[gutzmank]

Certainly Hamilton was a classic mercantilist, and Washington signed Hamilton’s proposals into law. (The notable exception was the Report on Manufactures, which Congress rejected.) One might demur that Washington had a different understanding of the president’s role in the legislative process than do today’s chief executives, and so we should not read his signature as signifying endorsement. (See Ketcham, PRESIDENTS ABOVE PARTY.)

Such as Jefferson, Madison, et al., certainly did favor free trade — what Jefferson called “the right to trade freely with all the world.” This was a perfectly anti-mercantilist program, in inspiration and in detail. The best account of the Jeffersonians as heralds of a free trade-based New World Order is Onuf & Onuf, FEDERAL UNION, MODERN WORLD.

[gutzmank]

Lincoln generally opposed any compromise during the Secession Crisis, as he insisted that secession was mere bluster and that nothing substantial would come of it. His election signified the right to rule, he said, and he would exercise that right. Michael Holt of the University of Virginia calls Lincoln’s performance during the Secession Crisis the “nadir” of his statesmanship. I had occasion to write about this recently:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/10/17/kevin-gutzman-lincoln-kennedy-obama-and-the-value-of-compromise/

[gutzmank]

grumble grumble

[gutzmank]

You only heard one of my two appearances on that question: I later told Mike I needed to come on and correct what I had said the first time.

In an English translation of THE LAW OF NATIONS made in 1789, Vattel says, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” There’s a bit of obscurity even in that, it seems to me, as we don’t know whether the plural “parents” is plural in reference to each native or is plural because it refers to plural natives; in other words, we can’t tell whether the plural means that a natural-born citizen must both be born in the country and have two citizen-parents at the time of his birth or just be born in the country of one parent-citizen at the time of his birth.

Note the date of the translation: 1789. By 1789, of course, the Constitution had not only been written, it had been ratified by 11 states. Clearly, then, neither the authors of the Constitution (usually called the “Framers’) nor its ratifiers in 11 of the states can have been relying on that translation.

There’s more: that was the first English translation. Prior to that translation, they’d have had to use a French edition. So what does that passage say in French? Nothing that could be translated “natural-born citizen.” Repeat: nothing translatable as “natural-born citizen.”

The problem of that plural is even more intense in the French. It reads, “Les naturals, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, des parens citoyens.”

My conclusion? We can’t say that Vattel meant that a citizen’s parents had both to have been citizens at the time of his birth. Not only that, but we can’t say certainly that “natural-born citizen” (a term we don’t see in the French) should be interpreted by reference to this passage from Vattel.

So … I’m out of this game.

[gutzmank]

There’s a very cheap PB edition of Froissart. When I was in college, Barbara Tuchman wrote a very popular book on the 14th century called A DISTANT MIRROR. I remember finding it slightly dull, but other people I knew thought she was a wonderful writer.

[gutzmank]

The Sedition Act is unforgivable, as were its enforcement and the appointment of John Marshall as chief justice, but Adams as president did undercut his own party in deciding to negotiate an end to hostilities with France rather than going to war. We have to hand him that.

[gutzmank]

Great. Let me know what you think of it.

[gutzmank]

I think Hamilton was right about it. Either Madison was uncharacteristically ill-informed, or he was playing to the crowd.

[gutzmank]

Marx himself considered Russia way behind Germany in social and economic development–as indeed it was, by any objective measure. Marx too thought the revolution would begin in a Western country. It wasn’t just Lenin’s germanophilia that led him to think the revolution would start in Germany.

Nicholas I decided after the Crimean War that significant reform of his empire was necessary to bring Russia up to the economic level of France, Britain, Germany, etc. Alexander II had the same idea. Ditto Stolypin. The idea is also reflected in many of the great works of 19th-century Russian literature, such as FATHERS AND SONS. The shame of it is that Nicholas II was overthrown, then that Kerensky was. A terrible shame, Russia’s last century.

And then at the end of Communism, Gorbachev launches perestroika — to catch the USSR up with the West.

[gutzmank]

That’s one possibility. Another is that they just can’t be bothered to read primary materials.

I recommend Prof. McClanahan’s book as an explanation of the Constitution’s original meaning, by the way, but didn’t think that was what you wanted.

[gutzmank]

My points are 1) that the compact theory is the only theory that was discussed during the ratification process; and 2) one could argue that there was no meeting of the minds, and so no valid ratification.

You seem to think that absent valid ratification, the Federal Government would be justified in exercising unlimited power. In reality, since the ratification created the Federal Government, if there was no valid ratification, there should be no Federal Government.

It’s an interesting issue.

[gutzmank]

In Connecticut, virtually everyone was a Calvinist, and virtually everyone was a Federalist.

[gutzmank]

In no particular order:

1) THOMAS JEFFERSON: WRITINGS
2) Charles Murray, IN PURSUIT: OF HAPPINESS AND GOOD GOVERNMENT
3) Charles Murray, LOSING GROUND
4) Friedman & Friedman, FREE TO CHOOSE
5) John Taylor, TYRANNY UNMASKED

[gutzmank]

Why is this question in the “since 1877” forum?

[gutzmank]

The JBS’s “runaway convention” scenario is doltish: Congress can propose any amendments it wants to propose too, but we don’t say, “Mustn’t have a Congress, because it can propose amendments.” Besides that, even if it did propose forever to place supreme executive power in the hands of 6’4″ Prussian guys named “Kevin,” 38 states would have to ratify the (obviously good) idea before it became part of the Constitution.

Still, to get around this concern, I favor the mechanism described at CompactforAmerica.org. In fact, I’m one of CFA’s Advisory Board.

[Author]

Posts