The Federalist Party

Today I listened to another teaching by Rev. Rushdoony regarding the federalist administrations. These were the Washington and Adams administrations, taking place over the first twelve years of our government's existence. Washington was not a federalist in one sense. He did not want the country to fall into partisan politics. For this reason he included in his cabinet both federalists and democratic-republicans. At that time, the federalists were led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, while the democratic republicans were led by Thomas Jefferson. The federalists had a very loose interpretati0n of the constitution, and they wanted to make a strong central government. They came up with the idea of implied powers in the constitution (which caused no end of trouble). What's more, unlike most Americans, they liked the British, because they wanted good trade relations with them. American foreign policy under the federalists was a position of neutrality towards all countries, a position that avoided war with Britain by all means, and a position that was unfavorable towards alien immigration (naturalization took 14 years back then). The American government started under a cloud, almost bankrupt and therefore with little credit. Alexander Hamilton, the treasurer under George Washington, saw to this problem. First, Hamilton insisted that the United States had to pay all the debts, including the state's debts. This was unnecessary, since it was not the job of the government to pay state debts, yet it gave the U.S.A. some degree of foreign respect. How were these debts to be paid? By customs and duties on imports, excise taxes on several American goods(liquour was one of these things, the tax on it led to the whiskey rebellion, as farmers hated this excessive tax), and sale of federal lands in the west. The second thing Hamilton did was to create the Second Bank of the United States. It was a very powerful bank. The constitution forbade the government and states from using anything but gold and silver (they couldn't print money). But it didn't forbid banks, so the banks began to print millions in paper. However, they couldn't make it legal tender. It could be refused. As the money circulated it depreciated in value. Hamilton knew this would happen, but he wanted to get businesses rolling, so he created the bank to provide capital for new industry. And there was an industry boom. However, because printing money was an inflationary measure, the boom didn't last long. Eventually, the Second Bank of the United States would be wiped out by Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Republicans, who were for keeping the U.S. an agricultural community, were more supported by farmers and the like that were the Federalists, and the Federalist party died soon after the election of James Monroe.

The Missouri Question

When the Missouri Territory petitioned for statehood as a slave state, the free states went into an uproar. Mississippi and Alabama had just entered the union as slave states in 1817 and 1819, bringing the number of states up to 22, 11 slave, and 11 free. Northerners were already annoyed that the cheap labor in the slave states threatened to give the southern economy an advantage, and on top of that, the three-fifths slave voting rule gave the southern states a majority in the house of representatives. If Missouri joined, it would give the south a majority in the senate as well. New York representative James Tallmadge proposed an amendment ceasing further import of slaves, and freeing all slaves when they reached 25 (if they were younger at the time of the amendment), but it was shot down quickly. Debates raged, Congress fought, and the whole country was divided. Eventually, in 1820, the state of Maine also petitioned for statehood. The solution was now apparent. Both Maine and Missouri would become states, keeping the Senate even, and a new line of latitude was established, above which slavery was not permitted. However, this conflict was simply the brooding of the storm that was to be the civil war...

Women's Education in America

Today I read a speech by Emma Hart Willard, a woman who pushed for women's education. In her speech, which was given before the New York state legislature, she said that women could better teach children (because of their nature) then men. However, she said, women were not currently fit to teach because they themselves were not educated, due to the fact that colleges would not accept women. She believed that the nation would benefit from women's education, because the current men teachers would be free to pursue other jobs, and children would be better taught. She even went so far as to say that past republics had crumbled because women had not been allowed to give society the proper "tone". She also said that because women recieved a poor education, they made bad choices (such as spending too much money on frivolous things). She blamed this on the men, who "neglected our education". She suggested that housewifery be "taught on philosophical principles" so that it would "become a higher and more interesting occupation; and ladies of fortune, like wealthy agriculturalists, might find that to regulate their business was an agreeable employment". Right. It is interesting to note that one of the early graduates of Troy Female Seminary, a school that Willard founded, was Elizabeth Stanton, a feminist.

Democracy in America, Pt. 2

I read chapter 8 from Alex de Toqueville's "Democracy In America" today. He made a very interesting point in it. In his discussion about the executive branch, he talked for a long time about the exellency of the American election system, and how it created the least amount of agitation and disorder among the American people. But he had a problem with the idea of REELECTION. He noted some pros and cons. On the one hand, if a president is good, he is reelected, thereby prolonging his administration, and improving the country. But he believed that the cost outweighed the benifit. Reelection motivates the president to exclusively seek reelection during his first term, causing him to do things he would not normally do to attain it. The government of the country in a proper way becomes a secondary interest. This is a corrupting force in our government. In the words of Toqueville himself: "...in introducing the principle of reelection, they destoyed their work in part. They granted a great power to the president and took away from him the will to make use of it." I personally would agree with this. It is unfortunate that man has to design intricate check/balance systems of government to play upon man's greed and lust for power. The "ideal government" has never been acheived, because of the fallenness of man. And, until Christ comes, it never will be...

Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, pt. 3

I read a little more about Hegel today, and, from a Christian standpoint at least, his beliefs are nothing short of ridiculous. He believed that God's main goal was to "find himself, become aware of himself, coincide with himself", and that God (a word which Hegel used interchangeably with "the Idea") had to "alienate itself in order to find itself again." When Hegel looked at history, and saw that in ancient times only one man was free: the despot. In Greece and Rome, the Republics made several men free, but there were still many slaves. Hegel believed that all men were free in the Germanic world (Hegel was German). In the same way, he believed that the "Idea" was revealed through art (a sensual and imperfect revelation), through religion (a mental and more refined revelation), and finally through philosophy, the final perfection (Hegel of course, was a philosopher). Hence, Hegel's philosophy led right back to himself, and Hegel believed that he had "recapitulated and given expression to the autobiography of the divine." This is the result when a human tries to put himself on the same level as God. Tragic...and ridiculous.

Postmillenialism in America

I listened to another history lecture by Rev. Rushdoony today. It was about Postmillenialism and the war of Independence. In 1769 a English clergyman visited the middle colonies of America. He believed that "...the empire is moving westward, and everyone is looking forward with eager and impatient expectation to that destined moment when America is to give law to the rest of the world". America was still split up into colonies, yet everyone believed that it was to be the new center of the world. Many historians note that the predominant eschatology in America was Postmillenial. This is why so many could predict that America would have a great destiny and bring hope to the world. In fact, they predicted that by 2000 America would be a utopia, with a higher population than "the great empire of China". It was believed that it was impossible to defeat the British navy in the war of independence, yet America did, with only several hundred men and a few ships. No wonder the Americans believed Providence was behind them. When they had gained their independence, they believed that their goal was to go out and conquer the earth, that they were the "new Israel" of God. They believed that their young children should be educated in schools (which were typically taught by the pastor in the area) in which they would learn biblical truth. It was unusual in America to find a man who was uneducated. Prisoners from England who were dumped into America (most of these were people who stole because they were starving, and were not hardened criminals), were either converted to Christianity or at leas brought into line. Toqueville himself found America novel. He believed that, unlike the rest of the world, America could not be compared to ancient society because it was a completely unique situation. And he was right. God blessed America in amazing ways, and while it followed Him, it flourished.

Eschatology in History

Today I listened to another history lecture by Rev. Rushdoony. His lecture was about the eschatology(or beliefs about the end of all things) of St. Augustine. For example Premillenial, Amillennial, and Postmillenial are the three main branches of eschatological thinking. The Amillenial eschatology of St. Augustine was influenced by his Manichean backround.

Manicheanism said that there was two kinds of gods, and two kinds of being. On the one hand is the good god, who is spirit, mind, life. There is also the bad god, who is matter, desire, and darkness. The world, according to Manicheanism was divided in half. This worldview was twisted, believed that "spiritual" was good (this includes Satanic spirituality) and "material" was inherently evil, and it had a bad effect on Christianity. According to Manicheanism, you were a good man if you fled the material to the world of spirits. Because St. Augustine, who was a very theologically sound man, had embraced Manicheanism for a while as a young man, he had never truly forsaken it. He believed that Christians should withdraw from the world as one body, the church. There we must wait for the end of the world. Therefore, the essence of being saved was to retreat from the world. These monastic beliefs are embraced today in many denominations. The idea of the "rapture", a retreat at the end of the world, branched off from Augustinian beliefs. The "hippies" are a result of Manicheanism. What's more, Manicheanists occasionally switch what is right and wrong, and revert to Satan worship.

Postmillenial eschatology, on the other hand, embraced a worldview of victory. "Go out and conquer" was its battlecry. People with this worldview became great scientists and inventors, as a form of "conquest". The early settlers had this eschatology, which was why they came in the first place, to turn the wilderness into paradise. Anything less, they believed, was sin. However, only a small percentage of the people on the Mayflower were actually Christians. People who prayed before meals were believed by the rest of the settlers to talk to their plate. Why then, did they have such a social order? Because those who were Christians dominated American society, and held it together. Today, there is a much larger percentage of Christians in America, yet they no longer have the same mindset, and this has affected society. If more Christians today would have a dominion mandate, our world would be a very different place.

American Society and the State

Today I listened to a history lecture by Rev. Rousas Rushdoony on Alexis de Toqueville's book "Democracy in America", and the state of American society at that time. Toqueville said in his book: "society governs itself for itself." This absence of the more "official", strong state government would have perplexed many Europeans at that time. The true government at that time was a government of society and private associations. These associations were agencies created by the people to deal any problem or conflict that appeared. Because they were created whenever a problem was seen, there were very many of them. For example, as far as religious organizations were concerned, there were seperate organizations to distribute bibles, minister to indians, build chapels, etc. This abundance of societies was ridiculed by Europeans. Yet it kept America stable. For example, Salem, a small town that was founded by a few Protestant families, doubled it's population every few years, and yet as time passed, it's character did not basically change, even with a great inflow of foreigners. How did it keep it's Puritan character? Its societies taught the immigrants. The attitude in America was to try to meet every need imaginable. Large ammounts of time and effort poured in to minister to others who needed it. Most of the immigrants (for example, the Irish during the potato famine) were Catholic, but when they came to America, large numbers became Protestant . The Red Cross was extremely successful in America because of the mindset of it's people. Eventually, as America grew, relief efforts and aid spread worldwide, and America became the rest of the world's hope. Their government was not what we think of now as government. It wasn't Washington D.C. Government was to them:
1. The self government of the Christian man.
2.The government of the family.
3.The government of the church.
4.The government of your work.
5.The government exercisized by society, those that you live among.
Then, finally, there's the state. Rev. Rushdoony pointed out that it is when society ceases to govern itself that the state takes over. What Toquevile failed to notice was that the church was responsible for the old state of society. Christians fueled the old government. The tithe funded it. Today, SOMEBODY has to foot the bill for relief and welfare, and right now it's the civil government. The State has picked up what society used to do, and politics and greed have corrupted and foiled the effort. The more that the freedom to be responsible for society is taken away, the more it is replaced with the freedom to be irresponsible (hence the booming entertainment industry), and it has destroyed America.

Slavery in America

Around the year 1800 the conditions of slavery began to change. Tobacco was less in demand, and in addition, it depleted the soil. Many in the Chesapeake area switched to wheat and livestock. But these crops, while demanding more skill, required less labor, and many slaveowners emancipated at least some of their slaves. In the lowcountry, the principal crop was rice, which demanded both skill and labor. In this area, slaves lived by the task system, where a slave was required to do a certain amount of work each day, after which he was able to spend the afternoon at his leisure. This encouraged the slaves to work quickly and efficiently. However, a new cash crop was on the rise: cotton. Until 1793 cotton was impractical to produce because of the time consuming business of picking out the seeds. But that year, the cotton gin was invented by Eli Whitney, and cotton became a very lucrative crop, with production jumping 45,000% in the following 50 years. The ensuing competition forced farms to become more productive, and quick. The task system was abandoned, slave gardens were cleared to plant more cotton, and it became more common for families to be split up for profit. In other aspects however, slave treatment itself became more humane. Living conditions improved, masters began providing food for their own slaves instead of leaving them to grow for themselves, and death rates dropped, even though runaway slaves outnumbered slaves imported into America. The resulting farms spread across the states became known as the "cotton belt". Several major slave revolts took place around this time. All of these revolts were supressed, but America began to realize they could not hold onto their slaves forever. Thomas Jefferson himself said that slaveholders were holding "a wolf by the ears". They could not hold on forever, and they could not let go."

Gibbons vs. Ogden

Today I read an excerpt from Gibbons vs. Ogden, yet another example of how different views on the meaning of the constitution can cause confusion. In the case, the New York legislature granted Aaron Ogden the exclusive right to run a steam ferry from New Jersey to New York. Thomas Gibbons, another steamboat owner, had a federal license "to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade”, and set up a rival ferry, causing Ogden to sue him. The case was brought before the Supreme Court, where it was decided whether it was the federal or state government’s duty to regulate transportation. The constitution states that “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” After some talk, it was decided that navigation is included in commerce, putting it under Congress’ jurisdiction. It was also decided that the states and Congress could not both have the power to regulate navigation, and that it belonged to Congress alone. In the end, Gibbons was allowed to continue his business, and Ogden’s monopoly on steamboat travel in New York was declared void.

McCulloch vs. Maryland

Today I read about a court case known as McCulloch vs. Maryland, which decided whether the government had the power to commision national bank. In the case, of which I read part of the transcript, it was agreed that the states had agreed to have a limited government over all of them, with a certain ammount of power. The question remained, however, "how much power?" The constitution does not state that a bank is or is not outside the powers of congress, so that (as well as many other powers) must be implied. For example, although the constitution gives congress the power to "establish offices and post-roads", but it does not give them the power to punish mail thieves. This is an implied power. The idea of implied power sheds light on the phrase in the constitution which gives congress power to do that which is "necessary and proper". Because a bank would enable the government to do it's job more expediently, the court presiding over the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland ruled that it was constitutional for congress to make a national bank.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, pt. 2

Today I got yet another look into the unusual philosophy of Hegel. One of the most odd of his beliefs was about the concepts of "being" and "nothing". He believed that they were one and the same. This strange concept was explained in this way. "Nothing" has no attributes. It does not have color, taste, shape, time, place, etc. A book exists, therefore it has "being". If the book is black and square however, that does not mean that "being" is black and square. Therefore, Hegel reasoned that both "being" and "nothing" have no attributes, and therefore must be the same, even though they are direct opposites. At first this philosophy may seem like it makes sense, yet upon more thought, it could be argued that "being" is not nothing, but everything, which would make it at odds with "nothing". At any rate, this is a philosopher who, like many others, specialized in logical madness...

The Congress of Vienna

Before the war with Napoleon ended, Great Britian, Russia, Austria, and Prussia agreed to the treaty of Chaumont, in which they agreed to stand united against another French uprising, assuring peace in Europe. After the war, this "Quadruple Alliance" organized the Congress of Vienna, one of the most important international agreements ever made. Great Britain was represented by the Viscount Castlereigh, Russia by Alexander I himself, Austria by Prince Klemens von Metternich, and Prussia by Prince Karl August von Hardenberg. Eventually, France itself joined the congress, represented by Prince Talleyrand. One of the most important issues during this congress was the fate of Poland. Napoleon had turned some of what was Poland into the Dutchy of Warsaw during his reign, and now the five representatives had the important job of deciding how to partition and divide the ownerless territory. Alexander I wanted to turn the Dutchy and the Austrian and Prussian possessions of Poland into a kingdom under Russian "protection". Hardenberg agreed to this, as long as it could have the kingdom of Saxony. Metternich of Austria and Castlereagh were both opposed to the idea, believing Alexander to be attempting to slowly gain control over all of Europe. Metternich, Castlereigh, and Hardenberg came to Alexander, trying to arrange a compromise, but all failed. For months there was talk of war. Finally, Talleyrand came upon a solution. He created a "secret" alliance with Talleyrand and Metternich which was directed against Russia and Prussia. This "secret" was allowed to be leaked to Alexander, and the tsar backed down. In this way, this and many other problems involving territory were solved at this congress, restoring peace in Europe...for the time being.

Democracy in America

Recently I have been reading several chapters of Alexis de Toqueville's book, "Democracy in America". In chapters 5 and 6 of his book he makes some very interesting observations. First, in chapter 5, he notes a major difference between the administrative decentralization of America and the administrative centralization of Britain. He said: "What does it matter to me, after all, if there should be an authority always on its feet...flying ahead of my steps to turn away every danger... if this authority... is absolute master of my freedom and my life...?" He wisely noted that the more "convenient" an nation became, the more powerful and domineering the government would have to become. This was one of the reasons he much preferred the American system. Another one of the interesting things he noted was that one of the reasons that nations like ancient Egypt and others lasted so long, and why America was so successful, was not because the government held it's citizens in sway, but because the population of these nations was unified on the point of religion (not surprising). In chapter 6, Toqueville spoke about the judicial branch, where he gave another interesting thought. He gave three characteristics of a judicial power. The first, he said, was that a judge cannot make any decision unless there is a dispute. In other words, no case, no judge. He said: "When [a judge] pronounces on a law without starting from a case, he goes outside his sphere completely and enters that of the legislative power". Yet today, judges are allowed to pronounce laws constitutional or unconstitutional. This "legislation from the bench" allows judges to go outside their sphere of allowed power, and yet it is condoned in our nation. It seems that in this book, everything that Toqueville praises about our government has eroded in the last 150 years. Hmm...