Last Best Hope of Earth

Tag: Thomas Jefferson

  • The Zeal for Land

    Thomas Jefferson, portrayed as Vice President.

    Thomas Jefferson, from his earliest years, imagined that all of the North American land known in the 1790s would one day belong to the United States. He imagined that Florida would become part of the United States, that Cuba would join, that Mexico’s provinces would join, and that ultimately, Canada would join as well. Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 376.

    Some may see this as an imperialistic tendency. It was. Jefferson stated that “we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation.” Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, April 27, 1809. He strongly believed that “no constitution was ever before so well calculated as ours for extensive empire and self government.” Id.

    Jefferson long had a passion for expansion, pre-dating both his presidency and his vice-presidency. Almost immediately after the Revolutionary War, Jefferson began planning how this vast area of land could benefit the United States and how it could be explored.

    Ultimately, this led to the monumental exploration of the Louisiana Territory by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, which would captivate the nation and spread the expansion fever.

    Jefferson’s firmly held belief that the Louisiana Purchase and its territory would become America’s is one of the best examples of firm leadership guiding the nation’s people toward a common goal that benefits all. The best presidents did not always have unanimous support in their decisions, but history cherishes and fondly remembers those presidents, like Jefferson.

  • 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.

  • The Indebtedness of the Early Republic

    The Louisiana Purchase Treaty.

    From its declaration of independence to the start of Thomas Jefferson’s first term as president in 1800, the federal government had consistently taken on a significant amount of debt: $80 million in total. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 298. Prior to that, the federal government had taken out millions of dollars from Europe, including from the French government and from Dutch bankers, to finance the Revolutionary War effort. United States Department of State, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans.

    By the time Thomas Jefferson took office in 1800, the Revolutionary War debt had been paid off, however, Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans were especially concerned about the growing debt that the United States had taken on. In fact, in 1798, Jefferson considered the idea of amending the Constitution to take the power of borrowing away from the federal government. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 298. While Jefferson never accomplished such a drastic step, he prioritized paying the debt down each year. He foretold that the United States would “be committed to the English career of debt, corruption and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government.” See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 298.

    Throughout the 1790s, the United States shifted all of its obligations from the governments of Europe to private investors. By 1795, America only owed money to private investors. United States Department of State, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans. This, combined with the federal government’s payments created a solid credit rating in Europe, which enabled taking low-interest loans from European lenders for the Louisiana Purchase. Id.

    By 1810, the Republicans reduced the debt to approximately $40 million, even after having spent $15 million in cash on the Louisiana Purchase. See Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 298. Thomas Jefferson had made significant progress in moving the federal government away from its borrowing spree. Perhaps Jefferson was fearful that the federal government would default on its obligations as it had in 1785 on interest payments to France and further installments in 1787. United States Department of State, available at https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/loans.

    This brief history of the federal government’s debt illustrates the difficulty of balancing spending with saving. Few would question significant investments like borrowing for the financing a war for independence or for a purchase that effectively doubled the size of the country. The question that arises nearly every year is rather, how much discretionary spending is necessary?

    Jefferson’s fear of corruption leading to revolution is likely at the furthest end of the spectrum of possibilities. Regardless, a default on indebtedness held by the federal government would have significant consequences that could not be ignored in the early Republic and cannot be ignored now. Where there are benefits to be gained, investments are necessary.

    While some may be opposed to debt as a matter of principle, Jefferson’s concerns show the true threat of excessive liability for the federal government. Simply having debt to pay down is not a threat to the future of the country. When America’s wellbeing is endangered or America’s credit rating is threatened, action is unquestionably necessary to prevent those results.

  • How Small is Too Big?

    Portrait of Thomas Jefferson. By: Rembrandt Peale. 1805.

    When Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans came to power in 1800, they had a major priority: reverse the Federalist trend of expanding the federal government.

    In Thomas Jefferson’s first message to Congress, in 1801, Jefferson framed the role of the federal government as only being “charged with the external and mutual relations only of these states.” All other matters were to be left to the states.

    In 1800, the American federal government was “small even by eighteenth-century European standards.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 291. Gordon Wood explains in Empire of Liberty that in “1801 the headquarters of the War Department, for example, consisted of only the secretary, an accountant, fourteen clerks, and two messengers. The secretary of state had a staff consisting of a chief clerk, six other clerks (one of whom ran the patent office), and a messenger. The attorney general did not yet even have a clerk.” Id.

    Throughout the 1790s, there was significant growth in the governmental offices, so the numbers cited for 1801 would have appeared to be a major jump from those in the first years after the adoption of the Constitution. Nonetheless, Jefferson and the Republicans were determined to reverse the trend of a growing federal government that began to resemble the bureaucratic monarchies of Europe.

    Jefferson’s perspective of the role of government, and the tension between the Federalists and Republicans on the desirable and proper size of the federal government continue to be relevant today. Obviously, the federal government has grown to include numerous other departments and agencies since the early Republic, but the same question is still discussed amongst common people, analysts, and politicians: how much of a presence should the federal government have in the common person’s life?

    While Jefferson and the early Republicans sought to limit the presence of the federal government to essentially handling the mail and foreign relations, the belief that the federal government needed to be involved in crucial aspects of Americans’ lives undoubtedly won the contest.

    Few Americans now would advocate abolishing Social Security, taxes, downsizing of federal agencies, and having a more passive, impotent federal government overall. These federal responsibilities feel necessary to the average American. Justifiably so, as the federal government is uniquely positioned to oversee the implementation of policies that benefit all Americans.

    Perhaps the gradual growth in the federal government, with occasionally growing under liberal-leaning presidents and Congresses and occasionally diminishing under conservative-leaning presidents and Congresses, was the best way for the United States to progress from a small republic to a global superpower.

    It seems that the healthy debate between the parties over the past two centuries of what the federal government should be is what kept the United States on a moderate path, never straying too far from its principles.

  • The “Plebiscitarian Principle”

    U.S. Capitol. 1800.

    The president’s role in the government in the early Republic was different than today, and sometimes, it was unclear exactly what role the president would play in the federal government. With the election of 1800, the newly elected Republicans introduced the “plebiscitarian principle,” according to one scholar, Bruce Ackerman. Bruce Ackerman, The Failure of the Founding Fathers: Jefferson, Marshall, and the Rise of Presidential Democracy (Cambridge, MA, 2005), 85.

    The plebiscitarian principle was the new belief that the President of the United States owes a duty to the voters who gave him the electoral mandate to rise to the prestigious office. See id.

    Thomas Jefferson had a similar belief. See Thomas Jefferson to John Garland Jefferson, Papers of Jefferson: Retirement Ser., 2, (Jan. 25, 1810), 183. Jefferson stated that the president’s duty was “to unite in himself the confidence of the whole people” so he could “produce an union of the powers of the whole, and point them in a single direction, as if all constituted but one body & one mind.” Id.

    This principle, that the President of the United States was to owe a duty to the entire population of the country and lead them as one, helped form the presidency that we recognize today. It created a balance between the monarchical principles that the Federalists had come to admire about England and the decentralized, less powerful federal government that the Republicans had advocated for in the early Republic.

    Even as the power of the presidency has expanded, few would question that the President of the United States should only serve a portion of the population. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of Americans hold tight the belief that a president should represent the entire country and lead the entire country.

    The critical question that has existed and will always exist is what direction each president should take in leading the country. Some would argue that the reason we can have that healthy debate is because of the election of 1800 and the creation of the plebiscitarian principle.

  • The Fall of the Federalists

    Thomas Jefferson.

    The election of 1800 ushered in a new era of American politics. Thomas Jefferson won the election to become America’s third president, but also, it was a defeat for the Federalists, who had dominated politics in the first few decades of the country’s life. This was not just any defeat, however. This would mark the beginning of the end for the once powerful Federalist party.

    By this point, Gordon Wood explains in Empire of Liberty, the Federalists had come to believe that ordinary people did not have “a direct role to play in ruling the society. They were so confident that the future belonged to them, that the society would become less egalitarian and more hierarchical, that they treated the people with condescension and lost touch with them.” Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty, 276. Wood concludes by stating that the Federalists “were so out of touch with the developing popular realities of American life . . . .” Id. Noah Webster, at the time, concluded that the Federalists had led to their own demise by resisting “the force of public opinion . . . .” David Hackett Fischer, The Revolution of American Conservatism: The Federalist Party in the Era of Jeffersonian Democracy, (New York 1965), 151-52.

    The fall of the Federalist party in the early Republic provides lessons to the modern political parties of the Republicans and the Democrats. The most obvious lesson is: Avoid public opinion at your own risk. The Federalists held onto the traditions of the monarchical republic, despite public opinion becoming increasingly more Republican-minded (the old Republican, that is).  Public opinion undoubtedly can be illogical, unreasonable, and misinformed, but the social compact that the government only is as legitimate as its people allow it to be highlights the importance of public opinion, whether it is right or wrong on any given issue.

    Looking at recent news, the resignation of Speaker of the House John Boehner, and the subsequent announcement by his presumptive replacement, Representative Kevin McCarthy, that he will not be seeking the Speaker’s chair, draws an interesting parallel between the modern Republican party and the Federalist party of centuries ago. The Republican party is currently fractured between its most conservative segment and the relatively moderate segment, both of which agree on some fundamental ideals, but the conservatives holding tightly to traditional beliefs socially, legally, and fiscally.

    Recently, some of those positions held by the most conservative political figures have begun to be behind the curve of public opinion. While this is only a segment of the Republican party, it is also a vocal, active segment that has considerable sway in the party. Most analysts agree that John Boehner’s resignation is due to that vocal, active segment of the party.

    Regardless, it is food for thought how the Republican party’s future may be shaped by its proclivity to maintain the traditional nature of the party, despite the changes in public opinion, socially and otherwise. While some have speculated the end of the Republican party may be nearing, this is unlikely barring significantly more turmoil and further clinging to traditional beliefs that have become outdated and antiquated from decades past. It is unlikely the Republicans will split, considering the party has been in existence for approximately 160 years. But it is possible.

  • Economic Sanctions

    George Washington, as portrayed on the $1 note.

    Washington’s writings are replete with revelations about the hopes and aspirations for the country. Often, it is common for modern Americans to think that the Founding Fathers, despite all of their wisdom, could hardly imagine what the United States would become. For instance, now, the world is interconnected in a way as never before. One may be tempted to posit that the world has become a more complicated place, and our recent leaders have created new tactics to deal with geopolitical issues. One such tactic that one may imagine is newly created is the use of economic sanctions.

    In fact, the Founding Fathers not only contemplated the use of economic sanctions, but sought for the implementation of sanctions in lieu of going to war. In George Washington’s letter to Lafayette, dated August 15, 1786, he noted “the probable influence that commerce may hereafter have on human manners and society in general,” hoping that it could lead to the demise of “the devastation and horrors of war.” Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of Washington, 28: 520. Nor was Washington alone in this belief. Far from it.

    Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had consistently hoped for the same, aspiring for the day where American sanctions would divert wars but preserve American interests. Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty, (New York, 2009), 138.

    As is clear from modern history, economic sanctions have shown their utility, whether they be imposed for ideological differences, such as against Russia and former Soviet Union countries or imposed to discourage nuclear development and proliferation, such as against Iran. The use of economic sanctions is of course premised on America having a fundamental role in the world economy, which has certainly been the case in the last century and continuing until now.

    Presently, the United States accounts for 23% of global gross domestic product and 12% of merchandise trade. The Economist, Vol. 417, No. 8958 (October 3, 2015). Having such a significant role in the world economy gives the United States the “soft power” of influencing other countries to act in accordance with America’s best interests, without America committing significant resources.

    The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom and their grand hopes for the United States, hoped to see this day, where the sheer size and power of the economy would force others to bend to American interests. Their imagined use, or the threat of use, of economic sanctions has come to fruition. Just another instance of the prescience of the Founding Fathers.

  • Political Parties

    Alexander Hamilton, L. Thomas Jefferson, R.

    Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had a contentious relationship, from their time serving as Secretaries in Washington’s administration forward. That contentious relationship manifested itself, at least partially, in the fact that they had crucial ideological differences. At first, those ideological differences were not reflected by different memberships in political parties. During the time they were Secretaries in Washington’s administration, there were no political parties.

    When the two political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, were created, Hamilton and Jefferson both had overblown ideas of what would each other’s party intended. Jefferson feared that Hamilton wished to implement a monarchy, and Hamilton feared that Jefferson intended to overthrow the government of the United States. As a general matter, the Federalist government feared that any Republicans or individuals with different views were determined to undermine the existence of the government and determined to bring an end to the system that the majority of Americans had worked so hard to create.

    In fact, however, the Republican party did not see itself as a political party, and the Federalists did not view themselves as members of a political party in those early years. For example, the Federalists saw themselves as the vast majority of people who were concerned about the state of the country. Those in the Republican party ultimately began making Democratic-Republican Societies throughout the country, which demanded changes from the status quo of the predominantly Federalist government.

    What a change the political party system has undergone since the late 1790s. Many would attribute the success of America’s political system to the fact that two main parties, now the Democrats and Republicans, have consistently vied against each other, generally agreeing to move the country forward by meeting in the middle. As Hamilton and Jefferson exaggerated the intentions and beliefs of the opposing party, modern Democrats and Republicans tend to do the same, at least to an extent.

    That healthy debate between two adversaries has sustained not only the court system from ancient days to modern days but also the American system of politics. An adversarial contest between two parties prevents a cacophony of voices that tend to overwhelm multi-party political systems. Rather, it places two parties against each other, creating competition, encouraging debate, and having the net effect of putting the country on a moderate path, with gradual changes coming over the course of decades. Perhaps that gradual, conservative nature of progress has been the cause of America’s prolonged success.