about its religious truth. There is simply no evidence one way or the other.
Yes, we can question Wood and the other historians but DON'T YOU DARE call out Newt!!!
Call Newt out on specifics. That's what I did with Wood, whom I generally agree with.
You can argue that Hamilton generally wanted a stronger central government than the rest of the Founders [Hamilton largely lost that battle], but that doesn't nearly get you to proof that even Hamilton would have approved of the expansive Obama agenda.
Zzzzzzzzzzz. More of the same old, same old. Assuming that your interpretation is THE interpretation.
I'm tired of the back-and-forth. Until you can accept the fact that a lot of history is based on personal interpretation of the facts then it's pointless to argue, since you believe that your take is THE take.
I've been down this road so many times with you (as have others). It's not worth it.
a lot of history is based on personal interpretation of the facts
That's epistemological nihilism, subjectivity, and pure nonsense. Basically, you can't make your case affirmatively, or if you can, you haven't yet. Leave me and Gingrich out of it and get from Hamilton to Obama. Then you'll have made your case.
I'm tired of the back-and-forth.
Yes, it's tedious to have conversations with people who disagree with you, especially when you accuse you of doing the precise thing that you're doing.
Good God! I've made my case. You just aren't listening.
By the way, where exactly is YOUR case? Other than throwing out the same nonsense you are accusing me of?
And no, I am NOT trying to connect Obama to Hamilton. I am trying (I've said this ad nauseum now) to point out that there were founders in favor of bigger government (generally) and those in favor of lesser government (generally). The point being that it is silly (for Newt) to say that ALL the founders would be upset at Obama. There's zero proof for that, especially since it's a FACT that many founders DID favor bigger government intervention...Hamilton being one.
Again, the door swings both ways, Paul!
You know what's funny about this is if I had used "Howard Zinn on the Founders: Here we go Again" as my post you would be jumping for joy! I've seen you throw him under the bus so many times (and yes, he deserves it). But when you attack a conservative (strange for a guy who says he doesn't mix the politics into this blog) the blood begins to boil.
How about I just stick to your brand of history from now on! I'm sure the blog wouldn't go sour over time.
And a side note here, isn't it amazing that Newt thinks all the founders would be appalled at Obama but not Bush?
Strange indeed!
Fine, include Bush, too. I wouldn't object to an argument that said Dubya's spending was out of line with Founding principles, too. I was defending Gingrich's accuracy, not his politics.
And BTW, Gingrich did attack Dubya's spending
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/gingrich-claims-disastrou_n_170577.html
so again, the attack on his intellectual honesty is unwarranted.
Except that nobody is attacking his "intellectual honesty." We're only saying that "blanket statements" are silly.
Don't read too much into things.
"We?" You and "Historiann?"
You still haven't made your case that a single Founder would have embraced the progressive notion of "economic justice." Gingrich still holds up, and even if you were to find an exception, what's silly [and partisan, not historical] is ignoring that he'd still be 99% correct on the issue.
Still beating the dead horse I see. This topic is done. Stick a fork in it. You aren't going to see things my way and I won't yours so let's end it. Agree to disagree.
I'd love to see things your way except you haven't made an argument in defense of it yet.
I think that I have. That's the problem. The door swings both ways here because I don't see any good claims on your side either...no refuting of anything.
Again, agree to disagree...that's what I am going with.
Time to let the horse die.
In other words, you're letting your slam of Gingrich stand without offering any proof besides "Hamilton liked big government."
OK, as long as we're clear.
...and if I'm pushing this, Brad---and I am---it's because my hot button is our era reducing virtually everything to mere opinion and the abandonment of the search for truth and fact. My opposition is to relativism and subjectivism.
If it's true that he who controls the past controls the present---or the future---I'm not willing to surrender them to the Valley Girl philosophy of "whatever."
Heh. The first draft of history...
http://reason.com/archives/2004/04/01/fools-for-communism
No, I'm not letting my slam of Newt go without proof. I'm just tired of the back-and-forth bullshit.
Go ahead and have the last word. It's obviously what you crave.
And nobody is abandoning the "search for truth." But I think even you will admit that a "search for truth" IS subjective.
All in the eyes of the beholder.
Ok, I'm done.
Actually, my beef is more with that other blog, but I don't wanna be accused of trolling. But since you say it's one of your favorite blogs, please do extend them an invitation here to try out their arguments against Gingrich, if any.
And I'd be willing to yield the last word, Brad, but "whatever" isn't it.
But I think even you will admit that a "search for truth" IS subjective.
All in the eyes of the beholder.
Not atall. That's the heart of the problem these days---relativism, if not nihilism. "Whatever."
In fact, I posted the URL to the "first draft of history" precisely to disprove the "eye of the beholder" fallacy. And it does disprove it, in stark living color.
Last word: Whatever.
Not atall. That's the heart of the problem these days---relativism, if not nihilism. "Whatever."
Let's cast a morphing term, a "dog whistle" term like "unbiblical" or "fundamentalist" that can be molded to castigate any valid and coherent counterargument.
Then add in two parts of embracing one cultural context but chiding dissenters in another cultural context.
Mr. Naum, if you have an actual fact to contribute to the discussion, the floor is yours.
In case you came in late---and you did---the counterfactual is this:
In sum, although Alexander Hamilton and other leaders of the Federalist Party argued for an expansive reading of the spending power, their reading was, on the whole, rejected both by Congress and, after the election of 1800, by the executive. Indeed the differing views on the scope of federal power was a principle ground on which the 1800 presidential-election contest between Jefferson and incumbent Federalist President John Adams was waged. As Jefferson would note in an 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, the different interpretations of the spending clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, were “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalist from the republicans.” Jefferson won that election, and, save for a brief interlude during the one-term Presidency of John Quincy Adams, the more restrictive interpretation of spending power was adopted by every president until the Civil War.
President Madison vetoed as unconstitutional an internal improvement bill that was passed by congress at the very end of his presidency. President James Monroe also rejected the expansive Hamiltonian view of the Spending Clause (albeit on slightly different grounds then Madison had), vetoing various attempts at internal improvement bills during most of his two terms. But in the last year of his presidency, James Monroe, finding the line between “general” welfare and local welfare a hard one to define, signed a few bills to fund surveys for some local internal improvement projects. He thus opened a gate through which flowed a flood of spending on local projects during the administration of President John Quincy Adams. But Adams’s resurrection of the Hamiltonian position became the focus of the next presidential election, contributing to Adams’s defeat at the hands of Andrew Jackson, who promptly put to rest “this dangerous doctrine” by vetoing a $200 million appropriation for the purpose of stock in the Mayville and Lexington Turnpike Company and for the direct construction of other “ordinary” roads and canals by the government itself. So strong was his veto message that for four years Congress did not even try to pass another such bill, and when in 1834 it passed an act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River, Jackson again responded forcefully, rejecting as a “fallacy” the contention that the Spending Clause conferred upon Congress the power to do what ever seemed “to conduce to the public good.”
Have at it.
Post a Comment