Our Socialist Founding Fathers
Alexander Hamilton, from his “Report on Manufactures”:
The remaining objections to a particular encouragement of manufactures in the United States now require to be examined. One of these turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require. Against the solidity of this hypothesis, in the full latitude of the terms, very cogent reasons may be offered. These have relation to the strong influence of habit and the spirit of imitation — the fear of want of success in untried enterprises — the intrinsic difficulties incident to first essays towards a competition with those who have previously attained to perfection in the business to be attempted — the bounties premiums and other artificial encouragements, with which foreign nations second the exertions of their own Citizens in the branches, in which they are to be rivalled. Experience teaches, that men are often so much governed by what they are accustomed to see and practice, that the simplest and most obvious improvements, in the most ordinary occupations, are adopted with hesitation, reluctance and by slow gradations. The spontaneous transition to new pursuits, in a community long habituated to different ones, may be expected to be attended with proportionably greater difficulty. When former occupations ceased to yield a profit adequate to the subsistence of their followers, or when there was an absolute deficiency of employment in them, owing to the superabundance of hands, changes would ensue; but these changes would be likely to be more tardy than might consist with the interest either of individuals or of the Society. In many cases they would not happen, while a bare support could be ensured by an adherence to ancient courses; though a resort to a more profitable employment might be practicable. To produce the desirable changes, as early as may be expedient, may therefore require the incitement and patronage of government.
Thomas Paine, from “Agrarian Justice”:
Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Thomas Cooper:
Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no useful industry of theirs.
Benjamin Franklin, writing in the Pennsylvania Gazette in favor of legislation that would erect a public hospital to provide free care for the impoverished:
When the good Samaritan left his Patient at the Inn, he gave Money to the Host, and said, TAKE CARE OF HIM, and what thou spendest more, I will repay thee. We are in this World mutual Hosts to each other; the Circumstances and Fortunes of Men and Families are continually changing; in the Course of a few Years we have seen the Rich become Poor, and the Poor Rich; the Children of the Wealthy languishing in Want and Misery, and those of their Servants lifted into Estates, and abounding in the good Things of this Life. Since then, our present State, how prosperous soever, hath no Stability, but what depends on the good Providence of God, how careful should we be not to harden our Hearts against the Distresses of our Fellow Creatures, lest He who owns and governs all, should punish our Inhumanity, deprive us of a Stewardship in which we have so unworthily behaved, laugh at our Calamity, and mock when our Fear cometh. Methinks when Objects of Charity, and Opportunities of relieving them, present themselves, we should hear the Voice of this Samaritan, as if it were the Voice of God sounding in our Ears, TAKE CARE OF THEM, and whatsoever thou spendest, I will repay thee.
But the Good particular Men may do separately, in relieving the Sick, is small, compared with what they may do collectively, or by a joint Endeavour and Interest.
Thomas Paine ended up with about as much respect as a founder as Benedict Arnold had. He became a French revolutionary, and when he returned from Europe (where he wrote “Agrarian Justice”), American children met his ship at the peer and threw rocks at him. Only six people went to his funeral. At some point over there he’d gone off the rails and started ranting against Jesus and George Washington. It wasn’t pretty.Report
Yeah his unpopular religious views ( deism, free thinking, mocking Christianity,etc) made him, well, unpopular. Common Sense was still a big event in inciting the Rev. He was as much a founder as plenty of others. That his views are not PC nowadays for many people is irrelevant.Report
Greg, Paine’s “Common Sense” is almost totally a biblical argument. Who knew? Not me, until I actually read it, true story.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/04/thomas-paines-common-sense-as-heard-by.htmlReport
You are aware of Paine’s views on religion, aren’t you. Not exactly Christian.
From The Age of Reason:
The opinions I have advanced … are the effect of the most clear and long-established conviction that the Bible and the Testament are impositions upon the world, that the fall of man, the account of Jesus Christ being the Son of God, and of his dying to appease the wrath of God, and of salvation, by that strange means, are all fabulous inventions, dishonorable to the wisdom and power of the Almighty; that the only true religion is Deism, by which I then meant, and mean now, the belief of one God, and an imitation of his moral character, or the practice of what are called moral virtues – and that it was upon this only (so far as religion is concerned) that I rested all my hopes of happiness hereafter. So say I now – and so help me GodReport
Also
“The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man called Christ in the place of the sun, and pay him the adoration originally payed to the sun.”Report
Mr. Gregniak, it was assumed all the adults here know Paine’s view of religion. That’s what makes the biblicism of “Common Sense” interesting.Report
One thing that is quintessentially American is good marketing. Esp marketing where you don’t quite believe your own BS.Report
This.Report
The Son instead of The Sun?Report
Indeed. And that’s a sad thing.Report
It’s all “brethren” this, and “civilization” that when they want you to stand in front of Brits shooting rifles.
Once the war is won, it’s all “political realities”.Report
It’s “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man”
And “‘Tom Paine, he’s the one!”
But it’s “Throw him out, the Commie!”
Wen there’s governing to be done.Report
Hamilton’s was a Liberal Fascism*, Paine was commie**, Jefferson an agrarian slaveowning hypocrite*** whose hands never touched a plow, and Franklin was speaking of private charity, as was his wont as a community leader and organizer, not a community agitator, demanding from the government what was best left to the charity and discernment of the people.
Aside from that, Alex, your Cliffs Notes from the Founding are not that bad. Cheers, mate.
______________
*Although Hamilton, liberal fascist that he was, out of respect for the Constitution argued that the building of canals exceeded the federal government’s constitutional authority, and so, a constitutional amendment was in order to authorize it.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/06/jurisprudence-of-alexander-hamilton.html
**I like Paine. America didn’t after our revolution though, and neither did revolutionary France either, which threw him in prison, where President Washington let him stew. Interesting story.
***Jefferson? Really? The man had wonderful rhetoric but otherwise was a pig.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/obrien.htm
****Franklin the “socialist,” and his last bit there goes double for me, Messrs. the Public, respectfully submitted:
” The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence. I am, your’s, &c. ARATOR.
The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htmReport
Must eliminate any thought or idea the sainted Founders may have had that doesn’t comport with modern republican beliefs. Must purge wrong thoughts.Report
Indeed. ConservapediaReport
Fellas, it pains me to see you insult your own intelligence. C’mon, gentlemen, I consider you the cream of the crop.Report
Well… it wasn’t liberals that put together that site. I’m not sure what your point is, Tom. (Not an uncommon occurrence, BTW)Report
Talkin’ the OP, Rod—“Our Socialist Founding Fathers” by Alex Knapp. Not liberals, not Conservapedia. Yes?Report
Perhaps it’s just the brevity of your comments. Or maybe it’s just that I need to go to bed.
If your point is that the Founders were just the founders, in all their warts and glory, and for either camp to try to re-write history to pigeon-hole them into conforming to either of our contemporary warring camps is a huge mistake and a drastically over-simplified reading of what was essentially a bunch of politicians trying to wrestle a pig to the ground… then I totally agree.
(And the fact that I could “craft” the sentence above, and declare it worthy of submission without a rewrite on the grounds that it’s too much trouble is proof positive that I need to retire. Nighty-night.)Report
I’d agree with your 2nd para, with the addendum that one modern camp, in particular, does not really understand political nuance. Hence the title.Report
It’s a comments section, Rod. {alex.} Brevity is presumably a virtue, and I wasn’t all that brief. But happy to expand on the trail of breadcrumbs, should there be sincere interest.Report
Meh… I just wish you’d say what you mean to say instead of acting all inscrutable like some Oriental master from a bad kung-fu movie. (Snatch the pebble from my hand, Grasshopper) If my following comment wasn’t relevant… then whatever. Expand or no, I don’t much give a fish either way. I’ll leave it to the Mrs. Van Dyke to explore your treasure trail.Report
Tom,
Oh, I’m well aware of all your points. This is really more of an ironic commentary on RW media’s penchant for labeling everything socialist. Not meant to be a front pager, actually. It’s strictly sidebar material.
Two notes… I think that fascist is harsh for Mr. Hamilton, and would refer you to the aforementioned report re: jurisprudence, particularly as to “general welfare.”
Second, the article I quoted was part of Mr. Franklin’s argument to the Pennsylvania Assembly to establish the Pennsylvania Hospital. And yes, it was publicly funded, tho it raised charitable contributions as well.Report
Thank you, Alex. A bleg, since this my area of interest: I cannot find Franklin’s hospital plea as a call for public finance, only for private charity. And Christian charity at that, although I do not see Franklin as a “Christian” in any theological sense—although here he calls Jesus “Our Savior, and “The great author of our Faith,” quite uncharacteristic of him, but probably along the lines of Paine, playing that Christian card.
“…that Virtue, which most of all recommends us to the Deity, I mean CHARITY.
The great Author of our Faith, whose Life should be the constant Object of our Imitation, as far as it is not inimitable, always shew’d the greatest Compassion and Regard for the SICK…
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf2/hospital.htm
Not that politically or philosophically I have anything but full support for our government showing Christian charity to the poor, including taxpayer-financed hospital care for the indigent. I mean, really, no snark. Can’t imagine even the worst righty willing to let people die in the street and I hope you can’t either. [Exc Ayn Rand, but if there’s one person you & I both would let die in the street, it’d probably be Ayn Rand. I’d probably back over her a few times just to make sure, y’knowwhatI mean?]
Anywayz, if you can find something linking the Franklin quote to a proposal for gummint money, I’d be appreciative. Cheers.Report
The problem with talk about the founders believing this, that and the other is that what they believed has nothing to do with whether private property in the means of production really is a good idea or whether government protection of industries is a bad idea.Report
Well yeah but for many Americans invoking the Founders has a religious quality. Quoting the Founders is always solid proof for whatever the hell someone wants to prove. According to some we should live exactly as the Founders imagined or at least how people with magic Ouija boards are sure the Founders would want us to live.Report
Mr. Murali, there’s no problem with talk about the Founding Fathers atall if we actually read them. They weren’t all that complicated. We are quite free to reject them, mind you, but that’s no replacement for understanding what they said in the first place.
Even the statist Hamilton respected the limits placed on the federal government by the Constitution; Paine was a propagandist for the Revolution, penning stuff he didn’t even believe, like God setting up America as the refuge for the “true religion” of Protestantism; Jefferson was Jefferson, talking the talk but not walking the walk; and Ben Franklin, whose communitarianism was on the voluntary community level from fire departments to universities and hospitals, not the aggrandizement of government.
You have a different vision of America? Do tell it. I suspect there’s a fellow running for president just now who shares it completely. 😉Report
The comments section on this post is as exhausting as the things that inspired it in the first place. Nicely done, Alex.Report
It was a nice trolling of a particular person. And it clearly worked.Report
I am going to start a meme.
I am going to create an account somewhere like RedState or PJ Media, and begin the meme that Obama took scissors to the Bible and cut out the pages he disagreed with.Report