Archive for the ‘Early American history’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Washington’s Circular Letter of 8 Jun 1783

by Edward Posted: Sunday, 6/5/2011

Washington’s_Circular_Letter_of_8_Jun_1783 <== PDF version

The year 1783 was not an easy one for the thirteen newly-independent former British colonies.  Although formal hostilities had ended, the British continued to interfere with commerce.  Congress under the Confederation was proving to be a weak and useless institution, unable to meet its financial obligations, and unable to force the states to meet their obligations to Congress.  The financial situation was so bad, in fact, that there were a few conspiracies in which some attempted to enlist the aid of the army to force the states to make good on the requisitions imposed by Congress.  General George Washington had himself defused such a conspiracy in Mar 1783, in which some of his senior officers had attempted to instill a revolt in the ranks because Congress had not been able to pay the men.  Congress continued to seek authority to establish a steady and reliable revenue stream, but the states were opposed to it.

It was at this time that George Washington, as commander of the army, but intending to resign his commission, took the initiative to outline to each of the 13 state leaders his view on necessary reforms.  He wrote a circular letter to each of the governors or presidents of the thirteen states, explaining the current situation as he saw it and what would be necessary to ensure that the Revolution had not been in vain.  His letter was made public, and was widely published throughout the states in the summer of 1783.  It was an early recognition that some move toward a more firm union of the states to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation was necessary.  Washington wrote in part [1]:

“The citizens of America, placed in the most enviable conditions, as the sole lords and proprietors of a vast tract of continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the world, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life, are now by the late satisfactory pacification, acknowledged to be possessed of absolute freedom and independency; they are, from this period, to be considered as the actors on a most conspicuous theater, which seems to be peculiarly designated by providence for the display of human greatness and felicity; here, they are not only surrounded with every thing which can contribute to the completion of private blessings, by giving a fairer opportunity for political happiness, than any other nation has ever been favored with.  Nothing can illustrate these observations more forcibly, than a recollection of the happy conjuncture of times and circumstances, under which our republic assumed its rank among the nations; the foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance and superstition, but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined, than at any former period, the researches of the human mind, after social happiness, have been carried to a great extent, the treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labors of the philosophers, sages, and legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the establishment of our forms of government; the free cultivation of letters, the unbounded extension of commerce, the progressive refinement of manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and above all, the pure and benign light of revelation, have had a meliorating influence on mankind and increased the blessings of society.  At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a nation, and if their citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will entirely be our own.

Such is our situation, and such are our prospects: but notwithstanding the cup of blessing is thus reached out to us, notwithstanding happiness is ours, if we have a disposition to seize the occasion and make it our own; yet, it appears to me there is an option still left to the United States of America, that it is in our choice, and depends on their conduct, whether they will be respectable and prosperous, or contemptible and miserable as a nation; this is the time of their political probation, this is the moment when the eyes of the whole world are turned upon them, this is the moment to establish or ruin their national character forever, this is the favorable moment to give such a tone to our federal government, as will enable it to answer the ends of its institution, or this may be the ill-fated moment for relaxing the powers of the union, annihilating the cement of the Confederation, and exposing us to become the sport of European politics, which may play one state against another to prevent their growing importance, and to serve their own interested purposes.  For, according to the system of policy the states shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided, whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn millions be involved.

With this conviction of the importance of the present crisis, silence in me would be a crime; I will therefore speak to your Excellency, the language of freedom and sincerity, without disguise; I am aware, however, that those who differ from me in political sentiment, may perhaps remark, I am stepping out of the proper line of my duty, and they may possible ascribe to arrogance or ostentation, what I know is alone the result of the purest intention, but the rectitude of my own heart, which disdains such unworthy motives, the part I have hitherto acted in life, the determination I have formed, of not taking any share in public business hereafter, the ardent desire I fell, and shall continue to manifest, of quietly enjoying in private life, after all the toils of war, the benefits of a wise and liberal government, will, I flatter myself, sooner or later convince my countrymen, that I could have no sinister views in delivering with so little reserve, the opinions contained in this address.

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power:

First.  An indissoluble union of the states under one federal head.

Secondly. A sacred regard to justice.

Thirdly.  The adoption of a proper peace establishment.

Fourthly.  The prevalence of that pacific and friendly disposition, among the people of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interests of the community.

These are the pillars on which the glorious fabric of our independency and national character must be supported; liberty is the basis, and who ever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the structure, under whatever specious pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration, and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured country.”

He then went on at some length to explain each of the first three main points: 1) that the federal government requires certain essential enforceable powers; 2) that creditors must be paid faithfully, and a certain means of revenue put in place, and secondly, the soldiers of the army must be fairly compensated; 3) that the militia is the backbone of the nation’s defenses.

[1]  John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, Washington: The United States Government Printing Office, (1938); Vol. 26, pp. 483-487

Tags: , ,
Posted in Articles of Confederation, Early American history, Revolutionary War, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

A False Claim for a “Living Constitution”

by Edward Posted: Friday, 6/3/2011

A_False_Claim_for_a_Living_Constitution <== PDF version

There are a significant number of people to buy into the argument that the U. S. Constitution should be a “living document”.  It is not just some crackpots who believe it; it is embraced by a fair number of educated people, some of them educated in constitutional law.  Before I examine a supposed justification for the “living constitution”, it is useful to spell out what is meant by that phrase.  The underlying philosophy of the “living constitution” sect (for it is a civil religion) is that the U. S. Constitution was a great advancement in the 18th century, but is now obsolete. With the advent of technology and industry that supplanted the agricultural economy of the colonial period, it is necessary, they claim, for the government to expand its powers as it sees fit in order to do good, help the people, to pick economic winners and losers, and to regulate the activities of business and the people for the common good. These expansions of power are justified, they claim, because it is all done for the benefit of the people.

It is pretty obvious that the intent of the founding fathers was to create a limited government with limited specified powers, as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.  The main idea was to protect individual liberty as much as possible, consistent with peace and stability.  But the advocates for the “living constitution” sometimes attempt to find a justification for the arbitrary-power model of government in the writings of the founding fathers themselves.  Mr. Garrett Epps does so in his essay of 1 Jun 2011 [1], titled “Constitutional Myth #2: The Purpose of the Constitution is to Limit Congress”.  It is true that the Constitution was intended to create a federal government that had viable powers, unlike the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  Congress under the Articles was simply too weak to function as a viable government, and it was obvious that some new form of government was required.  That is quite different than saying the Constitution was designed to allow the federal government to anything it wanted.  Mr. Epps claims in his article that Alexander Hamilton viewed federal powers as unlimited. To do so, he quotes a sectio from Hamilton’s Federalist #34:

“There ought to be a capacity to provide for future contingencies as they may happen, and as these are illimitable, in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.”

Mr. Epps uses this passage in isolation in an attempt to show that Hamilton regarded the federal government as having arbitrary powers, including one to create more powers, and the power to use them all as it saw fit in the future.  There are two fallacies here.  The first is that Mr. Epps fails to point out that the Federalist #34 is part of a long sequence on taxation (numbers 30 through 36) in which Hamilton expends great effort t show that federal and state taxation are compatible, can be efficiently collected, and are devoted to different expenses.  The federal expenses that Hamilton had in mind here are mentioned two paragraphs later in the same essay:

“What are the chief sources of expense in every government?  What has occasioned that enormous accumulation of debts with which several of the European nations are oppressed?  The answer plainly is, wars and rebellions; the support of those institutions which are necessary to guard the body politic against these two most mortal diseases of society.  The expenses arising from those institutions which are relative to the mere domestic police of a State, to the support of its legislative, executive, and judicial departments, with their different appendages, and to the encouragement of agriculture and manufactures (which will comprehend almost all the objects of state expenditure), are insignificant in comparison with those which relate to the national defense.”

Secondly, Mr. Epps declines to point out that Hamilton had, a few days earlier in the Federalist #33, discussed the fact that only specific powers were conferred to the federal government.  In his discourse on taxation, Hamilton addresses objections to the “Supremacy Clause” (Article VI).  The critics had claimed that this and the power of taxation would be the “pernicious engines by which their local governments would be destroyed and their liberties extinguished”.  But Hamilton explains:

“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed.  It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government which is only another word for political power and supremacy.  But it will not follo from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but are invasions of the residual authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land.  These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

It is clear that Hamilton regarded the powers of the federal government to be limited; otherwise, how could he claim that laws contrary to the constitution are acts of usurpation?  I is true that we the people have grown lazy and have failed to call acts of usurpation by their real name. The only fix for that is education.  I would urge everyone to read the Federalist Papers, so as not to be misled by those like Mr. Epp who wish to impose arbitrary government upon you.  It is clear that neither Hamilton nor the other founders implicitly advocated the notion of a “living constitution”.

[1]   https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/constitutional-myth-2-the-purpose-of-the-constitution-is-to-limit-congress/239374/

Posted in Alexander Hamilton, Articles of Confederation, Early American history, federalism, Federalist Papers, government powers, living constitution, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

On the General Welfare Clause

by Edward Posted: Wednesday, 5/18/2011

On the General Welfare Clause <== PDF version

Mr. Mike Wallace of Fox News interviewed Representative Ron Paul of Texas on 15 May 2011.  In the course of the interview, the topic of the meaning of the “general welfare” clause of the U. S. Constitution came up.  Mr. Paul’s view was that the Constitution did not grant the government to do anything it  wanted under a justification of “general welfare”.  Mr. Wallace cited the 1937 Supreme Court case “Helvering v. David”, which ruled that Social Security was permitted under the powers of Congress called out in Article 1 Section 8 of the U. S. Constitution.  By extension, therefore, in Mr. Wallace’s view, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may pass laws it claims to further the “general welfare”.  Mr. Wallace did not explain how payments to individuals, that is, laws that promote “individual welfare”, can actually be the same as “general welfare”.

What is the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause?  It appears in two places in the Constitution: a) the Preamble, and b) Article 1, Section 8.  The Preamble reads:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 1, Section 8 reads: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”; whereupon follows 17 clauses calling out a list of specific enumerated powers granted to Congress.

To see the intent of the founding fathers, it is necessary only to review three passages of the Federalist Papers.  The first is Federalist #23, in which Hamilton refers back to the Articles of Confederation, where the phrase “general welfare” was first used.  He is discussing the principle that powers must be granted to governments commensurate with the ends desired, as follows:

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise.  Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations.  As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the “common defense and general welfare.”  It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

It is important to recall that the purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to manage the war effort against Great Britain.  Therefore, in the Federalist #23, Hamilton asserts that the general welfare consisted of maintaining that war effort.  His complaint here is that Congress under the Articles was too weak to force the states to uphold their end of the financial obligation.

The Constitution was formed as a union of the states into a system that is partly national and partly federal.  The powers granted to the government were greater than were granted by the Articles, in order to meet the needs of a compact union; i.e., to ensure that the union of the states functioned as a true nation, not as simply a federation.  In other words, the government under Constitution would have greater powers to promote the general welfare than the Articles which it replaced.  James Madison explained what these powers of “general welfare” are in the Federalist #41, as follows:

“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined.  It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.  No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.  A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.”

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?  If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?  For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?  Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.  But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”

It is obvious therefore, that the powers conveyed to Congress for the purposes of common defense and general welfare are the enumerated powers listed in the 17 clauses immediately following the main heading of Article 1, Section 8.  If you look them up, no where will you find anything resembling the “social programs” currently in force at the federal level.

Last, Hamilton alludes to this principle briefly in the Federalist #62, as follows:

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.  Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first.  I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last.  The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Here we see from his last sentence that the U. S. Constitution provides the means, that is, the legitimate powers, by which the happiness of the people is to be secured, which is the object of government.  Since all legislative power is vested in the Congress per Article 1, Section 1, it seems that Hamilton is referring to the same list of powers as contained in Article 1, Section 8.  He also mentions “knowledge of the means by which that object can be best obtained”.   He was discussing the Senate in the Federalist #62; but here is a case where all of us would do well to examine the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8 so we can see for ourselves the legitimate powers of government conducive to liberty, security, and the general welfare.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Alexander Hamilton, Early American history, Federalist Papers, James Madison, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

A Comparative Scale of the National Debt

by Edward Posted: Thursday, 5/5/2011

Comparative_Scale_of_the_National_Debt  <== PDF version

We are all aware of the enormous national debt that has been accrued by Congress over the past 35 years or so.  For those too young to recall, the national debt began to accelerate in the mid-1970’s, and has continued to increase steadily since then except for a few years in the late 1990’s.  In this paper, I will relate the total debt to median household income, and calculate the total indebtedness in terms of number of years of median income owed per household, if every household were held to account equally.  This calculation will be done for 2010 and for 1784.  The year 1784 is instructive because that was the year Congress (then under the Articles of Confederation) defaulted on the national debt as it then existed.

The mark of an educated mind is to be content with an approximation as Aristotle informs us.  We do not have the data necessary to make a computation to nine decimal places, but we can, with a few assumptions, get a reasonable sense of the relative magnitude of the indebtedness in 1784 compared to the current total national debt.  To start, we shall use round numbers as shown next.

In round numbers, according to the 2010 census, the median household income is about $50,000, the total national debt is about $14,000,000,000,000, the total population is about 310,000,000, and the total number of households in the U. S. is about 110,000,000.  If we divide the total debt by the number of households, we obtain an average indebtedness per household of about $125,000 in round numbers.  If we divide this by the median income per household, we obtain 2.5 — this is the number of years of total income the median household would have to pay if each were held equally responsible for paying the national debt.  How does this compare to 1784?

The census closest to 1784 is the one in 1790, which showed that the total population was 3,893,635, of which 694,280 were slaves.  There was an influx of people in the few years just prior to 1790, so, as an approximation, we will assume the population in 1784 was about 3,500,000.  The census collected data on households, but they were mixed in with the number of males and females above age 16.  To avoid this problem, we will assume that the ratio of households to population was the same then as now, that is, about 1:2.8.  This gives, in round numbers, about 1,250,000 households in 1784.

The median income data is a little more difficult.  McMaster [1] reports that the median wage in Boston for a typical workman was 12 shillings per week, which is 60% of a Massachusetts pound.  The Massachusetts pound was set at 1289 grains of silver.  For convenience, we will convert the Massachusetts pound to Spanish Milled Dollars (SM$), which was the de facto currency of that time; the milled dollar was reckoned at 386.7 grains of silver.  Hence, the weekly wage of a workman was SM$ 2 Spanish milled dollars (surprisingly, an exact number).  Therefore, at 52 weeks per year, the median annual income was approximately SM$ 104.

It may be objected here that most people in 1784 did not work for money wages.  That is true; but it is also true that a money-wage is nothing more than a convenient conversion factor that represents the amount of labor necessary to procure the necessities of life.  So, the typical household had to expend a certain amount of labor whether it was paid in money or not, and if held responsible for a fraction of the debt, that payment would have to be made either in-kind, in-labor, by taxation on land, or by converting a portion of labor to money.  In the end, the debt is paid by the proceeds of labor and land, whether represented directly in money or not.  We may therefore convert all households, whether agrarian or wage-earners, to the equivalent of money.

The total debt in 1784, converted from colony pounds, French livres, depreciated Continentals, and hard money was SM$ 68,000,000 at the above-mentioned conversion rate [2].  Performing the same calculations as before, we obtain a per-household share of the national debt as SM$ 55, which is 0.5 years of median income per household necessary to pay its share of the debt.

Now compare our two results.  In 1784, the total debt translated into about a half-year of median income per household; now, it translates into two-and-a-half-years of median household income — a factor of five larger.

It may be objected that the dollar is worth a lot less today than in 1784, and this comparison is not valid.  But note that I have compared debt in 1784 with income in 1784 in consistent units, and likewise for modern times.  I have not tried to compare dollars now with dollars then; had I done so, the objection would be perfectly justified.

The Congress in 1784 could not pay that debt because of a defect in the Articles of Confederation: the Articles did not give Congress authority to raise a direct tax or to levy import duties.  It could only ask the states for money, and often did not receive the amount requisitioned.  Now, Congress has arbitrary power to tax, yet we will have great difficulty paying this debt because of a defect in the members of Congress: they believe they have a power to spend borrowed money on anything they want, whether authorized in the Constitution or not.

[1]   John B. McMaster, A History of the People of the United States from the Revolution to the Civil War, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1900, p. 96.

[2]   Gaillard Hunt, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1928, Vol. 24, pp. 206-210 and 276-287; Vol. 25, pp. 954, 955

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Articles of Confederation, Congress, Early American history, national debt, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »