Federalism

Ramon de Elorriaga,  "Washington's Inauguration," 1889
 April 30th, 1789, Federal Hall, New York
Trinity Church is in the background which is also still there today

The high point of Federalist influence in the country was the inauguration of George Washington in 1789,  after designing the Constitution and successfully arguing to get it ratified by the states. For more than a decade, the Federalists would control government. After 1800, they rapidly fade away as a political force in the country and never gain dominance again (at least not in the same form or same name).

The final development to be explained is federalism and the emergence of the party system, which emerged separately from the Constitution. Federalism speaks to the division of power between the national government and the states. Most states do not have this distinction. The term United States of America is hardly analyzed today, but in theory, this country is made up of a union of states, or basically separate "countries." Clearly, the sense of national unity is much stronger today, but there are definitely traces of state and regional identity, and the larger geographical and cultural separations between North and South are still evident. Today, it may be more accurate to speak of coastal areas and the interior, meaning the East and West Coast are culturally more similar while the interior of the country is distinct. Coastal areas are shown to be more politically innovative, as shown in Jack Walker's innovation score for the states. On the other hand, the interior of the country was once the center of the populist movement, as journalist and historian Thomas Frank points out in his book What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004).

Parties emerge from this too, even though there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for the establishment of political parties, and as we will see, in the first decade of the operation of the new political system, the idea of party competition was unforeseen, not anticipated, causing major difficulties in the early days of the Republic. In simplest terms, political parties recruit, nominate and campaign for candidates to occupy the offices of government. 

If the Constitution establishes the separation of powers and the structure of the government itself, then political parties compete to place their members within this structure. In another sense, political parties, have always provided patronage to supporters. Patronage is the practice of providing jobs or other means of assistance in return for the loyalty (votes) of your supporters. The modern political system is really incomplete without discussing the emergence of the the party system which eventually settled into the two-party dominant system we are familiar with today. We will discuss its emergence in the context of rapid industrialization and urbanization in the first decade of the new republic and the conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson (leaders of two opposing parties). 

Washington's inauguration can be seen to be highly symbolic (and relevant for the present) considering that his inauguration was in New York City, on Wall Street. New York was originally the capital of the country, although only from 1789-1790. Hamilton who represented big New York bankers became Washington's Secretary of Treasury, and very little has changed in the relationship between the government and Wall St. bankers since then. 


In Hamilton's life and his writings, you see clearly the intersection between politics and economics, and he understood (though by no means the only one) that  law and politics are fundamentally about shaping, controlling, or influencing economic forces.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton was a member of the Cabinet. The President's Cabinet was a combination of advisors, but also department heads who would run the agencies considered necessary to running the government and carrying out the laws passed by Congress. Originally there were five, each headed by a "Secretary" (similar to a Minister in other countries): State (deals with foreign countries); Treasury; War (now called the Defense Department after WWII); the Attorney General is not referred to as Secretary but is the head of the Justice Department which prosecutes criminals under federal law, heads up agencies like the FBI and the DEA, defends the U.S. in lawsuits, and enforces the law. Finally, the Post-Master General of the Post Office who has since been "demoted" and is still a government agent but no longer "Cabinet-level" which is considered the highest level. Today there are 15 Cabinet departments, other Cabinet-level offices like the Chief of Staff, and various other agencies below that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet

The federal judiciary (of which Hamilton was a prime architect) set up under the Constitution also went into effect, along with the Judiciary Act of 1789 which further specified the structure and duties of federal courts. One of the busiest was the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The 94 federal district courts are the lowest level of the federal judiciary. Above them, presently, there are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeal, in most cases these are the highest federal judicial authority most people will deal with if they have to. Higher than this is the U.S. Supreme Court but it limits the amount of cases it hears every year to about 100. 

The primary concern of the Southern District today includes Manhattan and the Bronx and handling cases under "admiralty law" or cases involving trade or shipping disputes with foreign countries or interstate trade from other states. This is a highly sought after position and has been used a springboard for even higher offices, for example before he became Mayor of New York City in 1993, Rudolph Giuliani was the State's Attorney (or federal prosecutor) for the Southern District of New York. This is distinct from the Government of New York State and the City of New York, you can see now how the different layers of government: federal, state, and municipal all overlap with each other depending on authority and function.

Southern District of New York

Legal matters involving trade with a foreign country come under the jurisdiction of federal law. Since the port of New York was the busiest port in the country, most cases involving disputes over shipping and international trade would occupy most of the court's activity.

New York was already the most populous city in the country. The first census was conducted in 1790 and has been done every 10 years since. According to the first census the population of New York City was only about 33,000. Philadelphia was second, followed by Boston, and then Charleston, South Carolina, and Baltimore, Maryland in that order. According to the first census in 1790, the total population of the U.S. was just under 4 million at that time (today the population is over 310 million, the 3rd largest in the world).

Wall St., New York, The building pictured was the temporary headquarters of the new government
The remodeled City Hall, now Federal Hall

In the early 1700s and even into the early revolutionary period, Philadelphia was considered the largest city. Both New York and Philadelphia had a superior geographical location, a deeper harbor, and a better river system than Boston. Both cities were also considered more open and tolerant than Boston, and so many people moved there and the population grew. New York simply had more of these qualities than Philadelphia and that is why it became the bigger city: it's harbor was a little bit better, it was closer to the ocean, and culturally it was even more open and tolerant than Philadelphia (the city of "Brotherly Love"). 

In the early 1800s the construction of the Eerie Canal linked the economy of New York with the entire Great Lakes Region of the country, and linked completely through waterways. By 1860, New York's population was 250,000 more than Philadelphia's total population. The harbor of New York is considered one of the most "perfect" natural harbors in the world, ironically, the port is now virtually inactive due to years of corruption and mafia penetration of labor unions has raised the cost of doing business so much, that many containers are now unloaded once again in Philadelphia or Baltimore or mainly in "Port Newark" and the Elizabeth Marine Terminal in New Jersey, which is now the busiest port in the country. However, Philadelphia's symbolic stature in the country's history is also secured, because it was where the Continental Congress met to sign the Declaration of Independence, and where the Constitutional Convention met to sign the Constitution.

Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Second St., Philadelphia
At the time the largest "shopping district" in the U.S.

One of the first major conflicts in the new government was over the creation of a National Bank. Hamilton's strategy was actually part of a larger approach to managing the finances and credit of the nation. Article VI of the Constitution says that the new government is responsible for all debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation (1783-1789). Now, Hamilton wanted to explicitly commit government revenues in the form of new taxes to pay off bondholders who had purchased government bonds. Bonds are debt, so when you buy government bonds or any bonds you are "buying debt," literally you give money by paying for the bond that they promise will pay you back later, when the bond "appreciates." The problem was that in the meantime, financial speculators had purchased large blocks of these bonds from individuals who had purchased them, in many cases to provide support for the revolution, but had become almost worthless in the meantime. Controversially, Hamilton proposed and succeeded in getting the current holders of the bonds the full payoff, vastly enriching a small group of financial speculators, giving financial interests in New York a huge advantage.

In addition, Hamilton wanted to absorb all the debts of the individual states which would increase the overall debt and lead to more taxes as well. This also angered states which had already paid off their debts and would now have to pay for other states. Taking on all this debt actually established the credit of the U.S. which might sound contradictory. The most important aspect of credit is credibility, in other words, can you be counted on to make regular payments on your debt? That is usually more important then even the amount of debt you owe. On the contrary, most financial institutions are more than happy to lend you more money, assuming they feel confident you will pay them back–that is essentially what credit is. If they do not feel confident they will not loan however, and your credit score is supposed to be a measurement of their confidence in your ability to pay things back. Countries also have credit scores although they use a different scale. In any case, most of the principles are fairly similar even at larger levels although obviously much more complicated. Hamilton's plan was successful and the U.S. began with perfect credit. To this day, the U.S. is still considered the safest market to invest in (meaning putting money in banks, other businesses, or government bonds) despite unprecedented high debt.

The final measure, as I already said, was the establishment of a National Bank. State banks of course had already existed, but at the time there was not a centralized financial institution that was large or powerful enough to regulate the finances of the entire nation. The advantages of the bank is that it would have more money on hand and be able to loan out bigger sums and thus finance bigger projects, but this would also lead to more economic concentration in fewer hands. Furthermore, the "constitutionality" of the bank was also questioned as there was no explicit clause establishing a national bank. Hamilton's response was that under the "Necessary and Proper" Clause in Article I, that it implies the power to create a bank.  The matter was resolved through a compromise: the bank was approved by Congress and in exchange the capital of the country was moved from New York, to a new "Federal City" which had yet to be built, but would become the District of Columbia, or Washington D.C., located not coincidentally, nearer to Virginia (the base of anti-federalist opposition). George Washington was never in the White House which was not completed until 1800 (Washington died in 1799). This also started a tradition of separating the political capital of individual states from its most economically developed city. Very few state capitals are the largest cities in their state (Boston is the only  exception I believe and that is because its so old it predates this tradition). Albany, for example, became the capital of New York in 1797. However, it took about 10 years to build the new federal capital, for ten years, Philadelphia became the "temporary" capital of the country, although even this decision many believed was the result of corrupt political bargaining. 

 Senator Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, holding a money bag
drags the capital to Philadelphia

In early 1791, as a result of the conflicts over the bank, the anti-federalist opposition began to be mobilized again. Now, people like Madison who were so influential in making the Constitution and was one of the principal authors of the The Federalist, had now switched sides. On top of this, Thomas Jefferson was now back in the country and served on Washington's first Cabinet as Secretary of State. Jefferson and Madison now began to organize opposition to the Federalists and in the process they created the modern political system which we now have in the form of the party system. 

The Federalist "Party" was not a true party or at least not until Jefferson had already organized. The Federalist relied more on personal connections and relationships and was thus informal. They were a loose association of like minded elites made up of large merchants and bankers in the cities of the North, and commercial farmers and large plantation owners in the South. Besides their support for measures like the National Bank and government tariffs to protect their industry they were also pro-British. This may seem strange to us having just talked about the revolution, although in real life terms seven or eight years is a fairly long time. However, economic reasons were of course the main attachment. Simply, many of the goods shipped out of Northern ports ended up in Great Britain, so they depended on the British for trade. 

At the same time, they were more opposed to the French who were at this time going through the French Revolution. The conservative federalists were alarmed by the revolutionary rhetoric and sought to insulate themselves from the French, even though the French had supported the American revolution (the costs of which actually contributed to the breakdown of their government, ironically). Both the British and French had started a policy of harassing American ships or imprisoning American sailors. This would continue for decades, and lead to an "undeclared" naval war with France in the late 1790s, and an official war with Great Britain (as of 1801 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) the War of 1812. Jefferson, who was former Ambassador to France and was in France during the early days of their revolution was perceived as being too "pro-French." It did not help matters that the French government sent officials like Edmond Gênet, "Citzen Gênet," to stir up support for the French revolution and establish "revolution clubs." 

In 1791, the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) began against French colonial rule, inspired by the revolutionary ideas of the French Revolution. This was used by Federalists as an example of the "contamination" spread by the French and did not "recognize" the new government in Haiti until the 1820s, despite being the only other successful colonial revolution in the Americas before the 19th century, and the first and only successful slave revolution in the Western Hemisphere. Haiti also began political "independence" in serious debt to France, which was not paid off until 1947.

The election of 1792, was the second presidential election (and the only one to occur three years after the first one in 1789). Washington was again elected unanimously. However, the Vice-President John Adams was re-elected but not unanimously, and this began to show the first cracks in the Federalist armor. Conflicts between the Federalists, and the newly formed Republican party–made up of the remnants of the anti-federalist opposition, the new immigrant populations mainly Germans and Irish at this time, and Western farmers–were extremely heated. There is even allegedly an American political cartoon showing George Washington being sent to the guillotine, the infamous execution device used in the French Revolution! No known copies of this exist and it was most likely destroyed. Washington also had to suppress what became known as the "Whiskey Rebellion" in 1794, after Western farmers rebelled against the extra taxes levied against them for producing whiskey. This was interpreted as Hamilton and Washington putting the tax burden on the poor while also stimulating the rum trade which was based on trade with the West Indies and Great Britain and went through Northern port cities.

"Triumph Government," circa 1793
President Washington heads off an invasion of French"cannibals" Jefferson tries to stop the wheels, while a dog lifts its leg on a Republican newspaper

"A Peep into the Antifederal Club," circa 1793
Shows the Republicans as "crazy anarchists" and "devil worshippers"
Jefferson is standing in the center with his arms open


George Washington did not decide to seek a third term in office, although this may have been due to health reasons. In 1796, the third presidential election was held. This time the former Vice-President John Adams was elected in a very close election against Thomas Jefferson. Since Jefferson came in second, according to the original rules of the Constitution this made Jefferson, the new Vice-President. So for the first and only time in U.S. history you had a president and vice-president from two different parties, who had just fought an extremely bitter and volatile election–who continue to do so even after taking office.

 This conflict probably reached its climax in the late 1790s with passage of laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Alien Act was the first attempt to limit immigration to this country. While not over-stressing the point, I think I have tried to demonstrate at certain points the political conflicts and the ideologies used in these conflicts back then, are not all that different than what you see today, including the bitterness and the hostility. Not surprisingly, there was anti-immigrant feelings back then too, and federalist economic policies did not really benefit immigrants either. Politically then it should be not surprising they would limit immigration if they believed most immigrants would not support them. The Sedition Act perhaps even more controversially made it illegal to say anything "false" about the government or its agents; in reality of course this was used to censor the opposition.

This is the main issue in Madison's report to the Virginia General Assembly in 1800, who is speaking for Jefferson. Although dense and difficult to read, in this document is arguably the origins of the later Confederate States of America as it contains all the principles later adopted by Southerners, including the right to cancel or "nullify" laws that states decide violate the Constitution and asserts the rights of the states as being equal with the Union as a whole. In other words you can see clearly how the earlier arguments of the Federal Farmer and the Anti-Federalists are incorporated within the newly formed "Republican" Party.

This continued until 1800, sometimes known as the "Revolution of 1800," although that may be an overstatement. After a decade of organizing and fighting, Jefferson's Republicans had created a nationwide organization at this time bound together through a network of newspapers, and "friendship societies" established in all the major cities and smaller villages too. One of the most important friendship societies was the Society of St. Tammany in New York City (later known as Tammany Hall), then run by Aaron Burr (1756-1836), a very controversial figure in U.S. history. Its support among the newly emerging working classes in the city were enough to deliver the state to Jefferson. However, Burr in this election tied Jefferson and this set off another constitutional crisis when Burr did not defer to Jefferson. Similar to the 2000 election, the winner was not chosen until February 1801, a month before the President was supposed to be inaugurated (back then it was in March, today its January). As stated in the Constitution, the House of Representatives would then vote to decide a tie. It took however, 36 attempts at voting before Jefferson was finally approved with a majority. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution was later passed in 1804 to address this problem by specifying the votes for "President" and "Vice-President," instead, of deciding based on the highest and second highest number of votes cast. Ironically, Alexander Hamilton from behind the scenes used his influence to get Jefferson elected, his old enemy. Aaron Burr became the third Vice-President of the U.S. He would later kill Hamilton in a duel in 1804 after Hamilton blocked Burr's plans to become Governor of New York.

The importance of New York for the early Republicans cannot be overstated. This established a successful formula for the Republican party as they were able to take the South plus New York in almost every election, and this combination would be enough to win both any presidential election and for a majority in Congress. The party was completely dominant from 1800 to the mid 1820s and the country was basically a one-party government at this time. After the Civil War, Southern Democrats (remember the "Republican" Party became the Democratic Party in the 1820s) were not credible to run for any national election. So, basically until the 1930s, the Governor of New York was basically the default Democratic candidate for President in almost every election (most of the time whoever he was lost).

Election of 1800
Three new states have been added:
Vermont, Kentucky and Tennessee
Notice the size of Virginia (largest state) which includes West Virginia
and Massachusetts includes Maine

	Election Year
House	1788	1790	1792	1794	1796	1798	1800	1802	1804	1806
Federalist	37	39	51	47	57	60	38	39	25	24
Republican	28	30	54	59	49	46	65	103	116	118
Percentage Republican	43	43	51	56	46	43	63	73	82	83
Senate	1788	1790	1792	1794	1796	1798	1800	1802	1804	1806
Federalist	18	16	16	21	22	22	15	9	7	6
Republican	8	13	14	11	10	10	17	25	17	28
Percentage Republican	31	45	47	34	31	31	53	74	71	82

In the election, Jefferson's sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemmings was reported on several times, and their were frequent references to Jefferson's "dark mistress," among the many other vicious political attacks launched by both sides during the campaign. Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings has been the subject of controversy and many writings, but I think what is sometimes not communicated is that this was not an unearthed secret that modern historians found, but in fact, people were very much aware of it in Jefferson's day (and that Jefferson "survived" the scandal it caused). Jefferson was known for his public condemnations of slavery, but equally publicized though less well-known is that Jefferson supported re-settling former slaves in the Caribbean or Africa, he did not believe that blacks and whites could co-exist together for a variety of reasons.

Many modern commentators point out how bitterly divided and partisan (as in supporter of a party) politics is today over the election of Barack Obama, as if it were something new. Besides that most people can also remember when Bill Clinton was impeached, what is confusing about this is that politics were always, partisan, bitter, and dirty, and vicious. The images for example shown above are meant to be shocking. These are images of the same person who today are on Mt. Rushmore (a prime example of the blending of religion and politics), and the nickel. Yet he is shown cavorting with the devil in these political cartoons. 

The mythical image of Jefferson however which was only created in hindsight, as we can see, is very much intact today. It is indisputable that being the principal author of the Declaration of Independence that Jefferson comes closest to being the true author of the "creed of America" as Chesterton spoke of. As modern historian Gordon Wood has said in an interview, "when Jefferson acts ignobly, we feel as if somehow America itself has acted ignobly" (ignoble being a fairly outdated word meaning "not noble").

Jefferson's contradictions and ambiguities do not end there. He is a perfect example of the complicated mixture of religious and scientific ideas that I have discussed previously. Jefferson uses the language of the Enlightenment which can be confusing at times but he retains the older religious tradition of fraternity and community as integral parts of the political system. Jefferson takes it upon himself to take these older religious experiences but to translate them into modern scientific language, a very difficult synthesis and arguably one he fails to make.

There is a kind of psychology underlying the Federalists and the Republicans. Federalists believe there tends to be a conflict between "interest" which is rational and "affection" which is instinctive, the problem is precisely that people let their affections for things closest to them cloud their interests or ability think in the long-term.  The "psychology" of The Federalist is to at least replace if not destroy the affection people feel for their local government with the new national government. The way to do this was to make the government effective or "energetic" as Hamilton would say, and once it satisfied people's needs or interests their affection would turn to it. 

Jefferson you must remember is not an opponent of the Constitution and wants the people to love their government, but believes this can only be done by building on levels of trust and affection from the local and up. He does not doubt that affections can be misplaced, but that affection for the local community is not "evil" in itself. The political party was intended to serve this purpose as an intermediate body in between the government and individual, local and state governments would have the same purpose. Jefferson did believe however that the Constitution should be updated every ten years or so and is remarked to have said it would be a good thing if there was a revolution every ten years or so! This attitude however does not complement itself well with the Federalist attitude towards the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson

In his Inaugural Address from 1801, many of these themes can be seen. The Inaugural Address is an important tradition in U.S. politics as it provides the President an opportunity to address the other branches of government and basically explain what they plan on doing. Again, like in many other political speeches you see Jefferson appealing to the common bonds that bring us together, "we are all Republicans–we are all Federalists," sounds almost identical to then State Senator Obama saying the same thing about Democrats and Republicans in 2004 and repeated many times after. He urges us to return to the harmony and affection without which no political order is possible. Contrast this with the Federalists who rely upon economic interest as the primary bond. 

Jefferson, like most liberals, also believed that humans were endowed with a "moral instinct" or "moral sense" a term created by the Scotch-Irish philosopher Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746). In order to preserve order and prosperity, government must develop this sense among the people. His concern was that like other senses, they can be dulled or degenerate over time, he even supposed that people could perhaps be born without a moral sense, similar to how some people are born without a sense of hearing or sight.

Chesterton referred to "Jeffersonian democracy", specifically that the "melting pot was traced on the outlines of Jeffersonian democracy," and many other political commentators would agree that the system we have now did not fully develop until the administration of Jefferson establishes both a party system for choosing candidates for election, as well as increasing the level of democratic participation from the populace. Most of the property restrictions were removed to voting at this time (although gender and racial barriers remained). 

Of course, power is to a large extent hidden under the surface of American institutions which are supposed to limit power, and achieve a consensus among political actors. If we turn to the days leading up to the Civil War, we can see how power hides under the appearance of consent. This is known as "ideology" a term first associated with Karl Marx, but now used more commonly. In Marx, he defines ideology as ideas, whether political, economic, moral, religious, legal, etc. that make the class relations of domination appear normal and natural, creating "false consciousness." In the more general use of the term, ideologies refer to political beliefs and a worldview that different groups have. In this usage, Marxism itself can be seen as an ideology since it provides a coherent worldview in this sense, though it has very little to do with normalizing class domination.

Webster

Daniel Webster's famous speech defending the Compromise of 1850 is a prime example of ideology in the Marxist sense, although it does provide a worldview. Webster, who represented the North in Congress, uses his impressive gifts as a speaker to argue for the passage of this legislative compromise in order the preserve the Union which already showed signs of breaking apart. In the name of national unity, Webster is willing to support the Fugitive Slave Act, which would have made it a crime to aid escaped slaves and empowered slave hunters. The concession made by the South would be to admit the state of California as a free state. Legislative compromises like these were common in the years leading up to the Civil War, and shows the lengths Congress was willing to go to preserve unity:

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out in the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our asperations [sic] as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men...Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this Constitution for ages to come. We have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. No monarchical throng presses the States together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. 

 Like many political speakers, Webster is so convinced of the sanctity of American institutions that he is willing to protect slavery, but how can a system be good that allows slavery in the first place? The obvious contradictions are covered over by the eloquent rhetoric of Webster, just as other social contradictions are obscured by many obviously talented, even brilliant speakers, whether it be Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt (both of them), even Obama. This tendency to romanticize American institutions makes it harder to change these institutions, and one very important reason why culture plays such an important role in politics.

John C. Calhoun, on the other hand, representing the South, ironically is much more blunt than Webster and not blinded by the romanticism of freedom and inequality in America. As a hardened defender of slavery, Calhoun sees no need to pretend that America is the land of the free. 

Calhoun

What is truly astounding about Calhoun is that he takes the further step of actually defending slavery as a good system, that is the best possible social arrangement between whites and blacks, quoting famed historian Richard Hofstadter here:

Slavery, he affirmed in the Senate in 1837, "is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good." By this he did not mean to imply that slavery was always better than free labor relations, but simply that it was the best relation between blacks and whites. Slavery had done much for the Negro, he argued. "In few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or... more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age." His condition is greatly superior to that of poorhouse inmates in more civilized portions of Europe. As for the political aspect of slavery, "I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South...forms that solid and durable foundation on which to rear stable political institutions." (pp. 79-80).

Calhoun's extreme defense of slavery, ironically leads him to being very honest about the economic exploitation that occurs in every society. Here, he does not shy away from history like Webster. He also sounds very similar to Marx on the labor theory of value and class conflict, the theory that all value, and thus wealth, is produced by the laborer, and that the profits produced by the capitalist system are only possible by extracting a surplus from the laborer, meaning paying the laborer less than the value of their work. Marx regarded the idea of surplus value as the "secret" of capitalism and is the foundation of his whole analysis of capitalism, so it is strange that such a conservative as Calhoun would express such views:

He was sure that "there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other." It would not be too difficult "to trace out the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share to the non-producing classes (p. 81).

Calhoun, also correctly, points out that class conflict in the North, between industrialists and workers, is growing and will become more intense with the end of slavery. He was right, and the end of the Civil War sees the beginning of some of the bloodiest struggles between capital and "free" labor (more so than in Europe) and continues all the way through the 1930s, where the New Deal administration of FDR begins a different kind of relationship with labor, supporting them instead of capital (at least for the most part).

Lawrence, Massachusetts Textile Strike, 1912

Calhoun goes so far to propose an alliance between the plantation owners and the industrialists to hold down the laboring classes in both systems. He also proposes what he calls the "concurrent majority," basically a theory of a dual executive branch, in other words, a President for the North and another for the South. Naturally, these ideas would not come to pass but it is amazing that he even proposes them.

The legacy of Calhoun raises important questions of how we deal with American history. Many historians try to smooth over, or de-emphasize, the history of slavery and many other aspects of American history. Another point of view is to speak openly and honestly about these aspects of history to remind people of how things have changed over time, and how the legacies of the past still impact the present.


As mentioned, one of the ironies of Calhoun, given he did not subscribe to the idealized or romanticized version of American history, was being able to speak quite honestly about certain key aspects of social life, that again, those like Webster and many others would gloss over, being so consumed with America's own sense of righteousness and goodness. Even today, this sense of righteousness blinds people to the totalitarian nature of American politics in the present.

Large segments of the population were excluded from participating in the political system. So, in the second part of the class we will now look at how this system has evolved in terms of the struggles and movements by excluded groups to gain access to the political system.