America's Founders and Their Intentions

Modern Conservatives base their political creed on the assumption that our country’s Founders intended to create a nation where every family was on its own, with no public obligations beyond mere defense and personal contracts.  Conservatives refer to any deviation from this absolutist creed as “socialism” or “statism,” by which they mean “heresy.”  Because one is simply expected to adhere to this belief and follow it without question, just because someone said so.

I believe there is a fatal flaw in their premise.  When they speak of “The Founders’ Original Intent,” they are asserting that all of the Founders – without exception – had one intent, a single intent which was unchanging and without differentiation among them.  Otherwise, Conservatives would be referring to what some of the Founders intended, or speaking of the intentions of the Founders.  But they are not.  And that is an error.  

I’ll show you what I mean. Was Alexander Hamilton a Founder?  Can anyone doubt it?  Hamilton served under George Washington in the American Revolution, participated in the Constitutional Convention, and signed the Constitution.  And he argued vehemently for a strong national government.  Here is what he said in concluding remarks of the Federalist Papers, in defense of the Constitution:

The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single States, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the Confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the States in a disunited situation; in the express guaranty of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.

Note that Hamilton is specifically citing as a virtue of the Constitution its restraint on (powerful) individuals.  

He also advocated regulation of commerce by the national government, noting that

There are some, who maintain, that trade will regulate itself, and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements, or restraints of government. Such persons will imagine, that there is no need of a common directing power. This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes, which have grown into credit among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.  Contradicted by the numerous institutions and laws, that exist every where for the benefit of trade, by the pains taken to cultivate particular branches and to discourage others, by the known advantages derived from those measures, and by the palpable evils that would attend their discontinuance--it must be rejected by every man acquainted with commercial history.

But our modern conservatives have learned nothing from history.  Probably because they make it up to fit their prejudices. 

 I pointed out in a previous diary that Alexander Hamilton specifically proposed the establishment of a national bank.  Thomas Jefferson and James Madison opposed this, arguing in part that such a provision was not stipulated in the Constitution.  Hamilton replied that the powers delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution were not limited to those which were specifically expressed, but included "implied powers," i.e., powers to do things which would serve “as an instrument or means of carrying into execution any of the specified powers.”  Hamilton added that “...the powers contained in a constitution of government, especially those which concern the general administration of the affairs of a country, its finances, trade, defence etc. ought to be construed liberally, in advancement of the public good.”  I call this “purposive constructionism,” a rejoinder to “strict construction” of the Constitution.  

Imagine President Obama proposing to create a government-affiliated national bank.  Modern conservatives would scream “Statist!” or “Socialist!” or “Communist!” or “Nazi!”  But this was proposed by one of the Founders, passed by a majority vote in Congress, and signed into law by George Washington.  Oh, yes, our country actually had government-affiliated national banks in its early history!  It certainly was not Hamilton’s intent to create a laissez-faire government that didn’t meddle in the market.  And obviously he was not alone.  Congress and George Washington affirmed this role for the new government.  

Parenthetically, Founder and President James Madison signed into law the charter of the Second Bank of the United States.  

Hamilton also proposed national tariffs to promote American industry.  One of Hamilton’s defenses for this was the “General Welfare” clause in the Constitution.

I noted in my previous diary that Founder John Adams, as President, signed into law the Sedition Act, which was intended to protect the Federal government from libel.  Did this Act represent the “original” intent of Founder John Adams?  Well, he didn’t sign it by accident.  He could have vetoed it.  And it only got to his desk because it was passed first by a majority of Congress in 1798.  Imagine how conservatives would howl today, if President Obama merely proposed what this Founder actually made the law of the land!

President John Adams also signed into law another Act in 1798, this one titled “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.”  This Act established a health care system for American sailors which would be managed by the Federal government (specifically the President and his appointed Marine Hospital Directors).  This government-run health care service evolved over the centuries into the Public Health Service we have today.  If this responsibility was not the intent of Founder John Adams, why would he sign it?

As previously mentioned, Founder Thomas Jefferson insisted on a “strict construction” of the Constitution.  But, as President, Jefferson was presented with an opportunity for the United States to acquire the Louisiana territory claimed by France.  There was nothing in the Constitution which specifically gave him the authority to do this, but he went ahead with the Louisiana Purchase, because it enhanced the security and size of the U.S.  Did this action reflect his “original” intent?  It certainly became his intent, when running a Federal government became more than an intellectual exercise.  For the public good, he could be pragmatic.

Second, for all of his concerns about tyranny, Thomas Jefferson also instituted an embargo prohibiting Americans from trading with England and France, supposing that this would cause England and France to respect American ships and sailors.  This would seem to be a very “Statist” action, since it certainly intended to use the Federal government to interfere with the “free market.”  But, again, he believed it was necessary for the public good.

Finally, Founder Thomas Jefferson also proposed a Bill in Virginia with the following rationale:

"Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes; And whereas it is generally true that people will be happiest whose laws are best, and are best administered, and that laws will be wisely formed, and honestly administered, in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those person, whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance; but the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating, at their own expence, those of their children whom nature hath fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expence of all, than that the happiness of all should be confided to the weak or wicked:...”

It was a bill arguing for education at public expense.  In 1796 it became law in the State of Virginia.  The reasons Jefferson gave for public education sound remarkably like John Dewey’s:

Upon the educational side, we note first that the realization of a form of social life in which interests are mutually interpenetrating, and where progress, or readjustment, is an important consideration, makes a democratic community more interested than other communities have cause to be in deliberate and systematic education. The devotion of democracy to education is a familiar fact. The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated. Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education.

Having said all of the above, I want to make this clear: it is NOT my intention to suggest that the Founders were “socialists” or “statist.”  My point is rather that the Founders were not unified in their visions for America, and they were not doctrinaire, dogmatic or absolutist in pursuing their ideals.  Any political creed which asserts the contrary is based upon fallacy.

  In conclusion, our country was NOT founded upon the tenets of Christian feudalism.  It was founded upon the Enlightenment and the nascent social sciences.

(originally published August 12, 2012)