Last Best Hope of Earth

Tag: Republicans

  • 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 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.

  • 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.

  • Early American Punishment

    Eastern State Penitentiary, 1820s. By: The Library Company of Philadelphia.

    By the time the United States declared its independence, capital punishment was common for murder, robbery, forgery, housebreaking, and counterfeiting. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 492. Some states had as many as two dozen crimes designated for capital punishment. Id. Further, “[e]xecution of the condemned criminals were conducted in public, and they drew thousands of spectators.” Id.

    The early Republicans, including Thomas Jefferson, formulated a new approach to punishment that was more proportionate to the crimes. There were some who looked at capital punishment and believed it was too harsh for the crimes being committed, however, these early Americans would hardly be seen as compassionate, by today’s terms. Jefferson proposed the law of retaliation, lex talionis, meaning “the state would poison the criminal who poisoned the victim and would castrate men guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy.” Id. at 493 citing Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crime and Punishments in Cases Heretofore Capital (1776-1786), Papers of Jefferson, 2: 492-507.

    Pennsylvania was one state that led the way in more humane forms of punishment, sure not to violate the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Pennsylvania, throughout the 1780s and 1790s enacted laws that “abolished all bodily punishments such as burning in the hand and cutting off the ears and ended the death penalty for all crimes except murder.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 493 (internal quotations omitted).

    Ultimately, these developments led to the development of the penitentiary, a uniquely American concept that is ubiquitous in contemporary American society. A British traveler in 1806, observing an American penitentiary commented that the penitentiary is “happily adapted to the genius of the government of the country, mild, just, and merciful.” Id. at 495.

    Nonetheless, these early years of the development of the criminal justice system carry many legacies forward to today. The federal government and 31 states still allow capital punishment, however, it is considerably more rare than the earliest days of the Republic, as described. The movement toward more lenient punishment has been embraced by parts of Europe and other parts of the world, who have seemed to conclude that capital punishment does not serve as a strong enough deterrent to be relied on and is too humane to be justified.

    Americans have strong views on the subject, which are divisive and often debated. Even in the campaign for 2016, Hillary Clinton has made comments about capital punishment, which has divided Democratic supporters. New York Times, Death Penalty Could Provide Debate Fodder for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Oct. 30, 2015, available at http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/30/death-penalty-could-provide-debate-fodder-for-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders/?_r=0.

    One thing is clear, however: America has deep roots in using capital punishment. Some will always believe that reforming criminals is impossible, whether that is because of mental illness, environmental factors, or otherwise. Others believe that reformation is possible for anybody, citing the numerous examples of criminals who reformed themselves while in prison to go on and do extraordinary things with their lives.

    Regardless of where most individuals fall on that spectrum of justification, capital punishment continues to exist in a limited set of circumstances. Other punishments have been abandoned in favor of imprisoning criminals. As policymakers grapple with these issues, remembering the beginnings of punishment in America and the ineffective nature of those harsh punishments would likely be valuable.

  • Tyranny Founded on Ignorance

    Grammar School in 1790s. By: Granger.

    The early Republic were the years where American civil society was developing its own distinctive character. One component of that civil society was the newly created educational institutions, which many early Americans viewed as one of the safeguards against the dangerous ignorance that was supposed to allow a monarchy to continue.

    For example, Simeon Doggett stated in Discourse on Education “that the mode of government in any nation will always be moulded by the state of education. The throne of tyranny is founded on ignorance. Literature and liberty go hand in hand.” Simeon Doggett, Discourse on Education (1797), in Frederick Rudolph, ed., Essays on Education in the Early Republic (Cambridge, MA, 1965), 155-56.

    These ideals were captured in Massachusetts’ constitution: “Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue diffused generally among the people . . . [are] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.”

    Thomas Jefferson was also a proponent of these ideals, and he developed a plan for the education system in Virginia in the 1779 Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge. In this bill, he proposed a “three-tiered pyramid of local education. At the base would be three years of free elementary schools for all white children, boys and girls. The next level offered twenty regional academies with free tuition for selected boys . . . Finally, the state would support the best ten needy academic students at the university level, the aristocracy of talent that he described as ‘the most precious gift of nature.’” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 473 quoting Dumas Malone, Jefferson the Virginian (Boston, 1948), 282-83.

    While Jefferson’s system, and other similar systems dreamed up by intellectuals, ultimately were not implemented in their imagined forms, it set the groundwork for the familiar system we know today to be created in the late 1800s. See Daniel Walker Howe, Church, State, and Education in the Young American Republic, JER, 22 (2002), 1-24.

    The early Republicans imagined a universal education system throughout the country that would provide high quality education but notably only for white children. This backward thinking unfortunately characterized many of the early Americans, who had no regard for minorities. Despite that shortcoming, many of the Republicans’ dreams for the educational system in the country came to fruition.

    While the American education system has come under intense scrutiny and questioned for its position in the world, the early ideals of having an informed, educated population raised from a young age has generally come true. Most importantly, it may be debatable, but most would agree that the widespread ignorance that permitted tyranny in the late 1700s has all but disappeared.

  • Early American Behavior

    Simon Snyder.

    Americans in the late 1700s were “known for pushing and shoving each other in public and for their dread of ceremony.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 329. Further, violence, rioting, and demonstrations in America had become commonplace, more than in England. See id. at 335-36. Some blamed this uniquely American behavior as being caused by an excessively alcohol-centered culture. By way of example, Gordon Wood explains in Empire of Liberty that during a trial in court, “a bottle of liquor might be passed among the attorneys, spectators, clients, and the judge and jury.” Id. at 340.

    These early American behaviors changed the nature of politics. Republicans began to realize that the dream of a Republic full of virtuous, compassionate individuals who would sacrifice their wellbeing for those of their compatriots was not coming true. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 329.

    Common Americans began to want unpretentious men for politicians, which some took as troubling. When some attempted to mock those politicians who were unpretentious and unrefined, the majority of individuals would crowd out the naysayers. For example, Simon Snyder was elected governor of Pennsylvania in 1808, and insisted in not having an honor guard at his inauguration because he did not want the “pomp and parade,” which he felt was un-democratic. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 331. Opponents mocked him, calling his followers clodhoppers as an insult, however, him and his supporters took that term and reversed it, treating it as a badge of honor.

    To illustrate the new American mentality even further, while in the 1700s men had worn colorful, varied clothing, in the 1800s men came to dress alike with “black coats and pantaloons,” so as to be equal with all other men. Id. at 332.

    Since those early days of “wild American behavior,” much has changed. The days of passing around liquor bottles in court are certainly gone. But the sense of having a truly democratic society, as Simon Snyder preferred, has not changed. When an inauguration occurs, whether at the state level or the federal level, there are traditions that have developed over the past two centuries. However, these traditions fall short of anything close to the monarchical traditions of Europe at the time of Simon Snyder.

    Setting aside the fact that Americans have apparently had a reputation for violence from the beginning, it is interesting to note that Americans have tightly held to the belief that a modest Republic is possible to maintain and is preferable to other types of government. While America is no longer quite so modest as in its early days, it stands alone as one of the most powerful countries in the world, both economically and militarily, while also keeping an identifiable modesty in the conduct of the government.

    Some may take issue with such a conclusion, that America is a noble republic that does not display “pomp and parade.” But then again, looking to other powers in the world currently and looking to the great powers of years past, when has a country with so much power carried a quiet confidence that its power was here to stay? It surely takes a significant amount of scouring the history books to answer that question.

  • Shift to Idealism

    George Washington Inauguration, 1789.

    The early Republic years were filled with hope and optimism for what the new country could achieve. The Republicans, through the 1790s and into the first decade of the 1800s, had a new idea about what government should be and how it should fit into the citizens’ lives.

    Republicans imagined “that people’s natural sociability and willingness to sacrifice their selfish interests for the sake of the whole would be sufficient social adhesives,” and a powerful federal government would not be necessary. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 301.

    Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists thought these ideas were merely “pernicious dreams” of the Republicans and were surely too radical to be true. See id.

    Since those early years of the Republic, there has been a continuation of this debate. Undoubtedly, at least part of Thomas Jefferson’s and the Republicans’ view regarding Americans’ compassion and charity is true. Americans, as a collective, are charitable to a number of causes and organizations around the world, and Americans reinforce that principle that they are willing to occasionally sacrifice their selfish interests for the betterment of others.

    However, that compassion and charity does not supplant the need for a federal government to take some actions that could not have been contemplated by the Republicans or the Federalists. The Federalists’ misguided notion that a bureaucracy was necessary for the perpetuation of the country was just as incorrect as the Republicans’ belief that the people would inherently be willing to sacrifice their selfish interests in all regards.

    This would later become evident as the federal government’s intrusion was necessary to eradicate slavery, prevent discriminatory laws from being enforced, and ensure minorities’ rights, among a myriad of other examples.

    Some of what the Republicans believed and some of what the Federalists believed ultimately has proven to be true. Both Hamilton and Jefferson would be satisfied in knowing that their debate has vigorously continued, even if they would not be elated to know some of their ideals have been eroded.