Hamilton's Economic Bailout

In light of President Obama's recent address to Congress regarding the $750 billion plus economic stimulus package, I thought it might be fun to discuss America's first "economic bailout."

As we all know, the eight-year war for American independence with Great Britain was extremely costly. At the war's conclusion, the thirteen separate states had each incurred a tremendous debt, due to the tremendous economic burden brought on by the revolution itself. According to Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first Secretary of the Treasury, the total debt of the United States was a whopping $77.1 million (or roughly $750 billion by today's standards). Of this, $11.7 million was owed to foreign governments, $40,4 million was the result of domestic debt, and $25 million the result of war expenditures of the various states (Ellis, Founding Brothers, 55). As a result, each state's credit was shot leaving them with little credibility on the international stage.

It was under these circumstances that Alexander Hamilton proposed a "bailout" of sorts. Under his plan of assumption, Hamilton suggested that the nation's legitimacy on the international market might be improved if the federal government were to assume the entire debs of the various states. Not only would his plan call for a radical new concept in terms of the federal government's scope and responsibility, but it would remove a measure of state sovereignty when it came to economics.

As could be expected, not everyone was happy with the deal. Most opponents of Hamilton's plan were furious over the fact that Hamilton proposed to pay off at face value all of the war bonds, which had not only been purchased by the masses, but had been used as a means of payment to thousands of veterans of the war. What infuriated these opponents was the fact that the war bonds, which had become virtually worthless, had been sold by the masses to greedy speculators (many who were friends of Hamilton) for a fraction of their original worth. Once Hamilton proposed to pay off the bonds at face value, these speculators stood to make a fortune off of what had once been a worthless bond.

The anger over the war bond saga was evident across the nation. In a letter to James Madison, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote the following, which captures just how polarizing and upsetting Hamilton's plan had become:

Never have I heard more rage expressed against the Oppressors of our country during the late War than I daily hear against the men who...are to reap all the benefits of the revolution, at the expense of the greatest part of the Virtue & property that purchased it.

James Madison and his Virginian comrade, Thomas Jefferson, felt the same. The idea of subjugating the economic sovereignty of the states to the federal government seemed like a violation of everything the Revolution had stood for.

To make a long story short, Hamilton's economic plan of assumption was finally supported by Madison, Jefferson and other influential Virginians, who had originally opposed it, in exchange for the nation's capital to be built on the Potomac. In a historical compromise, Hamilton conceded the location of the federal capital to his Virginian opponents, in exchange for their support of his economic plan. Simply put, the compromise killed two birds with one stone.

Historians have, for the most part, praised Hamilton's economic plan as a stroke of brilliance. The plan delivered the infant United States from the brink of economic turmoil and gave the federal government more centralized control over the economic future of the nation. The economic "bailout" of the states eliminated a large amount of the economic tension between the smaller, more vulnerable states and the larger juggernaut states like Virginia, who had a virtual monopoly on American commerce. By placing the economic future of the nation in the hands of the federal government, Hamilton foreshadowed the often-repeated debate in America between a powerful, centralized union and the independent sovereignty of the states.

Scare Tactics: Nothing New to Politics

If you are like me, you probably feel like every single election both the Democrats and the Republicans act as though the literal fate of the planet hangs on that year's particular election. We've heard this rhetoric so many times that it isn't a surprise why some actually feel that the world could end if their candidate is not elected on November 4th. Conservative media outlets have been screaming from the housetops that an Obama victory would signal the end of responsible government and free market capitalism, while the Democrats have been countering with their spin that a McCain win would ensure for America another four years of failed Bush policies, all of which would allegedly destroy the very fabric of our nation.

But is this type of "scare tactic" rhetoric new? Of course not. Just check out the "scare tactic" rhetoric of this 1800 campaign ad:

THE GRAND QUESTION STATED

At the present solemn and momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every American, laying his hand on his heart, is: “Shall I continue in allegiance to

GOD—AND A RELIGIOUS
PRESIDENT;

Or impiously declare for

JEFFERSON—AND NO GOD!!!

And here is a funny (but somewhat accurate) Youtube "campaign" video on the election of 1800:



Yes, even our Founding Fathers believed that an impending doom was sure to destroy the nation if their chosen candidate failed to win the election.

Is "Spreading the Wealth" anti-Capitalist?

In one of his recent posts, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan points out an interesting quote from Adam Smith -- the so-called "father" of capitalism. The quote comes from Smith's extremely popular and influential book, Wealth of Nations. Smith states:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor...The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess...It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. [my emphasis].

As everyone that follows politics knows, Barack Obama's "spreading the wealth" comment has caused conservatives to go on the attack, labeling Obama as a socialist. Keeping Adam Smith's comment above in mind, could we argue that Obama is actually MORE of a capitalist "purist" than McCain?

In a letter to Benjamin Vaughn, Benjamin Franklin pointed out his distrust of the elite having too much money and power in their hands. Using an analogy to prove his point, Franklin writes:

When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expence of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny. If a Savage before he enter’d into Society had been told, Your Neighbour by this Means may become Owner of 100 Deer, but if your Brother, or your Son, or yourself, having no Deer of your own, and being hungry should kill one of them, an infamous Death must be the Consequence; he would probably have prefer’d his Liberty, and his common Right of killing any Deer, to all the Advantages of Society that might be propos’d to him.

So, is true capitalism that which prevents any form of redistributing wealth? Or can capitalism encourage AT LEAST some equality between the wealthy and the middle class?

A 269-269 Tie???

It's at Least a Possibility...Thanks to Our Founders

As the election approaches its final climax we are beginning to see the polls tighten up in the various battleground states that are still in play. As a result, the likelihood of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college is becoming more likely with each passing day. Though odds-makers claim that a 269-269 tie is relatively low, the fact remains that this outcome is still within the realm of possibility.

So what happens if the election ends in an electoral college tie? Most people think that the popular vote would then come into play. WRONG! The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution spells out what will happen in the event of a 269-269 tie.

If we have a tie on November 4th, the House of Representatives will convene on January 6th to vote for the next president of the United States. Now, most Republicans fear this outcome because of the fact that the Democrats are favored to pick up a few seats in the house. However, the voting is NOT based on a MAJORITY in the House. Instead, the 12th Amendment stipulates that EACH STATE gets one vote. This means that a heavily populated state like California will be on the EXACT SAME playing field as Wyoming and other small states. So, what will happen is each state delegation will meet and cast their vote for the next president. If the state has a Republican majority then the state will likely vote for McCain. Here is an example:

Arkansas (which has 4 representatives in the House) is split with 3 Democrats and 1 Republican. In the event of a 269-269 tie, these four representatives would meet and (most likely) cast their vote for Obama, being that the Democrats have the majority in that state's delegation. HOWEVER, keep in mind that Arkansas is heavily favored to go for McCain on November 4. So if these delegates voted for Obama they would be essentially voting AGAINST the will of their constituents. This scenario is evident in at least 15 other states as well.

In addition, if a state has an equal number of Democrat and Republican representatives and their vote results in a tie, that state will ABSTAIN from a vote on the president.

So what does all this mean? In all likelihood it means that Barack Obama would probably emerge as the president in the event of a 269-269 tie, but it is FAR from certain. There are still a number of scenarios in which John McCain could be declared the winner. In reality it is anyone's guess.

Another important component to keep in mind in the event of a 269-269 tie is that the SENATE will vote for the V.P. Being that the Democrats are favored to pick up a couple of seats in the Senate it is likely that they would vote for Biden, however, this is far from a guarantee. Keep in mind that senators may end up voting with the masses they represent, so as not to upset their constituents. Also, Joe Lieberman (an Independent) is likely to go with the Republicans on this one. In the event of a tie in the Senate, we must remember that the current V.P. (Dick Cheney) would cast the tie-breaking vote, which would in all likelihood go Republican.

Again, what does this mean? It means that there is a possibility of having a MIXED presidential ticket in the event of a 269-269 tie. We could end up seeing an Obama/Palin or a McCain/Biden White House.

One more wrench to throw into the equation: if the vote in the House of Representatives for president ends in a tie (or gridlock) the 12th Amendment stipulates that the Senate would then elect an INTERIM PRESIDENT from their V.P. selection, who would then serve for two years until the next HOR convened in the following election (2010). This means that if the HOR ends in a tie or gridlock, we could have Joe Biden or Sarah Palin end up serving a two-year term as President of the United States.

Think this is all a bit crazy or that maybe I am making it up? It is ALL in the 12th Amendment.

So how did we end up like this in the first place? It all goes back to the 1800 presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back then there was no such thing as a presidential "ticket," which meant that the candidate with the second most electoral votes became the V.P. In 1800, Jefferson was the clear winner over presidential incumbent, John Adams. However, the electors (who had 2 votes instead of one) also accidentally gave Aaron Burr (who was intended to be Jefferson's V.P.) the same amount of votes. As a result, the election went to the House, where delegates loyal to Adams tried to get Burr placed in the White House over Jefferson. In the end, Jefferson won out, but only after months of controversy. As a result, the 12th Amendment was created, which was supposed to clean up the mess. Only time will tell if the 12th Amendment ends up CREATING a new mess in the 21st Century!!!

Here is an interesting Youtube video that helps explain this mess:

The Danger of David Barton

In light of some of the recent discussions on religion that this blog has witnessed, I thought you might all engage in a good debate over this topic.

Over the past few years, I have maintained a serious problem with the "history" of David Barton. Barton's blatant bias, combined with his lack of historical integrity shocks me. Don't get me wrong, I believe that there are some GREAT historians out there who embrace evangelical teachings, but Barton's agenda is so transparent that I cannot see how people take him seriously. I realize that my saying this might be construed as insensitive or insulting. By no means am I trying to be this way. In fact, I think it is important for you all to know that I embrace evangelical teachings myself. With that said, however, I cannot believe a word that comes out of David Barton's mouth, when he talks about history. Where is his training? Certainly it is not in history.

Arguably the most ridiculous claims made by Barton come from his book, America's Godly Heritage, where he states that 52 of the 55 signers to the Declaration of Independence were "orthodox" or "evangelical Christians." Are you kidding me??? In a wonderful critique of this ridiculous book, one writer states, "Barton does not cite any authority to support this assertion. Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary." In another critique of Barton's assertions (done by the Baptist Joint Committee For Religious Liberty) Barton is severely chastised for his lack of historical integrity and for his more-than-ridiculous claims. And here is yet another brilliant rebuttal of Barton's falsehoods, which was written in Church and State Magazine in August of 1996.

As an Evangelical Christian, what aggravates me about the religious right (and Barton in particular) is the fact that SERIOUS scholarly inquiry and discovery are completely rejected in the name of "Christian" values. Facts are often distorted, ignored or even altered simply to "fit" a particular agenda or belief. This sentiment of theological arrogance, which is used to trump sincere intellectual inquiry is one of the main reasons why so many in the mainstream community have a problem with the religious right today. If Barton would cease to publish such rubbish, which is blatantly false and biased, perhaps people would feel differently.

This video is a perfect example of Barton's ridiculous "historical" claims:

Hamilton, Economics, and the Capital

The most important member of George Washington’s cabinet was arguably Alexander Hamilton. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton faced the tremendous burden of tackling the nation's debt crisis. The Revolutionary War had left the states with massive debts, and many European nations were reluctant to establish credit with American merchants. To correct the problem, Hamilton proposed that the national government should assume the debts of the states, that a national bank be established, and that all holders of war bonds/securities be paid at face value. By assuming the states debts, Hamilton was essentially doing what he felt the national government had been given power to do. As Joseph Ellis points out, "the federal government was implicitly, even covertly, assuming sovereign authority over the economics of all the states."

Opponents of Hamilton's economic plan saw it as an evil scheme to wrestle power away from the people and to secure it for the national government. Some suggested that Hamilton was doing this by shifting the balance of power from the legislative branch (Congress) to the executive branch (the Presidency). Other opponents had a different take on Hamilton's economic plan. Many saw it as a carbon copy of England, which would benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. Many southern leaders interpreted the plan as "the prostration of agriculture at the feet of commerce."

There were also many in the public who lamented the fact that war bonds, which had been used to pay war veterans, were being bought up by rich speculators. These speculators were paying well below face value for the bonds, and then waiting for Hamilton's plan to go into effect. These speculators knew they stood to gain huge profits once Hamilton's plan was accepted. Critics argued that many veterans were being swindled out of their money. Congressman James Jackson called the speculators, "rapacious wolves seeking whom they may devour."

Eventually, opponents of Hamilton's plan (especially the Virginia elite) would lend their support for it, in exchange for the location of the new national capital to be located on the Potomac. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison used their political influence to sway public support in favor of Hamilton's plan. In return, the new capital of the nation was established in Virginia. Many leaders within the government felt that this compromise "gave birth to combinations, parties, intrigues, jealousies...to such a degree to give serious alarm to the friends of the government." Hamilton's economic plan served as one of the first hurdles for the infant nation to learn to overcome. Whether the compromise was seen as a good or bad thing, it did prove that politicians with differing opinions could find a way to come to a compromise and get things done.

Historians for Obama

The 2008 presidential race is going more than full speed ahead for Barack Obama. Recent polls are showing him ahead of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, for the party's nomination. In several of the last primaries, Obama has received more votes than McCain and Huckabee combined. Anyway, I realize that this is not a political blog, nor do I wish to declare my allegiance for Obama. I do, however, want to bring to your attention something very interesting regarding Barack Obama and a number of famous early American historians.

Just this past month, a group of very famous and influential historians (many of whom are historians of the American Revolution or colonial America) banned together in support of Barack Obama's presidency. Among these early American historians are Joyce Appleby, David Blight, Edward Blum, Bruce Chadwick, Joseph Ellis, David Gellman, Steven Lawson, James McPherson, Stephanie Ambrose Tubbs, and Laurel Ulrich. In total, there are well over 100 prominant historians that have joined in support for Obama (for the full list of historians click here).

Their reasons for supporting Obama range from his stance on the war in Iraq to Bush's failed foriegn policy (which they claim is the worst since the Vietnam War). On their website is written the following:

We endorse Barack Obama for president because we think he is the candidate best able to address and start to solve these profound problems. As historians, we understand that no single individual, even a president, leads alone or outside a thick web of context. As Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during the Civil War, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."

However, a president can alter the mood of the nation, making changes possible that once seemed improbable. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and kept the nation united; Franklin D. Roosevelt persuaded Americans to embrace Social Security and more democratic workplaces; John F. Kennedy advanced civil rights and an anti-poverty program.

Barack Obama has the potential to be that kind of president. He has the varied background of a global citizen: his father was African, his stepfather Indonesian, his mother worked in the civil rights movement, and he spent several years of his childhood overseas. As an adult, he has been a community organizer, a law professor, and a successful politician - both at the state and national level. These experiences have given him an acute awareness of the inequalities of race and class, while also equipping him to speak beyond them.

Obama's platform is ambitious, yet sensible. He calls for negotiating the abolition of nuclear weapons, providing universal and affordable health insurance, combatting poverty by adding resources and discouraging destructive habits, investing in renewable energy sources, and engaging with unfriendly nations to ease conflicts that could otherwise lead to war. He takes more forthright stands on these issues than do his major Democratic competitors. But it is his qualities of mind and temperament that really separate Obama from the rest of the pack. He is a gifted writer and orator who speaks forcefully but without animus. Not since John F. Kennedy has a Democrat candidate for president showed the same combination of charisma and thoughtfulness - or provided Americans with a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry older than the nation itself. Like Kennedy, he also inspires young people who see him as a great exception in a political world that seems mired in cynicism and corruption.

I'm sure that very few of us would argue that history serves as a wonderful barometer of the future. Understanding one's past is paramount in being able to prepare for the future. Keeping this all in mind, I want to pose a question: to what degree should historians get involved in politics? Is it a mistake for historians to band together in support of one candidate? After all, Obama could turn out to be a complete flop. One only needs to remember Franklin Pierce, who was considered by most "experts" to be the solution to the slavery/succession crisis. I'm not saying that historians (like any other person) do not have the right to vote. Of course they do. What I am asking is whether or not you think they should unite in support of a candidate.

Your thoughts.

"Here We Go A-Caucussing"

"Super Tuesday" is upon us! Today literally millions of Americans will go to the polls to cast their ballots for their Democratic or Republican choice for President. Many of these states (including my beloved "Centennial State"), will hold a caucus to determine who the Democratic or Republican candidate is.

This caucus, which is essentially nothing more than a group meeting of political supporters, may seem very confusing to its participants. Isn't it a much easier process to simply cast an electronic vote?

What most Americans don't know when it comes to the caucus is the fact that it is a very old tradition, which dates back to a time before the United States ever existed. Though the origins of the word are greatly debated, the term caucus is believed to have originated from the Algonquin Indians, who resided in what is today New York and Vermont. It is believed that the Algonquin word 'cau´-cau-as´u', meaning "counsel" was adopted by early American Democratic-republicans in the latter part of the 18th century. Historian J.L. Bell mentions that the first known usage of the word caucus comes from the diary of America's second president, John Adams, who wrote:

"This day learned that the Caucas Clubb meets at certain Times in the Garret of Tom Daws, the Adjutant of the Boston Regiment. He has a large House, and he has a moveable Partition in his Garrett, which he takes down and the whole Clubb meets in one Room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one End of the Garrett to the other. There they drink Phlip I suppose, and there they choose a Moderator, who puts Questions to the Vote regularly, and select Men, Assessors, Collectors, Wardens, Fire Wards, and Representatives are Regularly chosen before they are chosen in the Town. Uncle Fairfield, Story, Ruddock, Adams, Cooper, and a most rudis indigestaque Moles of others are Members. They send Committees to wait on the Merchants Clubb and to propose, and join, in the Choice of Men and Measures. Captn. Cunningham says they have often solicited him to go to these Caucas, they have assured him Benefit in his Business, &c."

(Click here for the link to the electronic archive of the Diary of John Adams)

So as you make your way to the polls today, remember that you are participating in a tradition that is older than America itself. To go "a-caucussing" is an activity as American as apple pie, which, by the way, Native Americans enjoyed as well.

Franklin the Cynic

Biographer Walter Isaacson, author of the highly acclaimed book Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, was recently interviewed by NBC's Katie Couric regarding the life of America's "most accessible Founding Father." In the interview, Isaccson was asked how Franklin might respond to many of the current events of our modern world. With regards to politics, Isaccson stated that Franklin would be quite cynical of the Bush Administration:

"Franklin would be disgusted with the Bush/Cheney Administration. I have no doubt that he would reveal his criticism for the way Bush has responded to terrorism by taking us to war...it's not that Franklin disapproved of war, but I think he would be upset at the direction of U.S. foreign policy over the past 30 years. Nobody understood foreign policy better than Franklin."

In addition, Isaacson pointed out the fact that of all the Founding Fathers, Franklin would be the most comfortable in the 21st century. There is little doubt that Franklin would be a devout supporter of the internet (he'd probably have several blogs), not to mention the plethora of media outlets that exist. Not only would Franklin be the most comfortable Founding Father in the 21st century, but we'd be the most comfortable with him. As Isaccson states:

"you can't really imagine touching George Washington on the shoulder. In fact one guy at the Constitutional Convention did and he never quite recovered from it because Washington was so mean to him afterwards. But Franklin is one of those people who, you know, you can, you can imagine having a beer with him after work and showing him how a Palm Pilot or a Blackberry worked or show him a business plan. Or making jokes about, you know, Clinton scandals or Bush's foreign policy. And he, he's just very real."

One can only imagine the thoughts and feelings that Franklin would have regarding 21st century America. We can, however, rest assured that Benjamin Franklin would have plenty to say, of course employing his traditional witty Cynicism.

John McCain and America's Christian "Origins"

In a recent Republican debate, Senator John McCain was asked if he agreed with a recent poll which stated that 55% of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. McCain responded by stating, "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation." McCain went on to say the following:

"I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles … personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith, but that doesn’t mean that I’m sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president."

In response, the Jewish Defense League chided McCain's remarks, reminding him of the religious freedoms protected in the Constitution. The Muslim American Society also responded with harsh criticisms for the Arizona Senator, stating that such a reckless statement is not only hurtful, but also found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. McCain was reminded of Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

In the past, McCain has stated that his favorite Founding Father was John Adams. Perhaps he should revisit some of the comments Adams had in regards to the founding of this nation. After all, it was Adams that stated, “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

To read the entire article that criticizes McCain for his statements click here.

Joseph Ellis, The Obama Campaign, and Early American Politics

A couple of days ago, renowned historian Joseph Ellis wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times that seeks to defend Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. In the article, Ellis argues that Obama's message (which claims to unite Americans across party lines for change), should not be attacked by partisan politicians as being unAmerican. Instead, Ellis argues that Obama's message is as American as apple pie:

The watchword for all the founders was not "the people" but "the public," which they understood to mean the collective interest of the citizenry, more enduring than the popular opinion of fleeting majorities. The great evil, they all agreed, was "faction," which meant narrow-minded interest groups that abandoned the public in favor of their own sectarian agendas, or played demagogue politics with issues in order to confuse the electorate

Though clearly against the agendas of political parties, Ellis does recognize the fact that even the earliest politicians of this nation (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.) were also divided by political difference. Ellis argues, however, that such a division was the result of specific political ideology in regards to a specific issue, as opposed to the current system where parties divide out of mutual disdain. Ellis sites the farewell address of George Washington, along with the First Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson as evidence to support his claims. In both documents, Washington and Jefferson (two men with very different political leanings), urged their constituents to reject political loyalties, which they believed created a false sense of patriotism. In his Los Angeles Times article, Ellis argues that to criticize Obama for rejecting many of the accepted partisan beliefs of modern politics is not only foolish but against the historical precedent of this country.

To read Ellis's article in the Los Angeles times click here.

The Founding Fathers Would Vote For...

Ok, so I realize that I am guilty of posting the most non-scholarly postings of them all. I guess that I am the black sheep of the blog for this, but oh well. My question to you all is hardly historical, but I think it will provoke some fun mind work. Who, in your opinion, would the Founding Fathers vote for in the presidential election of 2008? I realize that this is an impossible question to answer. The Founders never dealt with Islamic terrorism, global warming, illegal immigration, healthcare reform, and all of the other issues of the 21st century. With this in mind, PLEASE refrain from giving me your scholarly B.S. as to why this question is bogus. I KNOW that it is bogus! I just want to have some fun. Also, where do you think the Founding Fathers would stand on the major issues of our day?

Ok...let the arguing begin!

Washington Delivers First Ever State of the Union Speech

Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President of the United States is required to...

"...from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;..."

On January 8, 1790 President George Washington delivered the first ever State of the Union address. His address was highly anticipated by virtually everyone in Congress, since nobody was quite sure how the Executive branch was to work. In his speech, Washington clearly stated his administration's expected course of action. With a tremendous amount of help from Alexander Hamilton, Washington dedicated his administration to strengthening the federal government. One of Washington's primary goals was to strengthen the national defense by creating a standing army (an idea that was very unpopular at the time). Washington suggested that one of the primary goals of the federal government was to "provide for the common defense."

I have attached a copy of Washington's first State of the Union address below. It is a wonderful document, and I encourage you to take the time to read it. Enjoy!


State of the Union
George Washington
January 8, 1790
Federal Hall, New York City


Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I embrace with great satisfaction the opportunity which now presents itself of congratulating you on the present favorable prospects of our public affairs. The recent accession of the important state of north Carolina to the Constitution of the United States (of which official information has been received), the rising credit and respectability of our country, the general and increasing good will toward the government of the Union, and the concord, peace, and plenty with which we are blessed are circumstances auspicious in an eminent degree to our national prosperity.

In resuming your consultations for the general good you can not but derive encouragement from the reflection that the measures of the last session have been as satisfactory to your constituents as the novelty and difficulty of the work allowed you to hope. Still further to realize their expectations and to secure the blessings which a gracious Providence has placed within our reach will in the course of the present important session call for the cool and deliberate exertion of your patriotism, firmness, and wisdom.

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is on e of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.

There was reason to hope that the pacific measures adopted with regard to certain hostile tribes of Indians would have relieved the inhabitants of our southern and western frontiers from their depredations, but you will perceive from the information contained in the papers which I shall direct to be laid before you (comprehending a communication from the Commonwealth of Virginia) that we ought to be prepared to afford protection to those parts of the Union, and, if necessary, to punish aggressors.

The interests of the United States require that our intercourse with other nations should be facilitated by such provisions as will enable me to fulfill my duty in that respect in the manner which circumstances may render most conducive to the public good, and to this end that the compensation to be made to the persons who may be employed should, according to the nature of their appointments, be defined by law, and a competent fund designated for defraying the expenses incident to the conduct of foreign affairs.

Various considerations also render it expedient that the terms on which foreigners may be admitted to the rights of citizens should be speedily ascertained by a uniform rule of naturalization.

Uniformity in the currency, weights, and measures of the United States is an object of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.

The advancement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures by all proper means will not, I trust, need recommendation; but I can not forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement as well to the introduction of new and useful inventions from abroad as to the exertions of skill and genius in producing them at home, and of facilitating the intercourse between the distant parts of our country by a due attention to the post-office and post-roads.

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways - by convincing those who are intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the enlightened confidence of the people, and by teaching the people themselves to know and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of liberty from that of licentiousness - cherishing the first, avoiding the last - and uniting a speedy but temperate vigilance against encroachments, with an inviolable respect to the laws.

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording aids to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a national university, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I saw with peculiar pleasure at the close of the last session the resolution entered into by you expressive of your opinion that an adequate provision for the support of the public credit is a matter of high importance to the national honor and prosperity. In this sentiment I entirely concur; and to a perfect confidence in your best endeavors to devise such a provision as will be truly with the end I add an equal reliance on the cheerful cooperation of the other branch of the legislature.

It would be superfluous to specify inducements to a measure in which the character and interests of the United States are so obviously so deeply concerned, and which has received so explicit a sanction from your declaration.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives:

I have directed the proper officers to lay before you, respectively, such papers and estimates as regard the affairs particularly recommended to your consideration, and necessary to convey to you that information of the state of the Union which it is my duty to afford.

The welfare of our country is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a cooperation with you in the pleasing though arduous task of insuring to our fellow citizens the blessings which they have a right to expect from a free, efficient, and equal government.

1800: The First REAL Presidential Election

Hello everyone! Sorry for being absent so long. Christmas break and moving to a new apartment have kept me very busy.

As I was watching the Iowa Caucus last night (yes, I have no life and no boyfriend, so I was relegated to watching the Iowa Caucus of all things) I started wondering about presidential elections during the colonial period. As we all know, George Washington was the unanimous choice for president in both of his terms. There was simply nobody that could match his credentials. In 1796, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were the candidates. For the most part, the election was very timid. Neither candidate really got involved (which was common of 18th century politics).

In 1800, however, Jefferson and Adams clashed on virtually every issue and fiercely sought the office of the presidency. For Jefferson, the presidency was a quest to get America on the "right" track. In his mind, the Federalists had taken too much control from the people. In many ways, Jefferson's rhetoric sounds very familiar to one Barack Obama.

Adams, on the other hand, believed that the Federalists were indeed on the right track, and that he had led the nation adequately in his first term. the passage of the Alien & Sedition Acts (which many have compared to our current Patriot Act), earned Adams a negative reputation from the Democratic-Republicans.

After a very lengthy campaign, Jefferson emerged victorious. Federalists screamed foul, since Jefferson had only won the election thanks to the 3/5 Compromise. In fact, several northern leaders demanded a reelection. Jefferson himself faced a difficult challenge of surpassing Burr for the presidency (who had received just as many votes in the 1800 election since elections were done very differently in those days). Here is how the voting broke down by state:

In the end, Jefferson emerged as the candidate for change, and the election of 1800 went down as the first REAL election in American history.

Huckabee and the "Clergymen" Signers of the Declaration of Independence

Last October, during a Republican Presidential debate, candidate Mike Huckabee made the following comment, which has caused quite a stir on several historical blogs:

"When our founding fathers put their signatures on the Declaration of Independence, those 56 brave people, most of whom, by the way, were clergymen, they said that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, and among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life being one of them."

I have been intrigued by the numerous responses to this event on various historical blogs that I follow. The Boston1775 blog has witnessed an intense debate over this issue. From what I've been able to gather, most historians are in complete disagreement with Huckabee's statements, and have been piling on him ever since. The general consensus amongst historians that I have read is that only 1 out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence was a clergyman (John Witherspoon). Huckabee's campaign manager, Ed Rollins, has argued that, "at least 26 of the people that signed were ordained ministers." Rollins was able to come to this conclusion by including signers that simply participated in Bible groups as ordained ministers.

Though I am not fond of mixing politics with history, I think this is a unique chance to look at how history influences political thought. Clearly Huckabee has been trying to appeal (and he has done a successful job if I might add) to the Christian Conservative Right. I am reminded of just how polarizing religion has become in America when I read the words of John Meachem in his book, American Gospel. Meachem stated:

"There is a vast and growing literature about the Founding Fathers...and a steam of strong scholarship about the problem of church and state. Yet because faith is such an emotional subject for both believers and nonbelievers, discussion of the question of religion and public life can often be more divisive than illuminating. Secularists reflexively point to the Jeffersonian 'wall of separation between church and state' as though the conversation should end there; many conservative Christians defend their forays into the political arena by citing the Founders, as though Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Franklin were cheerful Christian soldiers."

The current trend in American politics seems to follow exactly what Meachem has stated. Now the respective supporters of secularism and religion are jockeying to see who can most effectively twist history for his/her benefit. Do you believe that this is what Huckabee is doing when he claims that "the majority" of signers were "clergymen"?

I would reccomend that you all check out the boston1775 piece, and that you also check out this article on the ongoing Huckabee history saga.

217 Years Ago

On this day, 217 years ago, the Bill of Rights became law. This was the culmination of literally decades of struggle dating back all the way to the Declaration of Independence. After eight years of bloody conflict, combined with several more years of civil discontent, the United States had finally created a system of laws that proctected individual liberty. James Madison, the origonal mastermind of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was able to push this document to the forefront of governmental affairs. For the longest time most of America's early leaders wanted nothing to do with a Bill of Rights, but Madison would not take no for an answer. His political genious and tireless effort finally got the Bill of Rights to be accepted. This document has maintained some of our basic freedoms (more or less) for over two centuries.

The Market Revolution in Jacksonan America

I realize that this posting may seem like it doesn't belong on a blog of the American Revolution but hear me out. The Market Revolution (or Capitalist Revolution) is one of the newest and most groundbreaking historical events in recent years. The idea was proposed by Charles Sellers, a professor of American history and author of the landmark book "The Market Revolution." In this book, Sellers explains how American society in the early parts of the 19th century evolved from a localized neighborhood economy to a thriving capitalist society. This change completely revolutionized American society at virtually every level. Cultural and religious ideals were changed, along with the concept of labor. Instead of seeing labor as a necessary evil (which most of our Founding Fathers believed), labor was seen as a blessing from god. Many common people found themselves able to climb the social ladder by working hard and making lots of money (which was very uncommon in the 18th century).

So why do I bring this up? Because the American Revolution was the catalyst that allowed these changes to take place. Instead of seeing the American Revolution as a war between "patriot and loyalist" or "the oppressed rebels and the evil empire," we should strive to understand it as a social revolution. Historian Gordon Wood suggests that the American Revolution was the most successful revolution in world history because it changed political, governmental, social, cultural and religious norms. The colonists were not fighting an "evil" nemesis, but instead were fighting for changes to their social structure (even though many of them never realized it).

We must stop the ridiculous notion that the American Revolution was a war against "evil" oppression. Yes, the British oppressed the colonists to a certain degree, but let us remember that the American colonies were the most prosperous place on earth for the common man. There was more freedom and equality to practice religion, embark on business ventures, or protest in those small colonies than anywhere else on the planet.

The Market Revolution became one of the major changes that these colonists created upon winning their independence. The Market Revolution established the ideology of the American Dream, and helped propel the United States to the front of world affairs.

Informal Book Review: "American Creation" by Joseph Ellis

In recent years, Joseph Ellis has become one of the foremost historians of the American Revolution. His books have been nominated for an array of awards, "Founding Brothers" receiving the Pulitzer Prize. His biographies of Washington and Jefferson have been highly praised as well. His newest book, "American Creation" covers many of the difficulties that the infant American nation faced at the conclusion of the war. As we all know, the United States from 1783-1789 was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which made governing the states in a cohesive manner very difficult. In this book, Ellis covers the issues of the Articles, along with a number of other problems the early American republic faced.

The book was quite entertaining. For those of you that have read Ellis, you know how enjoyable his writing style is. I have to say, however, that I found his book to be somewhat of a repeat of his other works, especially "Founding Brothers." I was expecting to read something that was groundbreaking, but instead found myself reading about stuff I already knew. Clearly this book is written for an audience that has little or no understanding of the American Revolution (I.E. The American public in general!).

My final grade for this book is a B. It was fun to read, but not very enlightening. Certainly this is not another Pulitzer Prize nominee, but it is also not a terrible read.

220 Years Ago

Sorry for not writing in a while...I've been sick. It's good to be back.

As we all know, December 7 is a day that will forver live in infamy. The entrance of the United States into World War II was a landmark day for this nation, one that must never be forgotten.

As important as Pearl Harbor was in American History, the date carries an even older significance. 220 years ago the United States was convulsing from within over the issue of government. Many within the Constitutional Convention had suggested that the Articles of Confederation be rejected, and a new government created. As we all know, that new government was established with the Constitution. What is often forgotten is the fact that the states still had to ratify the document. On this day, 220 years ago, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution of the United States of America. This was a pivotal moment because nobody was sure how Delaware would vote (especially with the aftermath of Shays's Rebellion). In the end, Delaware UNANIMOUSLY ratified the Constitution, ushering in America's new Constitutional government.

James Otis: Early Abolitionist

Remembering the American Revolution is often done from the perspective of valiant patriots on the battlefield, exerting themselves for the "Glorious cause" of independence. Our national sense of pride comes from heroic stories of fearless soldiers, holding steadfast against the mighty arm of the British Army. Rarely are the contributions of peaceful protesters remembered. We often forget the "American Revolution" of the common citizen.

Such is the case with James Otis. Though not a common citizen, Otis's legacy is often shrouded by the contributions of those that fought in the ranks of the Continental Army. Otis was not a warrior. He never fought for independence (in fact, Otis was quite reluctant to break from Great Britain). yet Otis was undoubtedly one of the first influential voices of the American Revolution. Aside from his protests against the British, Otis was also a powerful voice against slavery (which is often a forgotten part of his legacy). Throughout his life, Otis wrote some stirring arguments against slavery. In a 1764 pamphlet Otis wrote:

Does it follow that 'tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair like wool instead of Christian hair, as tis called by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face? Nothing better can be said in favor of a trade that is the most shocking violation of the law of nature, has a direct tendency to diminish the idea of the inestimable value of liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company to the petty chapman in needles and pins on the unhappy coast. It is a clear truth that those who every day barter away other men's liberty will soon care little for their own.

John Adams recalled Otis speaking against slavery even earlier, during his argument against the writs of assistance in 1761. Adams recalled the moment this way:

He asserted that these rights were inherent and inalienable. That they never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man. Nor were the poor Negroes forgotten. Not a Quaker in Philadelphia or Mr. Jefferson in Virginia ever asserted the rights of Negroes in stronger terms. Young as I was and ignorant as I was, I shuddered at the doctrine he taught...

Remembering Otis as a pioneer for the later abolitionists should not be forgotten. When dressed in this light, Otis's legacy and contributions become every bit as important as those of the men that fought on the battlefield.

***The excerpt from Otis's pamphlet and the John Adams quote were taken from the Boston, 1775 blog (www.boston1775.blogspot.com)***