To fully understand the magnitude and impact of the American Revolution, context is crucial. While the Enlightenment was the process of society learning “the sources of a flourishing society and human happiness,” the Revolution was the process of finding the best form of government perhaps the world has ever known. See Gordon Wood, The Idea of America: Reflections on the Birth of the United States, 59.
At the beginning of the 1800s, the American economy was becoming an unconventionally successful economy. Domestic commerce was “incalculably more valuable” than foreign commerce and “the home market for productions of the earth and manufactures is of more importance than all foreign ones.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 707 quoting Nathan Miller, The Enterprise of a Free People: Aspects of Economic Development in New York State During the Canal Period, 1792-1838 (Ithaca, 1962), 42.
Meanwhile, a middle class was emerging in the United States. In the 1780s, Benjamin Franklin predicted “the almost mediocrity of fortune that prevails in America . . . [made] its people to follow some business for subsistence,” which made the United States “the land of labor.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 709 quoting Benjamin Franklin, “Information to Those Who Would Remove to America” (1784), Franklin: Writings, 975-83. This new middle class was gaining “a powerful moral hegemony over the society, especially in the North.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 709.
Both Benjamin Franklin and J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur hoped a society could exist that lacked “both an aristocracy and a lower class.” Id. at 711. As Charles Ingersoll observed in 1810, “Were it not for the slaves of the south, there would be one rank.” Id. quoting Charles Jared Ingersoll, Inchiquin, the Jesuit’s Letters (1810), in Gordon S. Wood, ed., The Rising Glory of America, 1760-1820 (New York, 1971), 387.
These developments would lead to some to conclude that the Americans in the North were “probably the happiest people upon the earth.” J.M. Opal, Beyond the Farm: National Ambitions in Rural New England (Philadelphia, 2008), 135, 136.
These early years of the Republic, where prosperity was so widely spread that a seemingly universal middle class existed is of course a bit of an exaggeration in that there were poor and rich segments of society. But, on the other hand, the fact that so many individuals during that time commented on the subject reflects that it was a phenomenon occurring. A more cohesive, more uniform society was emerging. It was a society free from the highest highs and lowest lows that had come to characterize Europe.
Since those early years, there has been a fluctuation in the strength and size of the middle class. One thing has not changed, however. The notion of a prosperous middle class has come to be an aspiration for all Americans. The early aspirations of Benjamin Franklin and other Founding Fathers transformed this dream into a reality. That reality is one that Americans hope to carry forward for many generations to come.
The United States, as the 18th Century transitioned into the 19th Century, introduced to the world a host of ideas and beliefs that strayed from the Enlightenment period. The North American Review, in 1816, concluded that America was unlike any other country “in the points of greatness, complexity, and the number of its relations.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 721 citing North American Review, 3 (1816), 345-47.
America was also becoming the standard bearer for progress. The principles emerging in society emanated from the people themselves, “free from all sorts of artificial restraints, especially those imposed by government.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 721 citing Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (New York, 1992), 360.
One example of the shift away from the ideals of the Enlightenment period is Dr. Benjamin Rush’s work “in seeking the universal theory that would purge medicine of its complexities and mysteries.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 725. He believed that the Old World’s medicine could be “sufficiently simplified and republicanized” so that all members of society would be capable of treating themselves. Id. He carried the simplification to the furthest logical extent possible: that all diseases came down to fever, “caused by convulsive tension in the blood vessels,” which could only be treated by blood-letting. Id.
Obviously, this extrapolation of American thinking applied to the medical field was a colossal failure. However, it showed the extent of the permeation of American ideals into society. Even the most closely held beliefs, or the sturdiest foundations underlying society, were questioned by Americans.
This was a crucial, if unintentional, development for the United States. Rather than tailor American society and institutions to those of Europe or anywhere else for that matter, Americans tailored the society to its people.
This people-centered approach would reap rewards for the coming centuries of Americans. Institutions, norms, and the government would all bend to the will of the people. That responsiveness has ensured that the government is able to adapt to the changing times, which is just one prerequisite for any country to survive over the course of two tumultuous centuries.
In the early 1800s, America underwent a campaign of infrastructure building. The building of new roads, bridges, and canals were done in a spirit of “national grandeur and individual convenience.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 730 quoting Charles G. Haines, Considerations on the Great Western Canal (Brooklyn, 1818), 11.
In 1806, Samuel Blodgett, an economist and architect, concluded that commerce held together the Americans. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 730. Blodgett believed that commerce was “the most sublime gift of heaven, wherewith to harmonize and enlarge society.” Id. quoting Samuel Blodgett, Economica: A Statistical Manual for the United States of America (Washington, DC, 1806), 102.
Blodgett believed that if America were to surpass Europe, it could not be done with the policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. Id. Instead, it had to be done with the Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson. Id. Blodgett believed that only the Republican policies had the “capacity to further the material welfare of” America’s citizens. Id. citing Samuel Blodgett, Economica: A Statistical Manual for the United States of America (Washington, DC, 1806), 102.
If commerce is the “most sublime gift of heaven,” as Blodgett said, then the manifestation of commerce in the United States as being carried out with the spirit of “national grandeur and individual convenience” is the reason that America has economically surpassed the individual states of Europe. Since the days of the early Republic, Americans have taken actions that both contributed to their individual benefit and have had the aggregate effect of creating national grandeur.
In this sense, America has distinguished itself both historically and currently from other countries. Many countries, for example the Soviet Union in the past and China currently, have attempted to create national grandeur not through individual innovation but through government involvement. In doing so, those other countries have created the facade of success and grandeur that they hope to achieve. That is not to say that those countries have not developed sophisticated, successful economies. But the sustainability of those countries’ economies is debatable.
One of America’s best qualities is that it has had prolonged economic success. Of course, there have been tumultuous times, like the Great Depression, and the so-called “Great Recession” and the panics and scares that are all but forgotten in modern times.
However, America from the earliest days has encouraged individual success through its institutions, its culture, and its laws. The American people have believed in that opportunity and have taken risks, worked hard, and created an economy characterized by its national grandeur. Preserving the institutions, culture, and laws that foster such grandeur is crucial for America’s continued success.
In the early Republic, religion took on a new role in society. In some segments of American society, religion became fervent. For example, in Cane Ridge, Kentucky in 1801, dozens of ministers of different denominations congregated with approximately 15,000-20,000 in a week-long conversion session. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 596. Amongst the “heat, the noise, and the confusion” were ministers, sometimes six preaching at a time, shouting “sermons from wagons and tree stumps.” Id. Many in the crowd “fell to the ground moaning and wailing in remorse; and they sang, laughed, barked, rolled, and jerked in excitement.” Id.
Meanwhile, the states took varying approaches to dealing with religion in government. New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia “required officeholders to be Protestant,” while “Maryland and Delaware [required] Christians,” while “Pennsylvania and Souther Carolina officials had to believe in one God and in heaven and hell,” while “Delaware required a belief in the Trinity.” Id. at 583 citing James H. Smylie, “Protestant Clergy, the First Amendment and Beginnings of a Constitutional Debate, 1781-91,” in Elwyn A. Smith, The Religion of the Republic (Philadelphia, 1971), 117.
On the federal level, the Constitution of course provided protection for individuals to freely exercise their religion and also prohibited laws respecting an establishment of religion. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment. In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment created a “wall of separation between church and state.” Thomas Jefferson to Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, 1 Jan. 1802, Jefferson: Writings, 510.
The role that religion would ultimately play in American society was not clear in the early years of the Republic. The hysteria that surrounded some of the religious ceremonies like described in Cane Ridge made clear that religion would play a central role to many. Thomas Jefferson, and the drafters of the Constitution realized that while religion may play a central role to the lives of many Americans, it could neither be endorsed nor prohibited by the government.
This careful move by the Founding Fathers ensured that while religion would be freely exercised and even ubiquitous in society, it would not be a democracy characterized by religion and certainly not a theocracy. The system embraced individual freedom and excluded government involvement where unnecessary. Fortunately, this system has largely been preserved by subsequent generations of Americans. Current and future public officials would do well to ignore any populist notions of the role religion should play in society and be keen on preserving the status quo of this effective system.
The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers may serve as a surprise to some modern Americans. However, it is important to put into context that the Founding Fathers lived in an era that was not filled with the religious fervor that would become commonplace in the 1800s. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 576.
Thomas Jefferson hated “the clergy and organized religion.” Id. at 577. He said that the Trinity was “Abracadabra” and “hocus-pocus . . . so incomprehensible to the human mind that no candid man can say he has any idea of it,” and thus, ridiculing it was the best option. Id. quoting Thomas Jefferson to Horatio Spafford, 17 Mar. 1814, to James Smith, 8 Dec. 1822, in James H. Hutson, ed., The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations (Princeton, 2005), 68, 218.
Benjamin Franklin also appeared to harbor at least some dissension about religion, as he advised a friend in 1786 to not publish “anything attacking traditional Christianity” as “[he] that spits against the wind . . . spits in his own face.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 589. Franklin was keenly aware of the fact that Thomas Paine had “destroyed his reputation” by writing “scathing comments about Christianity in his Age of Reason (1794).” Id. citing Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794), in Eric Foner, ed., Thomas Paine: Collected Writings (Library of America, 1995), 825.
George Washington, however, “had no deep dislike of organized religion or of the clergy as long as they contributed to civic life.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 585. In fact, during the Revolutionary War, “he had required all troops to attend religious services and had prescribed a public whipping for anyone disturbing those services.” Gordon Wood, Revolutionary Characters: What Made the Founders Different (New York, 2006), 35; Forrest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle over Church and State (New York, 2007), 36.
Underlying these early views was a key concept: the early American public would not tolerate its individuals, in government or not, undermining the sanctity of religion. Thomas Paine’s alienation, after his massive success of Common Sense highlights this fact.
It should also be noted that there were varying views about religion amongst the Founding Fathers. This diverse group of interests would ensure that the early Republic would not become a purely religious nation and not a purely secular nation.
As is evident in so many areas of American history, and world history for that matter, where diverse interests converge and the byproduct is moderation, success is much more likely. The role of religion in America was passed through this filter of moderation, which has ebbed and flowed for the past two centuries but has remained somewhere near the middle of the two options. That moderation has prevented religion from becoming a significant, schismatizing issue.
In 1807, Congress passed the Embargo Act at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson. The Embargo Act “prohibited the departure of all American ships in international trade.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 649. Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin doubted the effectiveness of the embargo on preventing the oncoming confrontation with the battling European behemoths of France and England. Id. at 650. Gallatin predicted that the embargo could result in “privations, sufferings, revenue, effect on the enemy, [and] politics at home . . . .” Id.
Gallatin advocated for war, rather than the embargo. Id. at 651. He realized one of the greatest truths of government: “momentous actions by governments often had unanticipated consequences.” Id. In support of that point, he told President Jefferson that “governmental prohibitions do always more mischief than had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it better than themselves.” Id. quoting Gallatin to Thomas Jefferson, 18 Dec. 1807, in Henry Adams, ed., The Writings of Albert Gallatin (Philadelphia, 1879), 1: 368.
Gallatin’s prescient words were wise at the time, as the embargo precipitated the War of 1812. However, his words also ring true throughout history. There are numerous examples throughout American history where momentous decisions led America down a path of unexpected, and often avoidable, consequences. Some may look to the 20th Century and 21st Century’s Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
There have been even more recent exemplifications of this principle. Most recently, Western Europe and the United States imposed economic sanctions on Russia. It was a momentous decision with unanticipated consequences: the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Ukraine.
Leaders, American and otherwise, should heed the words of Gallatin. Momentous decisions are inevitable, and not all consequences are knowable, but where consequences are predictable, leaders should be aware of the potential for mitigating the negative effects of those momentous decisions.
In the earliest years of the Republic, the Founding Fathers sought to design the symbols and designs that would characterize the United States. One of the most prominent symbols of the early Republic is the Great Seal of the United States. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams all tried to design the Great Seal. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 554.
Benjamin Franklin proposed “a biblical scene, that of Moses” dividing the Red Sea. Id. Jefferson also wanted a depiction of a biblical scene, “the Children of Israel in the Wilderness.” Id. Adams, however, “proposed Hercules surveying the choice between Virtue and Sloth, the most popular of emblems in the eighteen century.” Id.
Ultimately, Congress gave the job of designing the Great Seal to Charles Thomson, who designed the Great Seal familiar to all Americans. The eagle “on one side was a symbol of empire.” Id. The pyramid “represented the strength of the new nation,” and the “all-seeing eye on the reverse stood for providence.” Id.
The Latin mottoes also brought meaning to the new Republic. Novus Ordo Seclorum means “a new order of the ages,” and Annuit Coeptis means “He has looked after us.” These mottoes were taken from Virgil, the ancient Roman poet. Id. citing Frank H. Sommer, “Emblem and Device: The Origin of the Great Seal of the United States,” Art Quarterly, 24 (1961), 57-77; Steven C. Bullock, “‘Sensible Signs’: The Emblematic Education of Post-Revolutionary Freemasonry,” in Donald R. Kennon, ed., A Republic for the Ages: The United States Capitol and the Political Culture of the Early Republic (Charlottesville, 1999), 203, 210.
Meanwhile, others, like Jefferson, oversaw completion of buildings reminiscent of the ancient Roman buildings of many centuries ago. He sought to make the Virginia capitol building to be a copy of the Maison Carrée, an ancient Roman temple from the first century. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 558. Jefferson believed that buildings modeled after ancient Rome would “improve the taste of my countrymen, to increase their reputation, and to reconcile to them the respect of the world, and procure them its praise.” Thomas Jefferson to William Buchanan and James Hay, 26 Jan. 1786, to James Madison, 20 Sept. 1785, Papers of Jefferson, 9: 220-22, 8: 534-35.
These early actions by the Founding Fathers inform modern students of history, and modern Americans generally, of the grandeur and splendor that the Founding Fathers hoped America would enjoy. The Founding Fathers understood that the creation of the Republic provided the greatest hope for the country, and perhaps the world, to be the most well-functioning, egalitarian society since ancient Rome.
The aspirations of the Founding Fathers for America must have helped Americans to propel the country ahead of others and to maintain its stature. The Founding Fathers began the narrative that America was destined for greatness. While those beginnings were modest, and much turmoil was to unfold over the course of the young country’s history, Americans will recognize that those symbols of centuries ago and the accompanying mottoes are not just meaningless symbols. They are symbols that remind all Americans of the humble, hopeful beginning of the United States.
Charles Willson Peale was an “artist, politician, scientist, tinker, and showman,” who was one of the leaders in enhancing civic society. Namely, he created a museum, which he said was to promote “the interests of religion and morality by the arrangement and display of the works of nature and art.” Lillian B. Miller, Patrons and Patriotism: The Encouragement of the Fine Arts in the United States, 1790-1860 (Chicago, 1966), 90.
Peale first opened the museum in 1786 with his brother James Peale, and the museum had paintings, fossils, stuffed birds, stuffed wild animals, and a “miniature theater with transparent moving pictures.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 556. It served as a contrast to the European museums of the day, which were only open to “select or privileged groups befitting Europe’s hierarchal societies . . . .” Id. Peale opened the museum to all who were able to pay the twenty-five cent admission. Id. He decided that if it were free, it would be abused and not appreciated, and if it were too expensive, not enough of the public would be able to enjoy it. Id.
Peale’s museum enjoyed great success, “attracting nearly forty thousand visitors a year,” by 1815. Id. citing David C. Ward, Charles Willson Peale: Art and Selfhood in the Early Republic (Berkeley, 2004), 103-04.
Peale’s museum fit into the greater spirit of the early Republic’s approach to art and education for the public. Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans encouraged “[a]nything that might inspire patriotic and republican sentiments, such as viewing Washington’s statue or one of his many portraits,” and criticized anything European. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 557.
Further, and perhaps most notably, many Republicans, including Jefferson, began naming areas after the names of Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece. Id. Jefferson himself proposed naming new states in the Western United States various classical names, such as “Assenisipia, Pelisipia, and Cherronesus.” Id.
It is clear from these developments that early Americans were anxious to make a society separate from Europe but reminiscent of the ancient civilizations that laid the foundation for America to exist. Much of this sentiment carries forward to today. As close as Europe was and continues to be culturally, politically, and economically, America has always had a desire to be different. Peale’s museum is just one manifestation of that desire.
Peale’s museum also helped foster an environment in America where learning was accessible and desirable. One of the key underpinnings of the early Republican ideals was that Americans should be informed, educated, and have a thirst for knowledge. Peale’s museum created a model for other museums, all of which permitted the common American to live up to those ideals of the Republicans.
These early actions by Peale, Jefferson, and others planted the seeds for a more robust, healthy society, capable of sustaining the Republic for an unprecedented period of time. So far, so good.
Throughout the development of early civil society in America, the familiar infrastructure to contemporary Americans rapidly developed. For example, as a result of new postal roads and turnpikes throughout the country, the postal system was able to achieve remarkable speeds for the time. For example, in 1790, “it had taken more than a month for news to travel from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia . . . .” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 479. Just four years later, the time was reduced to ten days. Id.
This improvement in the postal system would have a resulting effect on the proliferation of newspapers throughout America. Congress’s Post Office Act of 1792 ensured low rates for the mailing of newspapers, by virtue of letter-writers effectively subsidizing the postage for newspapers. Id.
This proliferation of newspapers created a widespread access to information, from small towns to big cities, and it did so rather quickly. For example, “[i]n 1800 the postal system transmitted 1.9 million newspapers a year; by 1820 it was transmitting 6 million a year.” Id. citing Richard R. John, Spreading the News: The American Postal System from Franklin to Morse (Cambridge, MA, 1995), 36-42.
Newspapers became an American obsession. During George Washington’s presidency, the entire country had 92 newspapers, but by 1810, there were sales in excess of 22 million copies of 376 newspapers annually, the “largest aggregate circulation of newspapers of any country in the world.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 479 citing Alfred M. Lee, The Daily Newspaper in America (New York, 1937), 715-17; Frank Luther Mott, American Journalism: A History of American Newspapers in the United States Through 250 Years, 1690-1940 (New York, 1941), 159, 167; Merle Curti, The Growth of American Thought, 3rd ed. (New York, 1964), 209; Donald H. Stewart, The Opposition Press of the Federalist Period (Albany, 1969), 15, 624.
The fear that many of the Founding Fathers held that Americans would become as ignorant as their English counterparts, leading to all of the plaguing problems of government and society that ignorance brings, quickly proved to be an unfounded fear. Americans had a thirst for knowledge and were eager to get access to the crucial medium of the newspaper.
This thirst for knowledge has continued to today. As discussed in The Newspaper Revolution, Americans now enjoy the privilege of accessing many forms of media, all of which contain a volume of information that cannot all be feasibly read and understood. Setting aside the allegations of bias that many have about modern media, which surely has always permeated media to varying extents, this access to knowledge is undoubtedly crucial for the continuation of the Republic and the health of the democracy of America.
It allows any individual to learn what is happening in the world and to adopt positions regarding both domestic and foreign policy, which presumably will lead to a more informed decision in elections and more active participation in politics and discourse of issues.
The thirst of the early Americans for knowledge and information about what was happening in the world, combined with the early government’s understanding that a robust infrastructure was necessary for the dissemination of information (and travel), allowed for the development of the society we recognize today. As is clear from modern society, Americans are certainly obsessed with media, whether they enjoy it, attack it, or just simply listen to it.
Last Best Hope of Earth 