Last Best Hope of Earth

Tag: Early Republic

  • An Outraged America

    capitol_building
    The United States Capitol Building, showing damage inflicted by the British during the War of 1812.

    In March 1816, Congress passed a Compensation Act, “which raised the pay of congressmen from six dollars per diem to a salary of fifteen hundred dollars a year.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 718-19. This was the first raise in the pay for congressmen since 1789. Id. at 719.

    Robert Wright, a Congressman in 1816, and previously a United States Senator, said that in the old days, congressmen “lived like gentlemen, and enjoyed a glass of generous wine, which cannot be afforded at this time for the present compensation.” Id. quoting C. Edward Skeen, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei: The Compensation Act of 1816 and the Rise of Popular Politics,” JER, 6 (1986), 259-60.

    Rather quickly, analysts and the public realized that Congress had effectively doubled its pay. Kentucky congressman Richard M. Johnson concluded that the Compensation Act brought more discontent than any other law up to that point in history. Thomas Jefferson agreed with him. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 719. Jefferson’s popularity amongst his fellow Republicans soared, as they all “resented paying taxes to pay for what seemed to be the high salaries of their public officials.” Id. citing Thomas Jefferson to De Meunier, 29 April 1795, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., The Works of Thomas Jefferson: Federal Edition (New York, 1904), 8: 174.

    The public made their outrage known. There were public meetings throughout the country, there were publications strongly criticizing Congress for its work, and in Georgia, “opponents even burned the members of Congress in effigy.” Id. at 719-20 citing Skeen, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” JER, 6 (1986), 261.

    Congress’ reputation took a bit hit. Then, “[i]n the fall elections of 1816 nearly 70 percent of the Fourteenth Congress was not returned to the Fifteenth Congress.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 720.

    The ordeal with the Compensation Act of 1816 was the first hint of what was to come with Americans’ behavior and perspective toward the actions of their government. Accountability became paramount. Participation became mandatory.

    It seemed clear that the days were over of the government being separate from the people and conducting its business in a sort of vacuum. Americans were taking matters into their own hands and sending a clear message to elected officials: do what is best for the country and its people, or you will not be re-elected.

    This is a message that is reinforced continually in American history, up to the present day. But many modern Americans may take for granted that it was not always the case. The acts of the early Americans, particularly in reaction to the Compensation Act of 1816, ensured that the country would develop opinions about the government, which in turn would lead to accountability. That accountability has inevitably served to perpetuate the health and wellbeing of the Republic.

  • The Emerging Middle Class and Entrepreneurial Spirit

    16a
    Albert Gallatin.

    Albert Gallatin knew as early as 1799 that the United States “had become commercially and socially different from the former mother country” England. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 704. At that time, Gallatin was a Congressman, but he would later serve as Secretary of the Treasury from 1801 to 1814.

    In realizing that America was different, he said that Britain had “trades and occupations” that were “so well distinguished that a merchant and a farmer are rarely combined in the same person; a merchant is a merchant and nothing but a merchant; a manufacturer is only a manufacturer; a farmer is merely a farmer; but this is not the case in this country.” Id. at 704-05 quoting Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3rd session (Jan. 1799), 9: 2650.

    He said that if one were to venture into the middle of America, that individual would “scarcely find a farmer who is not, to some degree, a trader. In a grazing part of the country, you will find them buying and selling cattle; in other parts you will find them distillers, tanners, or brick-makers. So that, from one end of the United States to the other, the people are generally traders.” Annals of Congress, 5th Congress, 3rd session (Jan. 1799), 9: 2650.

    This meant that Thomas Jefferson’s dream of Americans being a nation of agriculture and avoiding the industrialization that Europe had experienced was not a dream to be realized, even after the transformative War of 1812.

    While this may have been troubling to Jefferson, Gallatin’s observations showed that Americans were developing a collective entrepreneurial spirit. Trading became an integral part of the American economy.

    Part of this was inevitably by necessity, where some had to supplement their income by engaging in trading that perhaps they did not have experience in. On the other hand, part of this change from England must have been that there was a wealth of natural resources and a middle class emerging in America.

    This early development after the War of 1812 should sound familiar to most modern Americans. First, although the middle class may change in size and wealth generation-by-generation, it has continually existed since the early Republic. Second, and most notably, Americans still carry an entrepreneurial spirit with them. Many would cite that entrepreneurial spirit for the success of America. It is certainly a factor.

  • The War of 1812

    jackson_neworleans
    Painting of the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

    The War of 1812 is often a forgotten war in modern times. It was a war that tested the Americans’ resolve in staying an independent nation and ultimately a war that brought together Americans in a way that no previous event had. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 699.

    It was also a war that brought about seemingly unusual events, particularly in retrospect. For example, the Americans, led by William Hull, planned and attempted a three-pronged attack on Canada. Id. at 677. Then, perhaps even stranger, the governor of Massachusetts entered into negotiations “with the British, offering part of Maine in return for an end to the war.” Id. at 693.

    Ultimately, the British invaded the United States and made an unexpected march directly on Washington, burning much of it to the ground. That was the extent of damage in America, however, and both countries entered into negotiations of a peace treaty. President James Madison led the way in negotiating a treaty with Britain, the Treaty of Ghent, which would peacefully end the war. Id. at 697.

    President Madison, a Jeffersonian Republican, conducted himself with the logic that it was better “to allow the country to be invaded and the capital burned than to build up state power in a European monarchical manner.” Id. at 698. Madison’s skillful handling of the war would result in 57 “towns and counties throughout the United States” being named after him, “more than any other president.” Id. at 699 citing Forrest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State (New York, 2007), 350. John Adams told Thomas Jefferson in 1817 that Madison had “acquired more glory, and established more Union than all his three Predecessors, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, put together.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 699 quoting John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 2 Feb. 1817, in Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Chapel Hill, 1959), 2: 508.

    Thomas Jefferson concluded in 1818 that “[o]ur government is now so firmly put on its republican tack that it will not be easily monarchised by forms.” Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 23 Nov. 1818, in Gilbert Chinard, ed., The Letters of Lafayette and Jefferson (Baltimore, 1929), 396.

    The War of 1812 has many quirks, as discussed above but perhaps most notably was the Battle of New Orleans, which took place after the Treaty of Ghent was signed but before word had reached the whole country. The Battle of New Orleans, led on the American side by Andrew Jackson, inflicted massive casualties to the British. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 698.

    Of course, the Star Spangled Banner was also a byproduct of the War of 1812 as well.

    As forgotten as the War of 1812 may be, it had significant consequences for the future of the country. America became a unified country, with the collective hardship of fighting the British twice creating a bond between Americans that would be strong, even if short-lived. It also was a war that illustrated the Republican principles of Madison and Jefferson could be successful. This set the stage for Republican dominance in politics, which was already underway by the time the War of 1812 began.

    While the Civil War would eventually come to define the 19th Century for America, with its horrific nature and result of keeping the country united, the War of 1812 ensured that there was an America worth fighting for. Had the War of 1812 not occurred, perhaps the Civil War would have been waged differently and perhaps the course of American history would have had a noticeable absence of patriotism. While it is impossible to predict, the wise decisions of American leaders in those tumultuous years and those who fought for their young country give modern Americans much to be thankful for.

  • Everyone’s Tax Policy

    Portrait of John Eppes.

    Amidst the War of 1812, the Republicans passed a tax law “which included a direct tax on land, a duty on imported salt, and excise taxes on stills, retailers, auction sales, sugar carriages, and negotiable paper. All these taxes, however, were not to go into effect until the beginning of 1814.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 684.

    One Virginian congressman wisely concluded that “everyone is for taxing every body, except himself and his Constituents.” Id. citing Donald R. Hickey, The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (Urbana, IL, 1989), 122. It is believed that this quote is attributable to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman John Eppes. Bill White, Barron’s, Pay It All, and Pay it Quickly, Feb. 13, 2015, available at http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB51367578116875004693704580454041219159332.

    While this was during the War of 1812 and was undoubtedly true then, it is a prescient quote and universally applicable. Taxation has consistently been viewed as an evil necessity by many and a necessity that should be imposed on others, not themselves. While this perspective is only natural for self-preservation, it is one that is dangerous for the future generations of Americans.

    Taxation has always played a unique role in American society, beginning with the British taxes on America’s colonial goods, which were viewed as crippling the colonial economy unnecessarily. Taxation was later viewed as an impediment on growth and an unnecessary burden on finances.

    Modern policymakers would do well to remember that taxation is a tool to place a burden on future generations without necessity and without justification. The temptation to act in conformance with populist beliefs should not prevent policymakers from confronting the uncomfortable truth: taxation is necessary to preserve the society that all Americans should enjoy.

    While the appropriate taxation rate is always up for debate and will always be debated, the burden of taxation should be fairly apportioned to all generations of Americans, so as to ensure that revenues are raised consistently to provide the services and necessities to all Americans for the foreseeable future of the country.

  • Gearing up for the War of 1812

    Depiction of the Battle of Lake Erie.

    In large part, the War of 1812 was brought about by necessity but also by politics.

    In terms of necessity, the British were executing a policy of impressment where the British would inspect American ships for contraband or material support for the French. America’s foreign policy adopted in reaction to these events was to create commercial warfare through trading, bringing the conflict to a head. In terms of politics, however, the Republicans saw the likely potential of war as a second war for independence and a defense of republicanism. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 669. On the other side of the aisle, the Federalists, such as Alexander Hanson of Maryland, welcomed the war believing that the Republicans would mismanage the war “so to discredit their party and bring the Federalists back into power.” Id.

    Despite the oncoming war, the Republicans were aware that the country’s military was not prepared for a war, much less with one of the world’s supreme powers: Great Britain. In 1807, the Republicans strengthened the army and navy, but in 1810, the Republicans questioned themselves and did not further strengthen the military. Id. at 671. John Taylor, a Republican senator, stated that armies and navies “only serve to excite wars, squander money, and extend corruptions.” Id.

    Ultimately, the army was expanded prior to the war but the navy was not, for fear that its permanent establishment was unnecessary and would only endanger the longevity of the Republic. There was a large group of Republicans “who in the early months of 1812 voted against all attempts to arm and prepare the navy, who opposed all efforts to beef up the War Department, who rejected all tax increases, and yet who in June 1812 voted for the war.” Id. at 672.

    These years prior to the War of 1812 reflect the early Americans’ desire to not just proclaim independence but prove that independence and not take the risk of being viewed as a client state of England. The war was not inevitable, but it became so when the Republicans so strongly opposed impressment by the British and created a foreign policy of disrupting the commerce of England. The war was not necessary for the short term health of the United States, as England and France were embroiled in a long war that left America to be a secondary concern.

    But for the long term health of the United States, the War of 1812 was absolutely necessary. America needed to become a country unto itself, capable of asserting its presence and becoming a leader in the world. If it had not taken a strong stance against England, there was a serious danger that one of two things would happen: England, after its war with France, would invade the United States to take back “the colonies” or America would always be seen as England’s brash client state.

    The Republicans, although disorganized in executing their policies, effectively preserved the long term wellbeing of the United States in bringing on the War of 1812. But that would only become clear after significant casualties, damage, and perseverance.

  • Setting the Stage for the War of 1812

    Landscape Painting of Georgia.

    In the early Republic, trading became a staple of the American economy, which affected American relations with other countries in drastic ways.

    American merchants “brought home products from Canton, China, and ports in the Indian Ocean, including teas, coffee, chinaware, spices, and silks, before shipping them on to Europe . . . .” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 623. America imported goods from Europe only to export them to “the West Indies, South America, and elsewhere.” Id. However, perhaps most surprisingly, between 1795 and 1805, “American trade with India was greater than that of all the European nations combined.” Id. citing Ted Widmer, Ark of the Liberties: America and the World (New York, 2008), 66.

    Much of this trading arose out of the fact that America had not transformed into a purely industrial, manufacturing economy as much of Europe had during this time period. Rather, many Americans maintained their farming and picked up trading and other practices to make virtually all Americans participants in a massive national and international economic system. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 627. These changes had domestic political implications, with the Republicans satisfied with the economic system and the Federalists believing it was an underachieving system. Id.

    The Republicans wanted to raise America’s status in the world, rather than solely focus on the state of the economy like the Federalists. Id. at 629. The Republicans wanted to create a system that prevented war from occurring and would also make America a recognized force to be reckoned with on the international stage. Id.

    Republicans ultimately took actions that surprised other countries’ officials. For example, the Republicans replaced diplomatic missions with consuls who handled international trade. A Russian official commented that Americans were “singular,” and wanted “commercial ties without political ties,” which was widely considered an impossibility at the time. Id. at 632 citing Irving Brant, James Madison: The President, 1809-1812 (Indianapolis, 1956), 69.

    These actions by the early Americans were largely intended to distinguish America as a player on the international stage. Perhaps out of a desire to show the world that America was not England and certainly was its own country who had its own policies, the Republicans underwent this course of action, much to the chagrin of the English and to some other government officials.

    The Americans were eager to distinguish themselves and to build an economy that was sustainable. The ongoing war between Napoleonic France and England partially allowed America to use its resources to build its trade routes and grow its economy.

    Some may look to these events as some of the earliest examples of American exceptionalism, which would perhaps be a keen observation. These early years of the Republic would ultimately set the stage for the War of 1812, but for the time being, Americans would have been content knowing that the economy was growing, trade was blossoming, and they were building the new country.

  • Ubiquitous But Controlled Religion

    Thanksgiving. By: Jennie Augusta Brownscombe. (1914)

    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 Founding Fathers’ Religious Beliefs

    Thomas Jefferson Seated at His Desk. By: Gilbert Stuart, 1805.

    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.

  • The Symbolism of the Early Republic

    The Great Seal of the United States, as depicted on the one-dollar note.

    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.

  • An Educated Society

    Charles Peale in his Museum.

    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.