Kontan’s Place

Hamilton VS Jefferson

Who was more successful at manipulating the machinery of government to shape American society? Alexander Hamilton or Thomas Jefferson? Why?

Thomas Jefferson:

• Jeffersonian
• Secretary of State
• Cautious about enhancing power of federal government
• Favored yeomen farmer
• Sympathized with French
• Policies continued that of Washington with westward expansion (Irony is the Louisianna Purchase. Jefferson was dedicated to strict interpretation of Presidential powers but seized the opportunity to double the size of the US with purchase of LA.)
• Explicit powers, strict interpretaion of Constitution
• Agrarian
• Jeffersonian Republicanism: self-sufficiency. If everyone is independent they are likely to behave in a maner that will sustain the republic.

Alexander Hamilton

• Federalist
• TreasurySecretary
• Had agreement of Washington with regard to broaden economy and strengthen national government for purpose of national growth.
• Concerned with development of material resources to make nation self-sufficient
• Tended to favor Great Britain in foreign affairs
• Pressed for larger regular army as a means of expanding the power of national government (justified by need to deal with Indians)
• Implied powers proponent
• Believed corruption of government is what makes it work
• Commercial, not agrarian
• Pushed the Alien and Sedition Acts
• During Era of Good Feelings his ideas take hold (develop military, internal improvement, charter national bank)

winner: Alexander Hamilton, father of the national debt. America develops a national bank, develops on credit, establishes a standing army, US still allies with Britain, and continues on the path of governmental corruption.

Continued: “Roots of Postwar Politics”

Preface: I hate studying politics. It is absolutely the most difficult arena for me…

During and after WWII there were recognizable changes regarding the relationship of business and government. The business sector pursued a positive image to avoid blame for the depression. Business also became more monopolistic. There were also changes in the nature of demagoguery. Whoever appealed most to the anger and frustration resulting from war experienced influence and rise in the political arena. According to Wolfe, business and military were more successful at directing “this sentiment against the New deal than New Dealers were to use it to their own advantage.” Politics in the postwar era became a process of securing business confidence in order to secure voters.

Wolfe explains the emergence of a growth coalition advocating economic expansion through policies of macroeconomics, acceptable to the monopoly sector of the economy. By using surplus, this growth coalition, planned to enable the poor and minorities to take part in the reshaping of cities through domestic policies. Regarding foreign activity, they planned to economic domination with military power to maintain American influence, while incorporating the poor into the growth through aid and developmental assistance. Wolfe states, “the growth coalition should properly be characterized by its dominant belief: the idea that growth at home and expansion abroad could unify the interests of the dominant sectors of the economy with an electoral base that would keep it in power so long as growth continued.” Eisenhower is credited with embracing such growth, therefore legitimizing it.

Wolfe also addresses the changing political vocabulary in the United States. He first defines liberals as “those who believed that the government should play a positive role in correcting the abuses of capitalism by promoting a concern with equality and social justice.” In contrast, he states, “Conservatives argued that business had made America great and that therefore as few reforms as possible should be passed that would undermine its privileges.” As with most political ideas and terminology, the meaning of both liberal and conservative shifted over time. Liberals became those that pursued rapid growth, while conservatives embraced consistent and tempered growth. According to Wolfe, liberals were willing to pursue rapid growth using government and that the result of growth would be a fiscal dividend useful to expansion of welfare benefits. The same principles of domestic expansion, advocated by liberals,were applied to foreign policy with the creation of the national security council. Conservatives were also advocates of growth, but preferred it to occur through the private sector and at a slower pace, in an effort to avoid inflation. Conservatives were also cautious with imperialistic foreign policy.

Fortunately Wolfe summarizes his liberal/conservative growth coalition debate stating the necessity of compromise. He believed the liberals and conservatives were closer on policy than either group would care to admit, stating, “the debates between the parties were real, but they concerned how fast and at what cost growth should be achieved.” To achieve success both groups had to find a middle ground to appeal to voters, therefore issue debates were more concerned with the means of achieving success, not the actual success. According to Wolfe, “the consolidation of this growth-oriented pattern of politics under Eisenhower was the most important consequence of the Republican interregnum of the 1950s.”

The Roots of Post-War Politics: Alan Wolfe

After WWII challenges faced the US regarding government organization and relationships within the world. There was a great push to return to business, while battling communisim and embracing ideals of isolationist policy. There were even some thoughts of continuing New Deal initiatives to a natural conclusion of democratic socialism, American style. (full employment, economic planning, national health insurance, commitment to peace though the United nations)

America chose economics over politics believing if the economy was under control, social issues would follow. Economic expansion was sought at home and abroad.

tbc…..

American Supremacy

“The war had overturned the world, and many American’s believed that they were now on top of it.”
Thomas Patterson: The Origins of the Postwar International System

This is the first of three essays I am looking at to evaluate the impact of WWII on America at home and abroad. This first is very well written, capturing attention with descriptive insight as well as historical foundations. Patterson examines the impact of WWII on politics around the globe and the early attempts of US leaders to guide the rebuilding process of the changing international system.

With the world in shambles, America was forced to shift from total war to peacetime production. Americans were ready to spend some of the money they had been saving during the war years. Women, who had replaced many men in factories and the general work force, were having to shift back to traditional roles as men came home from the war. (This is an intense side note here, but the article does not address so I will have to address it later as I further discuss women and industrialization in America.) Although America celebrated the end of WWII there was fear that the era of prosperity would collapse. The war, not FDR’s New Deal, brought America out of the depression. . . could it’s end send Her back? Although the rest of the world struggled with rebuilding their cities, societies, and governments, Americans were enjoying the excitement of vacations, entertainment, and industrial boom. Wages had kept up with inflation and with nothing to spend on during the war, Americans made up for it afterwards.

Abroad the US accepted the role of superpower. Patterson states, ” more than statistics establish American supremacy. World conditions did so. The United States was powerful because almost every other nation was war weakened.” The US had the opportunity to shape the rebuilding of the postwar system. The greatest concern was who would be on which side. Although devastated by the war, the Soviet Union accounted for a huge rival for American security. Patterson feels, and accurately so, that the major powers in the world exploited the opportunities presented by postwar reconstruction. Smaller nations alligned themselves with one power or another in an attempt to secure aid, independence, and security. Some nations embraced neutrality. In the eyes of the US such nations were either with America or against, believing the neutral nations were an alliance against America. Decolonization was an issue facing all major powers, none were immune. Independence was granted by the US to the Philippines, where the US continued to aid with security. A significant involvement is that of Vietnam. Both the US and Soviet Union competed for allegiance of new governments, Washington backing the French and Soviets allying with the Vietminh insurgents, as Patterson refers to them. Both sides saw the benefits of their alliance in the potential for strategic bases and new markets.

International politics were strained, with the bomb resting in the back of everyone’s mind. It’s power of immense destruction served as a deterrent as well as a means. It presented an arms race on an unseen scale. New problems arose in the post war world, new instabilities. Conflict of interests carried and hardened into a four-decade Cold War.

Morgan: American Slavery, American Freedom

In American Slavery, American Freedom Edmund S. Morgan presents the history of early Virginia, intending to also present the paradoxical relationship of slavery and freedom, and the role of each for support of the other. He contends American independence was purchased with slave labor. Slavery was not the original plan for the American colonies. Expectations were for the natives to welcome the new arrivals and adapt to the colonists proposed way of life. Much to their dismay, settlers underestimated both the climate and conditions of their new habitat, as well as the native reception.

Morgan begins with Roanoke and descriptions of grandeur for future colonial settlements in America. The described reality is not so grand. Differing agendas, natives unwilling to assimilate to the satisfaction of colonists, and little initial capital led to the story of the “Lost Colony” and what Morgan calls, “The Jamestown Fiasco.” Slavery is not part of either story in the beginning. In fact, Morgan maintains the colonists did not wish to enslave, or even force, natives to work. Even through difficult times they continued to desire a Utopian society of interracial cooperation. However, as times grew tougher, and tension higher, there was less cooperation among all participants in the colonial experience.

Although not forcing servitude upon the Indians, settlers did beg, trade, steal, and demand Indian cooperation for settlement survival. Without the native population early settlements would have been considered a dismal failure in the grand scheme of history. Some would find it an arguable point despite the passage of time and successful establishment of an independent nation. Regardless, some form of servitude is characteristic of colonial settlements, despite the early absence of slavery. Morgan describes three types of servitude: tenure, bond, and apprenticeships. To be a tenant was considered most advantageous as they were allowed to receive a portion of profit earned. Bond servants received nothing but their personal maintenance with a master receiving all profits. Lowest on the early servitude scale was the apprenticeship. Apprentices served a term of seven years to the planter paying for them and then another seven years as a tenant. Most servants were tenants. However, as tobacco became more and more profitable the nature of servitude began to shift more to bond labor. Laws were expanded to guarantee extended terms of service eventually leading to the acceptance of slave labor.

No longer wishing for the Utopian interracial society, some natives were enslaved. Later, the profitable nature of African slave labor was discovered by colonists. At first, not wishing to enslave the Africans, colonists bought them from island settlements. Over the passage of time, and increasing profit, the moral dilemma of enslaving another did not seem such a dilemma for colonists. After all, slaves were considered mere pagans and property to be utilized in the most profitable manner.

Upon this argument, Morgan successfully presents the paradox of freedom and slavery, the irony of one society’s freedom built upon the enslavement of another. However, without the benefits of slave labor it is likely that the colonists would not prevail in their struggle to break from English dependency. For such adaptation and acceptance to take place, Morgan describes the shifting prejudice that must occur to morally justify the cultural adaptation. His presentation seems at times to be judgmental of the colonists. By modern standards they do seem morally bankrupt regarding the treatment of fellow man, however their moral outlook is not the same as those of modern society, and modern society is not without its own moral bankruptcy. Morgan’s work is an interesting presentation of the history of Virginia, provoking examination of what he describes as the American paradox. He is rather slow in this provocation, not detailing servitude and slavery until well into the work.

Greene: Pursuits of Happiness

In Pursuits of Happiness, Jack Greene compares the colonies of the Chesapeake region with that of New England, as well as Old England and earlier colonial settlements. Four major goals Greene attempts to assess and reach in his work are to evaluate prevailing assumptions regarding the significance of New England colonial development to other settlements, compare experiences of settlers in various other colonial establishments, determine the emergence of American culture and outline important points, and provide a historiography for further research. Greene proposes to create awareness for the diversity of early settlements and birth of American cultural patterns based not only on one particular region, but a combination of the four broad cultural regions of Chesapeake, New England, the Middle Colonies, and the Lower South. In reaching the goals he outlines, Greene focuses on social development, examines European and African settlement patterns, and attempts to digress from generalities .

Greene describes the dominating characteristics of both Chesapeake and New England settlements. Where Chesapeake was secular, materialistic, and competitive with a high mortality rate, New England was religious with a benign environment of kinship networks and low mortality contributing to rapid growth. New England’s patriarchal system also had strong social institutions contributing to development. Due to the agricultural foundations Chesapeake had a high demand for labor and their disproportionate population did not allow for strong social institutions, but strong individualism was prevalent. Although Greene claims those coming to Chesapeake colonies intended to model Old England, it was not possible due to the harsh environment which would not cooperate with their lofty intentions. The Chesapeake colonies adapted for not only personal gain but necessary survival. It is not realistic to compare two vastly different climates of settlement, Chesapeake and New England, and assume they will successfully model the same area of origin.

Greene negates the assumption that New England colonies were more representative of Old England. In fact, he supports the argument that Chesapeake is more representative due to the nature of settlement and settlers of Chesapeake seeking to improve their economic status and personal growth, striving for economic gain and growth, thereby making society more competitive. Also, the social ladder was not firmly established, one could easily move up and down based upon circumstances. New England colonies were more religious and conformist in their desire for personal perfection, religiously paternalistic with stronger kinship ties.

With the passage of time, the bonds of New England society seemed to deteriorate. Settlers contributed this deterioration to moral and social decline, as well as a rejection of founding goals. Reverse of Chesapeake, New England developed from community to individualism. As the population grew in New England individuals and extended families dispersed attempting to establish their own dream of success. New settlements, semi-independent and somewhat antagonistic of each other, developed. They also experienced a decline in the influence of clergy. Greene argues that it is not a decline of society as they seemed to believe, but mere change and adaptation to the passage of time. Although religion continued to dominate New England society, it did not hold the same preeminence as with original colonial settlement.

Although off to a difficult start, Chesapeake became a more cohesive colony developing an extensive social system. Greene claims a closer relationship between rural Britain and Chesapeake Bay. Important to development was the replacement of indentured servitude with black slaves. Slaves were a free labor source that did not cease after a period of time, and it was self perpetuating. Over time, slavery allowed for economic growth and stability of the region. Chesapeake experienced the growth of a small and powerful elite and the expansion of religious fervor, yet the same dream was driving colonial development, that of independent happiness and opportunity.

Greene establishes that New England was the exception and not the norm. With time, Chesapeake and the lower South struggled from political and socioeconomic strife just as the island and European colonies had. Chesapeake eventually became, at least to a degree, what New England began as. In comparison, New England ntinbecame more like the competitive and individualistic society of early Chesapeake. Rather than developing into vastly different regions, the two gradually became more alike contributing to the development of American culture. Greene’s approach is both analytical and informative, offering a logical comparison of New England and Chesapeake colonies to that of earlier colonies and Old England. However, little information is provided to determine the impact of early colonies upon the development of future American culture.