[Brion McClanahan]

Sorry it has been three days. I missed your post.

Anyway, Jefferson made several statements in support of “separate confederacies,” decentralization, and secession throughout his life. In Virginia, he advocated something he called “ward republics.” In essence, Jefferson contended that a republic should be small enough that everyone could realistically participate in the political process.

In his 1801 inaugural address, Jefferson suggested that those who wished to secede from the Union should be free to do so, and he backed that up in several letters from that point forward (and of course this is not including the Declaration of Independence).

In 1804 he wrote Dr. Joseph Priestley about the prospects of a western confederacy: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl161.htm

In 1816, he expressed similar ideas to William Crawford: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=807&chapter=88163&layout=html&Itemid=27

His statements, by the way, also echoed what many in the founding generation thought about Union in 1787 and 1788. Union was only possible if the central government concentrated on the general interests of the Union (commerce and defense) and left all else to the States.

[Brion McClanahan]

Dr. Woods covers this quite nicely in his lecture on the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower’s involvement in the Vietnam era is also addressed in the lecture on that topic.

[Brion McClanahan]

Jmlicari:

I am sorry it has taken me several days to get back to you. I have had finals this week and I wanted to answer your questions as thoroughly as possible and I needed time that I did not have until tonight.

Land distribution in Quaker Pennsylvania was generally egalitarian in the early phases of settlement. Penn sold large tracts of land, in lots of either 5,000 or 10,000 acres, to around 589 Quakers in the 1680s (715,000 total acres). They had to settle on the land and absenteeism resulted in a forced subdivision. Much of this land was then subdivided further into shares of between 100 and 500 acres with the average Quaker having around 250 acres. This was enough to secure independence and promote Quakerism at work, which was Penn’s primary goal of the colony. The Quakers also had much more open inheritance laws that allowed for egalitarian land distribution once the primary landholder died.

As I also said, however, Quaker Pennsylvania offered tremendous economic opportunities, and Penn was no fan of equality of condition, at least in material terms. He was, remember, a member of the English aristocracy, and though he had renounced his life as a soldier and became “plain in the world,” he never lost his gentile spirit. Most of the early families in Pennsylvania became extremely wealthy, mostly on land sales, but they still attempted to reconcile this wealth with Quaker theology, which was in many ways a contradiction. Either way, the Quakers embraced commercial success, industry, and thrift, and though much of Quaker society was tied to husbandry, that did not mean that they were romantic agrarian egalitarians. It was quite opposite most of the time.

Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

Shinobu:

Sons did a nice job with his answer, but there are other elements of Wilson’s domestic policy that had catastrophic effects on the American political system.

Wilson believed that the president was the “political leader of the nation,” and as such thought the president was more “prime minister” than president. Thus, he should be able to initiate legislation and ram through a domestic agenda, what he labeled the New Freedom. Wikipedia has a nice point by point discussion of the New Freedom. He favored vigorous anti-trust activity and supported the Clayton Antitrust Act, alone with the aforementioned FED. He also began the process of providing government subsidized loans to farmers. It is also important to note that the income tax amendment was ratified during the Taft administration, but Wilson gave it teeth by insisting on a graduated income tax. The 16th does not stipulate what kind of income tax the government will use, only that it is legal for it to use one. The Republicans of the 1860s gave the U.S. its first income tax, legislation that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Wilson also favored a sedition law during World War I which resulted in over 100,000 people being arrested and deported during the War. The nationalization of the American economy during the war was the blueprint for FDR in WWII, and his interventionist foreign policy was evident not only with WWI but also in Latin America where U.S. troops had boots on the ground in several conflicts during his administration, most famously in Mexico after the communist revolution there resulted in American oil interests being expelled from the country.

If you want to know more about Wilson, read Edward M. House’s “Philip Dru: Administrator.” Glenn Beck was hot on that book a few years ago, but I have been teaching that since I started lecturing in the late 90s. House was one of Wilson’s most trusted advisers. He even lived in the White House for a time. This is the blueprint for the Wilson administration.

Of course, Wilson supported the splinter National Democratic Party in 1896 (the Gold Democrats), the last great conservative Democratic Party in the U.S. This was a blip on his political career, however, as his administration in no way reflected his support for that movement. I wrote a brief article on this here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/mcclanahan1.html I also have a chapter on E.L. Godkin, a NDP supporter in my forthcoming Forgotten Conservatives in American History with Clyde Wilson: http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Conservatives-American-History-McClanahan/dp/145561579X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3

I am also including Wilson in my “fraudulent five” section of my forthcoming “Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes” due out in November. http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-Heroes/dp/1596983205/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4

Hope that helps.

[Brion McClanahan]

And, don’t forget, that removing to another city state meant that you had no status in the new location. Citizenship was a prized possession in ancient Greece.

[Brion McClanahan]

Very poor is an overstatement. I am not sure if I used those words, but if I did, I misspoke. Poor is better with most being farmers and laborers who had no land but enough to scrape together to get their family to the new world. The Celts were a mixed bag of peoples. Some, perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the Celtic immigrants, were from the upper class. Perhaps another 5 to 10 percent were from the “midling” group of independent yeoman farmers. The rest were from that bottom group. There were some unskilled Celtic peoples who made the trip, some as indentured servants, others who could scrape up the money to do it.

[Brion McClanahan]

Yes, that is what I am saying. Reading Shakespeare with your Southern accent would be the proper way to read it. I would highly recommend DHF’s Albion’s Seed. I included it on the reading list and at over 900 pages, it is only a little light reading.

[Brion McClanahan]

No problem. Would love to. You were great on those 76ers teams of the 70s and 80s.

[Brion McClanahan]

If you define “steal” in that way, then any acquisition of land throughout human history without the benefit of a modern contract would be defined as stealing. Many early Europeans purchased Indian land through contract, meaning a treaty or mutual agreement, Sometimes one or neither party honored the contract, which resulted in bloodshed, and sometimes Europeans were rebuffed by violence before being offered a “contract” which of course resulted in retribution. Many Celtic peoples squatted on land, owned by Europeans or otherwise, and in the process acquired it de facto. They also faced the prospect of violence. David Crockett’s family was slaughtered by marauding Indians, for example. I think one of the “myths” that needs to be challenged in the notion of the peaceful Indian only made hostile by land hungry Europeans. Tribal warfare was brutal business and the practice of indiscriminate killing (men, women, and children) was evident before the English arrived in the 17th century.

[Brion McClanahan]

Will you sign my basketball, Dr. J?

[Brion McClanahan]

How do you define steal? That is a loaded term with politically correct connotations.

[Brion McClanahan]

Good question. Generally, the gentlemen of cavalier society did not want to be seen as money grubbing merchants. They were gentlemen in the old sense, i.e. a landed aristocracy, who did not “participate” in commerce. As for the displays of wealth, yes, land could be used to display wealth and power, but it even went to little things like having ornate capitals on balustrades to demonstrate that they owned the home debt free. Ostentatious displays of wealth were quite common among the cavalier elite.

[Author]

Posts