The Profit Motive Keeps Our Union Together -- So Say Alexander Hamilton and Jay Cost

If you think our society's nosedive in civility and the increase in political and identitarian tribalism will lead to civil war... Take heart. It won't happen. That's the message of Jay Cost, writing for National Review. His prognosis is based on none other than Alexander Hamilton, who of course graces our $10 bill and was the subject of a spectacularly popular play in recent years.

In Federalist No. 12, Hamilton wrote that "[t]he prosperity of commerce" is, and will increasingly become, "the primary object of our political cares." He explained that the "interests" of the working citizenry are "intimately blended and interwoven." And this reality, claims Hamilton via and according to Cost, will insure American society today endures the turbulent, polarized affairs in which we find ourselves. 

To read Cost's full article, I direct you to National Review's site below...

"We're Not on the Brink of Civil War. Here's Why" 

It should be noted that the Founders also had much to say about religion and morality being important to preserving the glue which binds us together. See Washington's Farewell Address (which incidentally Hamilton had a hand in writing). But even if Cost is correct in his emphasis on economics, the glue only works so long as Americans embrace the system given to us by our Founders, namely free market economics. If the nation turns away from capitalism and more toward socialism, we may find Cost's hopeful optimism misplaced. 

Former Federal Reserve Head Ben Bernanke Defends Alexander Hamilton - and He's Right!

Ben Bernanke, the former head of the Federal Reserve Board, has come to the defense of Alexander Hamilton after an atrocious announcement from President Obama's Treasury Secretary that our nation's first Treasury Secretary would be pushed to the side by a woman. As most of you know, Jack Lew, Hamilton's current successor as Treasury Secretary, announced that a woman would grace the new $10 bill. Bernanke is "appalled" - and he's not alone.

I applaud the U.S. government's desire to put a woman on our currency. That is long overdue. But to dump the first Treasury Secretary and one of our most preeminent Founding Fathers is outrageous. Were it not for Alexander Hamilton, we might not even have currency today. We might not even have a working economy today. It's because of Hamilton that we can even have this discussion. And for a modern-day Treasury Secretary to want him shoved aside displays a brazen lack of gratitude and a complete detachment from America's history.

Take a few moments to write the President, the Treasury Secretary, and your Member of Congress to express your support for Alexander Hamilton. As for putting a woman on the currency, I agree 100% with Bernanke's suggestion: Dump Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson. Leave Hamilton where he is.

Another Perspective of an American First

A Comparison between Washington's First and Second Inaugural Ceremonies by Ray Soller

On April 30, 1789, the day of this nation's first inaugural ceremony, President George Washington was sworn into office and presented his inaugural speech. Then, according to fellow blogger, Tom Van Dyke, "The whole bunch, president and congress, packed over to St. Paul's Chapel immediately for a prayer service." That, of course is not entirely true. There was at least one Senator who didn't parade over to the chapel singing "koom-bye-yah." He was Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay. Fortunately what Maclay did do was keep a journal, where he recorded his concerns during the legislative process that led up the parade into Saint Paul's Church.

Here's the pertinent part of his journal entry for Monday, April 27th, 1789, the day on which the Senate took up the matter of scheduling a church service as part of the inauguration:

Tried my knee and walked a good deal. Attended the Hall. We had prayers this day by the [recently appointed] chaplain, Dr. [Samuel] Provost. A new arrangement was reported from the Joint Committee of Ceremonies. This is an endless business. [Virginia Senator Richard Henry] Lee [of the JCC] offered a motion to the Chair that after the President was sworn (which now is to be in the gallery opposite the Senate chamber), the Congress should accompany him to Saint Paul's Church and attend divine service. This had been agitated in Joint Committee. But Lee said expressly that they would not agree to it. I opposed it as an improper business after it had been in the hands of the Joint Committee and rejected, as I thought this a certain method of creating a dissension between the Houses.[South Carolina Senator Ralph] Izard [of the JCC] got up in great wrath and stuttered that the fact was not so. He, however, would say nothing more. I made an effort to rise. The Vice-President [John Adams] hurried the question, and it was put and carried by the churchman [Senator Lee]. [Maryland's Catholic Senator] Mr. [Charles] Carrol[l], though he had been the first to speak against it, yet was silent on this vote. This proves him not [the rank and] file man of firmness which I once thought him.

Two days later on April 29, 1789, the same day the House approved the measure to attend the service at Saint Paul's Church, Maclay added the following:

I have observed ever since we began to do business that a Jehu-like spirit has prevailed with a number of gentlemen, and with none more than with the member [Richard Henry Lee] from the Ancient Dominion [Virginia], who is said to be a notorious anti-Federalist (a most expensive and enormous machine of a Federal Judiciary, pompous titles, strong efforts after religious distinctions, coercive laws for taking the oaths, etc.). I have uniformly opposed, as far as I was able, everything of this kind, and I believe have sacrificed every chance of being popular and every grain of influence in file Senate by so doing. But be it so.' I have the testimony of my own conscience that I am right. High-handed measures are at no time justifiable, but now they are highly impolitic. Never will I consent to straining the Constitution, nor never will I consent to the exercise of a doubtful power. We come here the servants, not the lords, of our constituents. The new Government, instead of being a powerful machine whose authority would support any measure, needs helps and props on all sides, and must be supported by the ablest names and the most shining characters which we can select. The President's amiable deportment, however, smooths and sweetens everything. Charles Thomson [the congressional envoy sent to Washington with word of his election] has, however, been ill used by the Committee of Arrangements of the ceremonial. This is wrong. His name has been left out of the arrangements for tomorrow.

On the day of the Inauguration, after an unflattering description of Washington's inaugural speech, Maclay reported:

From the hall there was a grand procession to Saint Paul's Church, where prayers were said by the Bishop. The procession was well conducted and without accident, as far as I have heard. The militia were all under arms, lined the street near the church, made a good figure, and behaved well.

Four years later, on March 4, 1789, Washington's inauguration in Philadelphia was a much simpler affair. In contrast to the first inauguration, there were no elaborate preparations, no parades, no swearing on or kissing the Bible, no church services, and not a single reported reference to the Almighty. Washington merely informed Congresss as to when he would appear to take the oath. William Maclay's two-year term as a senator had expired, so it is unlikely that he had been able to advise the President, but we can find have clues regarding the deliberations that went into the inaugural planning if we turn to a June 6, 1824 Jefferson letter addressed to Martin Van Buren. (See The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Augustine Washington, especially pages 367-8). In part, Jefferson recalled:

"We met at my office. Hamilton and myself agreed at once that there was too much ceremony for the character of our government, and particularly, that the parade of the installation at New York ought not to be copied on the present occasion, that the President should [in addition: dah - dah - dah] . [Attorney General Edmund] Randolph and [Secretary of War Henry] Knox differed from us, the latter vehemently; they thought it not advisable to change any of the established forms, and we authorized Randolph to report our opinions to the President. As these opinions were divided, and no positive advice given as to any change, no change was made."

Jefferson's self-serving statement that "[n]o change was made" is obviously incorrect. His first inaugural ceremony followed the simplistic example set by Washington's second inauguration, except for one noticeable difference. Jefferson walked to the Senate chamber while Washington preferred his plush carriage pulled by four of his well-groomed horses. (Oh yes, another difference - there were, much like as at Washington's first inauguration, several punctuated volleys of celebratory cannon fire.)

The Hereafter and Courtroom Oaths

A Second Look at the Supreme Court's own Oath of Office
by Ray Soller

There is a longstanding tradition of having courtroom participants swear to an oath that concludes with the words "So help me God." This same tradition allows any participant, who chooses, to affirm his oath by omitting the concluding reference to God.

A number of individuals with whom I have corresponded (namely, Steve Farrell of the Center of Moral Liberalism) feel that this longstanding tradition justifies the use of adding "So help me God" to all promissory oaths of office at the federal level regardless of what is prescribed by the Constitution. I disagree, and here's why.

A simple review of several key moments in post-Colonial history shows the way in which, specifically, George Washington was able to distinguish between promissory oaths and those oaths administered in the courtroom:

1) On April 30, 1789, all contemporary and eyewitness reports indicate that George Washington recited the godless presidential oath exactly as prescribed in the Constitution.

2) On June 1, 1789 President George Washington signed the godless oath for all federal office holders other than the president.

3) On September 24, 1789 President George Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 with its Section 8:

And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following [additional] oath or affirmation, to wit: "I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God." [The affirm accommodation makes "So help me God" optional as specified in the clerk's oath.]

The reader should note that the above judicial oath defines a federal judge's second oath. This second oath is dedicated to a judge's responsibility to "administer justice" in a manner agreeable with the Constitution. A judge's first oath, like that of all other federal officials, is an earnest commitment to uphold the Constitution.

4) In view of this recognition of God's debut in the federal Judiciary Act, George Washington, in his Farewell Address, thought it necessary to explain what it was that distinguished courtroom oaths from the godless oaths treated in the Constitution:

A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Washington (I guess, with Hamilton's assistance) turned Jefferson's "does me no harm" argument on its head with his "Where is the security" logic. Even though Washington invoked "reason and experience" to support his thesis he didn't provide any specific information that challenged Jefferson's line of logic.

After searching for an understanding of just what Washington was driving at, I came up with only one conclusion that says the religious sense of "public security" comes from the belief that for judges and witnesses there needs to be a sense of accountability, which is based upon a belief in the hereafter and a corresponding day of judgment. James H. Hutson treats this subject in his book, Forgotten Features of the Founding. In fact, Hutson dedicates an entire chapter, "'A Future State of Rewards and Punishments': The Founders' Formula for the Social and Political Utility of Religion," to this subject. On page 34, he specifically writes:

In the North Carolina Ratifying Convention, July 30, 1788, James Iredell made the customary linkage between the future state and oaths: an oath "is considered a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most."

What's somewhat ironic is that, as Peter R. Henriques indicates, George Washington may not have held out any hope for a sociable afterlife:

The most striking aspect of Washington's view of life after death centers on what he does not say. Not once in all of his authentic, extant correspondence does he explicitly indicate his belief in the reunion of loved ones in Heaven.

Regardless of what Washington believed concerning the afterlife, he, as expressed in his second inaugural address, expected the time of his judgment to be among the living:

Previous to the execution of any official act of the President the Constitution requires an oath of office. This oath I am now about to take, and in your presence: That if it shall be found during my administration of the Government I have in any instance violated willingly or knowingly the injunctions thereof, I may (besides incurring constitutional punishment) be subject to the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

So, by way of a final review, I can only surmise that our Founding Fathers agreed with Washington's assessment regarding the manner in which they should subscribe to their oath of office, since those who obtained a federal position of public trust, outside of the courtroom, are not known to have added "So help me God" to their official oath. Their oaths and their sense of accountability were directed towards "We the People." As far as I can determine, the first exception regarding the confinement of Supreme Court judicial oaths ending with "So help me God" did not occur until the outbreak of the Civil War.