An Inconvenient History Thread

[Mechaman]

Hello everyone!

What is this you may ask?  Well it is simply a consortium of some very Historically Inconvenient facts for this forum at large.  This has been made due to the demand for a thread highlighting the hilarious modern attempts at interpreting historical politics.  Let me begin:

The Federalist Party: NO Coalition of Bleedingheart Liberals:

1. Alexander Hamilton, for all of his economic and fiscal mastery, was not a good man.  In fact he was an economic elitist who laid the groundwork for class warfare in America by instituting a regressive tax system that forced Scot-Irish Appalachian farmers into a generation of poverty while using minimum tax coercion on their urban neighbors.  Wow, this probably would've been okay not bolded, but I thought it was necessary to emphasize the class based nature of this.  The descendants of those people who had settled Ulster and then later the Appalachian backcountry were widely regarded as of "poor character" if not subhuman.  Hamilton, and his ilk, being defenders of the traditional British system no doubt inherited the economic elitism that came with it, instituting this sort of regressive tax policy that disadvantaged the poor and "uncouth" while benefitting the richer merchant classes of the urban areas of the country.  Washington's handling of the matter was the definition of moderatism and was a far cry from the "wipe them out" mentality that Hamilton and his supporters wanted to see happen after the initial tax resistance.

2. Hamilton's Federalist Party was not a principled anti-slavery party.  No one is going to deny the inherent hypocrisy of many Democratic Republicans being slave owners, okay?  But let's not pretend that the Federalist Party was an actively anti-slavery party outside of parts of New England (and even then . . . . . ).  Certain land owning elitists in the Carolinas were reliable supporters of Hamilton and his ilk throughout the early era of the nation.  Hamilton himself was anti-slavery, but he certainly made allowances in the company he kept and endorsed.  Thomas Pinckney, after all, was a very good friend of his.  This is the shortest point I'm going to make, as I believe even a casual stroll through Wikipedia will blow holes through this embarrassing misconception of American History.

3. Federalist dogma, ie conservative dogma, was in direct opposition to the ideals of liberalism. Why else would they be opposed so strongly to the French Revolution?  Regardless if you think the bloodshed in the Revolution was justified, it embodied the nature of liberalism both then and still now.  America was a Republic in an era when many European nations were ruled by monarchs. The Divine rule of Kings (or their advisors, depending on how you look at it) was unofficial doctrine of these states for most of recorded history.  In that vein, the conservatives in America, ie the Federalists, are actually liberals!  Sure, the Revolution was based off of conservative ideals, like "no taxation without representation" and the colonies wanting their rights as British citizens respected.  However, the end result can not, especially with the establishment of the Checks and Balances of American Government, be called "conservative" in the context of the times.  However, the end goal of the Federalists was a strong central American government that implemented and acted on policies that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy urban elites at the expense of practically everyone else.  Before this sounds like too much of a hack attack piece, supposedly by doing so the Feds believed that the prosperity of the upper classes would "trickle down" to the lower and middle classes and thus produce wealth.  By that observation, Ronald Reagan would have more in common with the old age Federalists than LBJ and FDR.  Liberal dogma of the time, which was defined as "upholding the Revolution!" was in direct contrast.  Liberalism was defined by an upholding and assertion of the rights of the non-elite (though of course, not always all of the non-elite, as exhibited by the grey area of slavery) and their rights to a vote and association.

4. Which brings me to the fourth point.  The Alien and Sedition Acts were a natural consequence of an Anglo Protestant supremacist mentality. Everyone knows that the Acts were passed in regards to the anti-administration rantings of various Democratic Republicans against John Adams and other high up officials in the wake of the Quasi War.  What is really underscored here, is the portions of the legislation that negatively impacted many Americans, specifically French and Irish citizens and residents of the United States.  The earlier French Revolution was seen as horrifying to the many staunchly religious conservatives in the Northeast who saw the Revolution, as well as the sympathy many DRs had with it, as a grave threat to the stability of the nation and it's trade relationship with the mother country.  Democratic excesses, they felt, would lead to unintended consequences that would lead to the ruination of society, which is why voting, holding offices, and other democratic exercises should be limited to tax paying property owners.  Also unsaid is that many of these people believes strongly in a "rule by the few fit to rule".  The coinciding of the Irish Rebellion of 1798 and the passage of the Acts, signed by President Adams, is not as great of a mystery.  The Celts were widely regarded as subhumans who had a natural tendency towards crime, poverty, anarchy, and chaos.  This isn't a prejudice that was solely held by people who voted Federalists, but it was far more pervasive than in the egalitarian minded ethos of Democratic Republican voters.  The Rebellion therefore was cast as the natural slippery slope result of the revolutionary trend, going from well meaning concerned citizens who felt their rights weren't being represented to people demanding the heads of kings and queens to unfit and uncouth savages getting the idea that they could overthrow the rule of the noble races.  In short, the A and S Acts were the consequences of an elite that was bent on re-establishing the dominance and supremacy of their culture over the "Lessors" that had been so for generations before.
That this last point has been largely whitewashed in American History classes is a testament to the great revisionism inherent in the Ivory Tower class (who by their very nature are the real "victors").

5. And this is probably one of the big slam dunk points to be made in this thread: Hamilton and his cohorts set about events in motion that would encourage the formation of standing armies in America.  Washington and crew readily used army expeditions into the heart of the "west" to provoke attacks from Native American tribes on them in order to push for continual expansions of the American Army.  For a party that stated it's repeated opposition to expansion of the west this is both "ironic" and signs of dishonest intent.  Hamilton later used the ghost of a French invasion of the American mainland, which Federalist President John Adams called "as likely as a French invasion force landing on the moon!"  It is almost an unwritten truth that Hamilton was raising this army for future incidents like the Whiskey Rebellion to quell popular discontent where it may arise.  Hamilton's Machiavellian schemes in going about this in a way that can only be described as "Blofeldesque" certainly raises questions about his and other Federalist good intentions.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So what you are saying is that people in the past were different to us and we shouldn't try to bluntly put on our concerns onto them without at least trying to understand what their concerns were?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remove the biased perspective, I endorse everything this thread establishes.

I would add that you should mention that wealthy New Englanders were either merchants or worked for merchants and thus benefitted financially from slavery, not to dissimilar to the way that Northern Whig Industrialists relied upon cotton for their textile mills thirty years later.

I espescially like the way it connects the modern Republican party to the Federalists, something that is not done enough largely because of over emphasis to the approach to the constitution and size of gov't divorced from the cirumstances as opposed to the "contextual, object of benefit" approach I prefer.

I would point out that even in England there was Conservatism that would be considered "Liberal" by the standards of the 16th and 17th century that was coming to the fore in the late 18th century in reaction to the French Revolution, contrasting that of the Glorious Revolution and American Revolution, which had the objective (at least at the start) of restoring the rights of Free Englishman being trampled upon, to the excesses of the French Revolution seeking a complete overthrow of the social structure. 18th Century "Conservative-Liberalism" was hardly a US only phenomenon but perhaps an anglo phenomenon.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think anyone would deny that the Federalist Party in general and Hamilton in particular were supporters of the concept of meritocracy (in the sense that only those who have shown they have merit should rule).  However they by and large were not supporters of aristocracy. (By which I mean a meritocracy in which merit was something that could only be inherited.)  So yes, in terms of motivation, the Federalists were clearly akin to the modern Republican Party, yet in term of policy the Federalists are more aligned with the modern Democratic Party, while the original Republican Party had policies more aligned to those of the modern Republicans.

That said, the whiskey tax was poorly thought out and implemented in a regressive manner.

[Deus Naturae]

How is this specifically inconvenient for posters on the Atlas? I've yet to see any lefty on here give any special praise unto the Federalists.

[Mechaman]

How is this specifically inconvenient for posters on the Atlas? I've yet to see any lefty on here give any special praise unto the Federalists.

Oh good fellow, it will get more inconvenient later.  ANd yes, I am biased, but I will put on my best Howard Zinn impersonation and bash both sides.

I am, after all, at heart thoroughly anti-elitist.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Too lazy to read it, and given our correspondence, I think I know what you have in mind just seeing the word "Federalist" in the post so many times. Probably won't agree with everything you say, but I'm glad someone is so willing to challenge the liberal consensus on matters of history.

[Mechaman]

Okay, part II:

The Democratic Republican Party: Not very libertarian at all. No really, they weren't

1. The Whole Radical Yeoman Agrarian Society Thing: The one major failure of the DRs in almost everybodys' opionion.  Let's just say that it was a simpler time and many saw the drift towards the cities as the succumbing of men to the vice, sin, and greed.  This of course is much different from what we now think of as "libertarianism" (really just a bunch of robo-reactionarism who highjacked a genuine left wing ideology at the start of the Cold War), which has at it's root a fundamental belief in the supremacy of the free market.  While there was agreement between the "liberal" scholars of the day who preached the Invisible Hand doctrine with the old days Republicans, this was a far different mindset than what we consider to be "libertarianism".  Both ideologies believed that a lack of government interference (though not in practice for the DRs as we will see in a minute) would leave men best to themselves.  However, the Jeffersonialist belief in the supremacy of the individual (unless they are black, Native American, or some other non-white minority whose land they're taking over) was more rooted in what was an opposition to the way things were run for centuries with the view that government was around to harm the commoner and strengthen the elites.  Many "libertarians" today, while they do genuinely believe that governments have a sum negative effect on the common person and that if it weren't for the state more people would be rich, often take the sides they do out of a belief in the supremacy of capitalism and somewhat (emphasis) pro-business views (though not excessively, many "libertarians" are very skeptical of big business like many liberals but have a different take on it) that wouldn't gel with the typical activist doctrinaire of the Democratic Republican Party.  The DR hardcore follower would argue that big cities represent a grave threat to American liberty, most "libertarians" would probably see the growth of said cities as a net benefit and a proof that capitalism works.
This is just talking about the theoretical differences, mind.  When we get into how the Democratic Party actually worked, the differences get LEGION.

2. Proto-Manifest Destiny: "Libertarians" are defined usually by having a very strong opposition to the use of force to accomplish one's objectives, playing "World Police" and like to criticize the growing of America into an "Empire, not a Republic!"  Funny then that many of them link their ideological ancestry to Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans, who actually viewed the entire continent as their oyster to do with as they pleased.
As has been alluded to repeatedly, Jefferson and other "enlightened liberals" of their day believed it was the white man's sacred duty to subdue and civilize the lessor races.  This was, in a way, proto-humanitarianism (but really anything but).  Sadly enough, Jefferson and other Pax Americana supporters forgot that if you want to take over a continent it requires a lot of dead bodies.  But it didn't matter, the "savage" races were too dim witted to know what was good for them and Jefferson and his boys were coming to the rescue!
Compare and contrast with the stereotype that libertarians wouldn't stop Hitler.

3. Embargo?  No way!: Yes way Ted.  By the 1810s the DRs had thrown away the book on "free trade" and were just going with what the hell they felt like on that front.  Of course, Henry Clay was a prominent Republican of that time, to give you an idea of how religiously they took "free trade".  In fact, by 1812 prominent Republicans like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun (what?  You're kidding me!) were openly advocating for the same rates the dreaded Hamilton was calling for just two decades earlier. The average tariff was actually higher under Jefferson than it was under Adams.  Before the war the evil First Bank of the United States was ended, almost right after the war it was re-established under overwhelming Democratic Republican rule.  As the DRs became more powerful, they became more and more protectionist, far from the laissez faire doctrine they were preaching in the 1790s and far from the "no borders" views of libertarian advocates.

More to come, hopefully.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I disagree that libertarianism can be compatible with urbanism. Libertarianism just isn't comfortable with the level of government needed to make a significantly sized city function.  Zoning, road planning, parks and recreation facilities, and other necessary accoutrements of modern urban living just aren't compatible with pure libertarianism.

[Deus Naturae]

By the 1810's, the Federalist Party was virtually dead outside of New England, so it isn't surprising that there would be Democratic-Republicans with differing views on trade.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot wait to see what comes next.

The DRs in becoming the US shortlived single party was characterized by an increasingly "Federalist Looking" leadership and an ever more disappointed and disgruntled core of "true beleivers". This reached its climax with yet another Adam's "being installed" in their view in the White House and hence the reformation of a two party system in the 1820's and 30's. This disappointing leadership dates back to Jefferson first taking office when he upheld large parts of the Federalist Financial system and then used it to buy half a continent, a power his strictly interpretted Constitution did not give him.

Of course the successors to Jefferson's agrarian and anti-elitist ideals were hardly any more consistent or principled in their adherence to or pursuit of such than Jefferson himself was.

I see a man on a horse from a western state when I close my eyes.

[Beet]

Excellent thread.

I would agree with Ernest that there is a tension between libertarianism and urbanism. The quintessential urban center in the United States is New York City ... the center of capitalism, as well as the center of liberalism. If anything, capitalism and liberalism have a symbiotic relationship, neither could survive long without the other.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excellent thread.

^^^^

I'm glad I'm not one of those liberals who swoon over Hamilton. He was certainly a brilliant man and the aptest statesman of his generation, but his views seem thoroughly awful to me. Despite their obvious issues, I'd be a solid Democratic-Republican supporter back in these days.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Excellent thread.

^^^^

I'm glad I'm not one of those liberals who swoon over Hamilton. He was certainly a brilliant man and the aptest statesman of his generation, but his views seem thoroughly awful to me. Despite their obvious issues, I'd be a solid Democratic-Republican supporter back in these days.

The fact that there are still people who don't confuse the means to achieve the desired ends, for the desired ends themselves, proves there is some hope left out there.

They like Hamilton's because he provides "the tools" if you will and ignore the question of why.

[Mechaman]

Sorry about the delay guys.

I'm currently reading up on some material that will give me an idea of what to talk about next.  I'm hoping for something to do with early 19th century society.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Thomas Jefferson: one of the few good politicians back in the day. He was truly in support of small government, unless in important cases like the Louisiana Purchase. Also, he was very supportive of state rights.The only wart on him is the embargo act. James Madison always seemed to me to be a liberal, but I might be the only one here who thinks that.
He didn't like the rich Federalist Party, yet he knew there had to be some government.


But anyway, please continue!!!!

[SPC]

3. Embargo?  No way!: Yes way Ted.  By the 1810s the DRs had thrown away the book on "free trade" and were just going with what the hell they felt like on that front.  Of course, Henry Clay was a prominent Republican of that time, to give you an idea of how religiously they took "free trade".  In fact, by 1812 prominent Republicans like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun (what?  You're kidding me!) were openly advocating for the same rates the dreaded Hamilton was calling for just two decades earlier. The average tariff was actually higher under Jefferson than it was under Adams.  Before the war the evil First Bank of the United States was ended, almost right after the war it was re-established under overwhelming Democratic Republican rule.  As the DRs became more powerful, they became more and more protectionist, far from the laissez faire doctrine they were preaching in the 1790s and far from the "no borders" views of libertarian advocates.

More to come, hopefully.

I would think that Tertium Quids such as John Taylor and John Randolph would be closer to a proto-libertarian ideology than hawks such as Henry Clay or John Calhoun. I'm not sure what the Tertium Quid position on expansion was, but given their opposition to the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812, I can't imagine that they would have the lebensraum flaw either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So can we expect more here soon?

[Antonio the Sixth]

So can we expect more here soon?

Yes plz, this is a great thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

ah, Mecha?

[Mechaman]

ah, Mecha?

I am reading some books on Thomas Jefferson and the Revolutionary War Era.  I think I'll cover the actual reasons for the Revolution and the sides involved.  An update that should be coming up in a night or two.

[Mechaman]

Boom!  Update!

The American Revolution: Different Players, Different Reasons:

Why is this necessary?

From my experience with Revolutionary War discussions it seems that there are usually a couple of sides.  First there is the side that says that the Revolution was just a bunch of rich men throwing a hissy fit over a few taxes and used the guise of a genuine movement to advance their greedy causes.  The second is that the revolution was the greatest thing to ever happen in the history of mankind and that the British were literal tyrants in every way (Mel Gibson's The Patriot is the defining straw of this hyperbole, turning every British officer into a dogkicker along the way).  So yes, I thought an honest look at the players is necessary.

1. At it's worst, British Rule was moderate villianry, not The New Rome: Believe me, I have no reason to downplay how bad the British Empire was.  There were elements of British rule that were exceptionally horrible on and off during their Empire phase. It would be a great insult to my Irish heritage to at all suggest that British rule was free and fair.  The American Revolution, in my view, was a more than fair response against the injustices of British rule.  By the liberal standards set forth in the later Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, British rule failed greatly.
Now, with that said, British rule in America was far from some of the doomsday totalitarian regime in the 18th century that is sold by some.  In fact, in some cases, America got off light compared with the rest of the kingdom (especially with taxation, which many Parliament members commented on).  Rule wasn't entirely hands off, but they at trusted Americans enough to form their colonial legislatures and even *gasp* elect their own representatives.  Further, during the Revolution, British army officials and governors were willing to free the slaves of landowners (IIRC, some Royal Governors had the authority to emancipate the slaves, which is what Lord Dunmore of Virginia threatened to do in 1775) if they fought on the side of the Brits.

2. Yes, there was a clear financial motivation for revolution: Many of the British laws that the colonists were up in arms against had pretty negative affects on commerce and the activities of certain landed interests.  Basically, the colonial elites who were up in arms against the British had the concern that continued British rule threatened their freedom to commerce and profitable trade by anchoring the colonies to the Mother Country.  With the war debt of the French Indian Wars, it was inevitable that some policies that would negatively affect the economic elites in American society would come about.  This isn't to say that the gripe about "no taxation without representation!" isn't true, but merely that as the British forced more and more unpopular laws on the colonies, a growing group of elites felt that the Crown was strangling their commerce.  Further, threats from various Governors about emancipating slaves in unruly states also made some slaveholders quite nervous.  Overall you could say, the America elites viewed the Revolution, which was at first seen as a crazy idea propelled by a few radicals, as a necessary means to solidify their influence and authority.
Were they the only ones who benefitted from it?  Hell no.  Which brings me to Part 3.

3. Religious Freedom: At a time when it actually meant something: With the exception of the former colonies of New Amsterdam, religious tolerance and freedom wasn't exactly Colonial America's strong suit.  In fact, Thomas Jefferson's crusade for Religious Freedom began as a member of the House of Burgessess fighting against the Anglican domination of society at the time.  In the state of Virginia at the time it was a crime to not to baptize infants in the Anglican church, "dissenters" were denied office, and children could be taken from their parents if the parents failed to profess the prescribed creeds.  The state of Connecticut had the Congregationalist Church as an established state church well until the 1810s, which forced members of other religious denominations to give a tithe to that church.  Catholic residents were discriminated against strongly.  Penal laws were enforced especially strong in the colony of Maryland where Catholics were denied the right to vote, worship publicly, hold office, practice law, and establish parochial schools.  Land taxes were doubled on Catholic landowners during the French and Indian War, due to suspicion that Catholics were allies of the French.  Large numbers of Prebyterians from Ulster immigrated to America to escape the discrimination encountered back in Ireland and ended up forming a strong base of Patriot support during the Revolution due to resentment against British rule and the Anglican establishment.
Religious minorities who felt discriminated against by the Anglican elite and the Royal authorities, had a strong reason to jump on the Revolution bandwagon.

4. George Washington was a pretty mediocre general: Had to be stated.  If he had been a more strategically effective general who wasn't obsessed with recapturing New York, the war could've been decided much earlier (probably in 1778) as the British force in America, hell the world, was pretty doggone tiny and ineffective given it's reputation.  The total British force was 96,000 men.  Yes, I mean the entire worldwide force at the time of the revolution.  You are not misreading that.  The American force was much smaller at only 40,000 men.  Not only that, they were armed with weapons with very inferior accuracy and range to the weapons that the French had supplied the Americans with.  SO it is with no surprise that Lord North was actually begging the King to let him resign in peace so he wouldn't have to subdue the rebellion.
And yet, with all those factors working in his favor, Washington managed to make the war a six year long campaign and almost get caught by British soldiers SEVERAL times.  Dear lord, Stevie Wonder could've made a better general.

I'll try to come up with more tomorrow.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Washington was not the best military leader, but you fail to account for the fact that the troops he commander were often unrealiable and his subordinates often failed him at every turn, like Sullivan, Gates, Lee and others. Most all of whom had strong bases of political support and favorable connections with members of Congress to the point that they were often foisted on Washington and had to blunder there way out to make way for people he could rely upon like Green, Morgan and Lafayette at the cost of adding to the length of the conflict and causing numerous defeats.

As for the troops themselves, Washington was restrained from raising an all professional force of 20,000 to 40,000 like he had wanted by Congress and yes would have been very well positioned once tried to end the war quickly. Though I would point out that the American supply network was not existent and Washington barely kept the 10,000 and under force of regulars that he had as an organized and effective fighting force, sometimes he has as few as 3,000 men. Washington was required to supplement with large numbers of militia and in a few instances that worked. Prior to Washington's assuming comand in the Boston campaign of 1775 (hardly a campaign, more on impulse then direction) but thousands of militia had harrassed the march back from Lexington and Concord, and then commenced a pathetic siege to the place. One of the few cases were the militia allowed the American's a weight of numerical advantage. The other was the Saratoga campaign, where they managed to outnumber Burgoyne by the end of the campaign. Success attracts support and numbers, who thought. Of course Gates had little to do with the success and was more in the right place at the right time to take credit for the unusual usefullness of the milita, luck, the poor decision making by the British high command (Howe taking Philly instead of coming North) and Arnold's strategic attack at the second battle of Saratoga (which would not have happened had Gate's had is way as he had ordered Arnold to remain in his tent). In every other circumstances, the militia had failed Washington and eventually it got so bad that they essentially had ot place them in such a way on the field so that they either fought or were killed (either by British or American Regulars).

The reason Washington is praised is for his ability to stay in the game with impossible odds. Washington did make mistakes at Brooklyn Heights to be true and listened to the wrong people (Sullivan among them) leaving his flank exposed and then his troops broke and ran, but Washington was able to escape that night and avoid destruction. He made mistakes again and contibuted to the dwindling of his force to be true. Just because he contributed to his dire condition doesn't detract from the fact that with just 2,000 to 3,000 men, Washington manuevered a force ten times his size out of New Jersey in December 1776 and January 1777 with the battles of Trenton, escaping encirclement to attack the force at Princeton and then skedattle to Morristown, a place where the British could not attack him in the Winter, but Washington could threaten the flank of any move into central NJ from New York.

He might not have been perfect, but he was certainly not lacking in strategic talent either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Also in criticizing the New York focus, you forget two things. One, the political leadership of the colonies was largely based in the Middle Colonies, and thus well within striking distance of New York. Also, just like in the Civil War, the political leadership demanded that New York be the primary target as Richmond was later insisted upon during that conflict. Secondly, from a military standpoint, the primary focus of the British from 1775 until 1779 was in splitting the colonies in half and subduing New England first, which was seen as the center of the trouble. Even after that though, the British still maintained a sizeable force in New York and attempted one more time in 1780 to take the Hudson River and achive the northern split that had failed twice before (the last of which ending with Burgoyne's Surrender), using the treason of Arnold as a means to capture West Point. New York was also also the base of operations for British both for the Navy and for General Clinton. There was more then enough reason for Washington to remain in the North and focused on New York. Sending him South would be like in the Civil War sending Lee west to face Grant in 1862.

[Mechaman]

Now that I displayed my utter ignorance of military matters. . . . . prepare for another update hopefully sometime this weekend.  I plan on writing a few words on New England society of the late 18th-early 19th century.  It might take a few days to prepare, due to what I think are underlooked/misunderstood issues of the time (which are pretty numerous).

I'll keep you guys posted.