Thursday, August 20, 2020

Some musings over our nations beginning and Communism

 

I guess I’m having to overcome a degree of cognitive dissonance here as I have never given much thought to any influence the socialist or communist ideology may have had on US political leaders in the mid 1800’s.  Considering the time frame of Lincoln’s rise to power in the US and the attempts of communist revolutions in Europe, coupled with Marx and Engle’s little book being published about the same time, I can certainly see how some of the philosophy might spill over into America during that time.  

Collectivism is not a “new” concept in America.  The puritans all signed a charter while still onboard the Mayflower that was basically a primitive form of communist arraignment in the colonies.  They worked on a system of common land tillage, stored their production in a common warehouse and drew from the common storage to survive. 

Interestingly enough, these same New Englanders continued the threat of secession all during the War of 1812 which they called “Mr. Madison’s war.”  When the planters of the South made the same threat in 1861 they suddenly became nationalist again.  Again, as evident throughout history it just depends on who’s economic ox is being gored. 

I’ve read a good deal on these matters since my retirement 13 years ago.  (the instruction I was deprived of as a youth) I’ve been determined to approach these “studies” from the most unbiased position I can as a human.  There are those on both sides of the issues during the period 1861-1865 (and beyond) who are fixed and unmovable in their positions as to what actually happened and were the cause of the war.  I personally have concluded that the cause is the State itself.  I speak of the institution itself, its purpose and nature.  (but that’s for another place and time)  the most obvious direct reason in this case I can find, is the distribution of wealth or rather who was getting the bulk of the production into their pockets.  Slavery was but a single matter which was used effectively to stir passion and action among several factions.  

first, let me say that the State and government are not one in the same.  The State is the land, people and recognition of sovereignty.  The government arises from the state as the political means of administration.  Governments change.  We change it at every election.  Government is composed of the people who wield the power of the State over all citizens.  The less power the State has, the more power the people themselves have and consequently the more power the State has the less power the people have.  Only people have the power to form the State.  The only way ANY State has been formed in history is through one of two ways.  Conquest or confiscation. 

As an example, the king of England claimed ownership of the American Colonies.  The people were HIS citizens.  The colonist rebelled and defeated the King’s army removing them from the land.  They conquered the King and confiscated his land.  The Treaty of Paris codified this and each of the 13 colonies was recognized as sovereign States.  Through Articles of Confederation of the several states representatives were sent to Paris and signed on behalf of all the States.  For 10 years until the Constitution was ratified the nation operated as 13 sovereign States (or nations) in congress with one another.

The Constitution changed things.  Once ratified, it was out with the articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence was just a historic document.  There was no thought of “natural rights” or popular sovereignty and the never-ending topic of strong central government vs States rights was begun.  I think it safe to say that Mr. Jefferson on his return from France was not happy with the Constitution.  He envisioned a government that was national in foreign affairs and non-national in domestic affairs.  But it was what it was and he dealt with that the best he could.   

in the 1930’s Jay Nock wrote of the Constitutional Convention;

“The further task therefore, in Madison’s phrase, was to “administration” the constitution into such absolutist modes as would secure economic supremacy, by a free use of the political means, to the groups which made up the first division. (Moneyed and banking interest)

This was accordingly done. For the first ten years of its existence the constitution remained in the
hands of its makers for administration in the directions most favourable to their interests. For an
accurate understanding of the newly- erected system’s economic tendencies, too much stress can
not be laid on the fact that for these ten critical years “the machinery of economic and political
power was mainly directed by the men who had conceived and established it.

Washington, who had been chairman of the convention, was elected President. Nearly half the
Senate was made up of men who had been delegates, and the House of Representatives was
largely made up of men who had to do with the drafting or ratifying of the constitution. Hamilton,
Randolph and Knox, who were active in promoting the document, filled three of the four positions
in the Cabinet; and all the federal judgeships, without a single exception, were filled by men who
had a hand in the business of drafting or of ratification, or both.”

The economic die was cast and the agrarian South was in my opinion odd man out from the beginning. 

Lest we forget that it was a bountiful business in the North for the carriage and sale of slaves imported from the African continent.  Money and financial affairs flowed for many years to banking interest in New York just as it still does today. 

The new nation enjoyed free trade among the several states.  Raw material for factories in the north flowed out of the south.  Agriculture and commerce grew in the south.  It took only 8 years before moneyed interest in the north decided a tariff was a good idea.  The idea was to severely restrict foreign vessels and favor US vessels thereby growing the trade and ship building in New England.   It worked and earnings of the northern shipping interest grew from around $6 million to over $42 million by 1807. 

The war of 1812 hit New England the hardest.  That’s why they threatened secession and referred to it as Mr. Madison’s war.   After the war the British used the port of New York as a dumping ground for products from abroad and nearly bankrupted the area.   Through a clever arraignment of the routing of southern cargo, New York shavers were able to extract about 40 cent of every dollar spent on southern cotton.  During the 1850’s US trade had risen to $318 million dollars and tripled that in the next decade. 

By now, the south accounted for 2/3 of the nation’s exports and cotton alone 60%. 

 --I will continue this discussion in a day or so--

 

No comments:

Post a Comment