So today in my introduction to American History class, my professor (who I suspect to be either Marxist or severely social-democratic) talked about the American revolution. He described it and the underlying Republican ideology as anti-capitalistic and anti-individualistic. He said that there was an underlying belief in the need for the individual to sacrifice himself for the ‘greater good’ as represented by George Washingtons wearily accepting the function of president and as represented by the need for good citizens. He also painted Jefferson as a anti-capitalist, using a quote of his from the note on the state of Virginia talking about that agriculture is good and cities are bad. (very roughly paraphrased)
I challenged him in class and afterwards on these points. (I think this is very far fetched) For example I talked about Paine conveying the need for free trade instead of mercantilism, and about Jeffersons opposition to Hamiltons Federalist pro-mercantilist position. He deflected this partly by saying that Paine was not a good representative of the republican tradition, and that Jefferson was very inconsistent during his lifetime and held different positions in time. I wasn’t able to press on unfortunately.
So this brings me to my question. I want to follow up on this discussion with my professor and send him a well reasoned email telling him that I disagree with him, and the reasons behind that. Do you guys agree with me on this? Do you have any good sources which I can use in my rebuttal? Any good sources or quotes to show that Jefferson was not an agricultural anti-capitalist? Or just any other good points about this subject I can learn from or use in my discussion with my professor?
Thank you.
ps. just as a disclaimer, I’m Dutch so excuse my non-perfect knowledge of American history
So he was saying that it was anti-capitalistic and anti-individualistic and that’s a good thing… or he was saying, that creating a state was anti-individualistic and a bad thing?
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense sold unheard of amount of copies and was highly propagandized during the conflict. Paine was one of the few ‘founders’ who actually stayed consistent to the revolutionary ideals that brought about the American revolution. He is one of the few ‘founders’ I would actually respect and who didn’t sell out. He later went to France where he was almost hanged for spreading revolutionary claims during the French revolution [ that’s how radical Paine was ]. Paine saw the post-revolution America for what it was. A betrayal. At his funeral there were only 6 men. No other founding fathers. Merely friends, a priest and an African American freedman. Paine had the last laugh though.
Jefferson was inconsistent but I don’t think he was about economic issues. Perhaps social ones like slavery and liberty.
Haha the idea that a college professor in my country would say that creating a state was anti-individualistic and a bad thing is unfortunately not very possible. He was even saying that the founders saw that government was necessary and that otherwise there would be anarchy: chaos and people fighting in the streets. (at that point I couldn’t contain a laugh…)
No he was describing the revolution, the underlying Republican philosophy behind it as anti-capitalist and anti-individual. He said that for this reason you cannot put it in the (classical)liberal enlightenment tradition. And I think, he didnt say it out loud, that he definitely thought this was a good thing. Because when I challenged him and mentioned Hamilton, he went off on a talk that Hamilton was capitalist, a friend of wall street, exploiting people… You get the idea. Unfortunately I didnt have the opportunity to counter this by mentioning his pro-mercantilist views…
Does this help? My main point is that I disagree with his notion that this is a anti-capitalist, anti-inidivualistic development, and that Jefferson is an anti-capitalist. I thought that, while being far from perfect, there was an emphasis on capitalism, private property rights, individual freedom and that Jefferson belonged to this tradition. Do you agree with this?
If your professor disqualifies Jefferson arbitrarily, then it doesn’t make sense he can use Jefferson in debate.
I think the strongest argument against the outcome of the revolution, is the declaration of independence. Not only does it explicitly state that rights are natural, it also explicitly states that people have a right to secession. Jefferson followed this up later, with the Kentucky resolutions, which supports the rights of states to secede from the union.
So the real question, is not whether or not government is necessary, but how can government legitimately exist if it can be brought into being, but not removed by the same manner. It simply can’t.
I would advise (depending on how much time you want to spend on this) that you watch Tom Woods 10 part lecture series on American history, here at Mises.org. It should be in the media section under Tom Woods (author). The first few videos in particular, deal with colonial and revolutionary history if I remember correctly.
Also, Tom DiLorenzo also covers Hamilton and Washington in his ten part lecture series, also hosted here. You’re looking at about 10 hours of video for each set, but you will be much better educated after 20 hours, than any layman, and perhaps most school teachers. Depending on your professors area of expertise, you might be much further ahead than he is.
Also, as you probably know, Paine had to escape from England for writing “Rights of Man” as William Pitt charged him with treason for writing this. Paine fled to France. In France he was asked to be one of the nine people to write a new french constitution. Eventually Paine had to flee France, as you point out, for speaking out against Napoleon. Napoleon didn’t like dissidents (of course). And Paine, as you stated, was almost hung by a mob early on in the revolution in France when a mob took him for being an aristocrat because he spoke out against killing the king and queen. Anybody in France that spoke out against the mob was instantly labeled by the mob as an aristocrat. He was saved by a friend that pointed out to the mob, if I remember correctly, that he was Thomas Paine. He was loved in France widely for his “Common Sense”. The reason he didn’t want the mob roaming the country killing people, as by his experience shows how irrational the mob can become in almost killing somebody that they loved and adored, but this reason was he said that would lead to a mob rule not lead by reason but tyranny (he was right as Napoleon was the end result of disregarding reason).
This is the ‘Southern agrarian’ position. Later Southern politicians adopted it as well. Basically, cities were seen as being overly benefited by ‘internal improvements’ (corporate welfare), while the planters worked the land with their hands. Even today in the US, almost without fail, the rural areas are less statist and in some cases psuedo-libertarian (Montana, Alaska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and much of the South and West) while the cities have and love massive government.
Your prof needs to read Jefferson’s letters on banking and hard currency. An ‘anti-capitalist’ would never agree with such positions. In fact, your prof has an almost laughable premise. You could say those things about the French Revolution (although in the early stages it had pseudo-libertarian free marketers), but the American Revolution was based out of negative liberty and negative rights - especially the right to own property (‘..and the pursuit of happiness’).
Ah this is what I meant. I suspected his assertions were laughable but I’m looking for some good and solid evidence to debunk it (politely ofcourse ) Can you tell me which letters they are, so I can quote from them?
That will take some digging. Jefferson would have been notable even if he wasnt a Founding Father…he was a prolific man of letters. I was paraphrasing from memory…let me see if I can give you the exact quote.
Yeah, this may sound crazy, but I could have sworn that they were rebelling against something during that war… oh yeah! Excessive taxation and tyranny of the ruling government. [:'(] Oppressive government – just a tad anti-individual and anti-capitalist. There were a bunch of tariffs, wealth looting taxes, and tyrannical laws to choose from to support your argument that it was the other way around.
Overall it was a liberty movement, which is pro-individual and pro-capitalism. I’m sure if you read some stuff about the founder’s beliefs, “republican ideology”, and ideas that had major influences on them as a whole you’ll find some good arguments.
Yes. That’s why they made people pay them taxes, killed the Indians, enslaved blacks, didn’t think property ownership applied to women, thought contracts (the social contract) which no one signed apply, etc.
This is a logical fallacy assuming you were addressing and trying to refute Ansury . You failed to acknowledge the scope of the statement.
If I were to say a slave owning Indian killer threw off the tyranny of a government, it is still a liberty movement for the slave owning Indian killer.
It probably serves one best to temper ones arguments when on a specific issue one is driven more by emotions, chauvinism, and ideology than reason if a person wishes to be a reasonable person.
I think Ess is absolutely right. How can you believe in natural law, that all men are created equal, and yet own slaves and continue to buy slaves after the war? These were elites who covered themselves in the veil of populism. Sure it was great that they abolished the rule of a monarch, but it was only to establish an even closer one. Paine was right. They were all betrayers, liars and scoundrels.
It’s quite simply really, refuse that the group of people you’re enslaving really are “men” (human?). Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually believe this, but that’s certainly a valid way for one to maintain advocacy of natural rights whilst keeping slaves.
Of course, as much as that sounds somewhat absurd to somebody in today’s society I can imagine that it seems perfectly reasonable to one who was raised practising slavery. Just as one might look down on slavery from the perspective of a 21st Century westener, I can imagine that there are people who frown upon 21st Century westeners for the institution of private property. Of course, once again, I’m not saying this is the correct view (I don’t think it is). Just that it’s not entirely unreasonable.
Simply because we can understand and make reason of an event doesn’t mean I need to conflate my reasoning with the slave owners reasoning and think any kind of reasoning is ok. There is right and wrong reasoning in any given action. And I’m not going to argue what is right and wrong in any number of hypothetical cases, but I do know that slavery is wrong. And a slave-owner and want-to-be slave-owner might argue with me over that, but I would think the slave-owner and want-to-be slave-owner are/is wrong. Of course the slave-owner or want-to-be slave-owner might think I’m wrong, but that’s why he or she is a slave-owner or want-to-be slave-owner and might advocate slavery and I would be against their position.
You might challenge the professor on the notion of the “revolution”. You can claim it was actually a conservative movement against British “innovations” such as tariffs and central banks. It wasn’t about a new political order or a wide scale property redistribution.
) Can you tell me which letters they are, so I can quote from them?