Saturday, February 2, 2013

Presidential Character: Week Five, The Unknown

mintu | 8:08 AM | | | | Be the first to comment!
Getting a little metaphorical here, so I'll explain.

I've gotten interested in tracking Presidential Character through reading the work on that topic by James David Barber.  Thing is, his go-to source Presidential Character: The Novel only covers most of the 20th Century Presidents (up to, just barely, Bush the Elder 1988-92).  He briefly describes the first four Presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison - only because they ironically provided near-perfect examples of the four character types - Passive-Negative, Active-Negative, Active-Positive, Passive-Positive - Barber charts.  The first four are Introductories.

Which meant by the fifth guy on the hit list - James Monroe - anyone going by Barber to determine Presidential Character of any of the Presidents before Teddy Roosevelt was going to have to do a ton of original research.  /headdesk  Until we get to Roosevelt, most of these upcoming character reviews are delving into the Unknown.

Another reason why I'm using the word "Unknown" is due to the fact that Monroe is one of those forgotten Presidents.  When people think of Presidents in historical thought they jump to the usual suspects of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts.  Maybe Grover Cleveland only because he provides humor in non-consecutive jokes.  In terms of contemporary history Eisenhower and upward are remembered due to the fact people alive today remember living during their tenures (and because, Tricky Dick, we are never going to forget you /damned with faint praise).  But this means a large number of 19th Century Presidents get overlooked by the general populus: notable exceptions would be Andrew Jackson (who noticeably contributed to the term Jacksonian politics dominating most of the century) and James K. Polk (helps to have a They Might Be Giants song named after ya... and a million screaming Mexicans mad at ya).

It doesn't help that a majority of "bad" (read: ineffective) Presidents ruled during the 19th Century, rendering that part of American History a bit of a slog to study through.  When nearly every historical interest of that era gravitates toward the giant black hole that is THE CIVIL WAR (seriously, go to any public library in the U.S.  The largest non-fiction shelf section outside of cookbooks is gonna be the 973.7 shelves), the rest of the century suffers.

And it also doesn't help Monroe's case that he became President at the least conflicted moment in American political debate.  Which is a shame because as one of the rare two-term Presidents of the 19th Century, and as one of the Active-Positive Presidents of the era, Monroe does deserve a lot more interest from historians.  At least a lot more interest than in Grover Cleveland (and the non-consecutive joke is deployed.  Ta-daaa).

Labeling Monroe as an A-P is risky because I'm not going by any established research from Barber.  I'm basing my estimate of Monroe as this because he proved throughout his career an Adaptive and energetic role in a lot of major moments in history leading up to and during his Presidential tenure.

Monroe was the last of the recognized Founding Fathers to become President.  He served as a young man in Washington's army during the Revolution.  He became a protege of Jefferson's, serving in various duties when Jefferson worked as Governor of Virginia.  Although he opposed the Constitution as it formed a too-strong central government by his estimates, he became an active part of that new government by becoming one of the first Senators of the first constitutional Congress.  Serving his own stint as Governor of Virginia, he then moved on to working for Jefferson's administration and was sent as a diplomat to France... right at the time Napoleon was offering up the Louisiana Territory for dirt-cheap (literally) price.

Flashback to my article on Jefferson regarding the Louisiana Purchase: yes the final decision - and the rule-breaking to make that decision - was Jefferson's to make in his own A-P character.  But Monroe was the guy on the ground: it was up to Monroe to decide right there in France whether or not to pursue Napoleon's offer.  This was in the time of long-distance communication taking months: there was no immediate input from Jefferson or the U.S. government telling Monroe what to do.  So Monroe, adapting to the situation, made the decision: he saw the opportunity for more territory, the chance of removing a European power from meddling in the western hemisphere, and the value of land being sold for 3 pennies per acre (seriously, that's dirt-cheap).  Sending his colleagues back to Washington DC as quick as possible, Monroe stayed on in France securing the first steps in making the deal before Napoleon - notoriously impulsive - changed his mind.

The next clue to Monroe's character trait came during the War of 1812.  Under Madison's poor management of the war effort, things were not looking so good for the home team.  Right after the British invasion that led to the burning of the nation's capital - our lowest point - Monroe, then serving as Secretary of State, asked Madison to let him serve as Secretary of War (since no one wanted the Sec of State job Monroe continued at that task, making him the only person to serve multiple Cabinet posts at the same time).    Under Monroe's guidance, the army got better organized.  By this time, effective generals had been found - mostly through the weeding process of bad generals getting captured, killed or fired - and enough victories were had to let Americans feel the war ended as a victory for the nation (let's be fair: it was a tie between Great Britain and the U.S., and a moral victory for Canada).

As one of the heroes of the War of 1812, Monroe was a near unanimous choice to run for President in 1816 (albeit because most Democratic-Republican rivals took each other out of the equation).  Having looked to Monroe's background to demonstrate his Active-Positive values, what does his Presidency demonstrate?

Monroe made the most of the "Active" part of being an Active-Positive.  He was the first President to extensively tour the nation while in office.  And while the tours had the appearance of "jubilees" and celebrations, Monroe did use these tours to talk policy matters with the citizenry: he took the tours seriously as part of his presidential duties.  His other Active behaviors included selecting competent men for Cabinet posts that best suited them - John Quincy Adams to State, John C. Calhoun (that bastard, but smart enough to know how to organize a department) to War - after an era of less-competent men holding such offices.

The biggest piece of evidence of Monroe's Active tenure is the foreign policy stance that bears his name and remains a key foundation for all modern U.S. foreign policy (and is pretty much the only thing remembered of his tenure): The Monroe Doctrine.  During the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the colonies of Central and South America rebelled against their European overlords: with the wars in Europe over, those imperial powers - especially Spain and Russia - sought to re-conquer their lost colonies and the ones lost by a now-weakened France.  As these newly-formed nations lacked a European sponsor the way the United States had when our nation rebelled, the potential of the Central / South Americans to form their own republics were threatened.

At the urging of Adams, Monroe issued his Doctrine.  The United States would view any overseas aggression against any Central or South American nation as a threat to American sovereignty: meaning Worst Case Scenario that England - yes read on - will go to war over it.  The United States would NOT intervene in any "internal" dispute between an existing colony and their European holder: which placated Great Britain because they were the only overseas Empire to not lose most of their Central / South American colonies, and helped to get them as an unofficial co-backer of the plan.

The United States - still reorganizing after the War of 1812 - may not have been in any shape to enforce the Doctrine, but it gave political cover to Great Britain to enforce protection of their own sea-faring empire (Pax Britannica).  It had the political virtue of ensuring the nascent Latin American nations the room to build, and allowed for a gradual, progressive end of colonial rule within the Western Hemisphere.  The Doctrine also created the underlying foreign policy belief of anti-colonialism that would influence American policy to this very day.

Other Active-leaning accomplishments were creating a treaty with Great Britain defining the U.S. / Canadian border (at the time) along with dismantling all fortifications by both sides, creating one of the longest undefended borders in contemporary history (future treaties with England and Canada would lead to the U.S. / Canada we have today as the longest undefended border in human history).  I mentioned under Madison's entry last week that Great Britain traded away their holding of Florida as a far-sighted removal of a problem, but I erred to point out that their holdings were not Florida Proper (or what we know as Florida today): their holdings were the southern tips of what we now know as Alabama and Mississippi.  Spain gained control of Florida as a Spanish territory as part of the solution for the War of 1812, and as obvious as anything there was conflict over it (as England figured, smart guys the Brits).  Especially with native tribes in Florida raiding into Georgia.  Monroe's Active move was direct and controversial: he sent Andrew Jackson in as general in charge of the armies and militia in the region to defend the border, and Jackson - ooooo, is THAT guy a sonofabitch, more on him later - led raids (he argued he had the authority, but most likely the SOB's Blood Knight character was the impetus) into Florida to fight the natives, angering up Spain with a legitimate international grievance.  Whether or not Monroe signed off on Jackson's raiding, it did provide a stick to the carrot that Adams was using as Sec of State to negotiate Florida's purchase from Spain.

As for Monroe's Positive character traits, aside from the obvious relish of those national tours, Monroe reveled in the political game that being President provided him.  He worked with Congress, passing a sizable amount of legislation covering taxes and reduction of the national debt.  He presided over the period of five states being admitted to the Union, second only to (of all Presidents) Benjamin Harrison (Washington doesn't count because the thirteen original states were already part of the United States when he became President).  Monroe did veto and oppose certain forward-looking bills such as the planned Cumberland Road funding based on his Republican-Democrat ideology of strict constitutionalism.  Monroe had a hand - mostly behind-the-scenes - resolving the Missouri Compromise allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state (alongside Maine, which began the practice of balancing the addition of a slave state with a free state) and banning slavery in any future states and territories north of Missouri's southern border.

The biggest reason common historical remembrance of Monroe is forgotten today is that Monroe ruled during a literal "Era of Good Feelings."  The War of 1812 had burned away the passions for war that troubled the previous administrations.  It helped that the chaos of France's revolution and empire had ended, quieting down most foreign policy concerns.  Political partisan sniping faded into non-existence: the Federalist Party, broken by the national perception of them failing the nation during a time of war, died as a national power.  Monroe pursued an inclusive administration above all other accomplishments.  Monroe himself invited little controversy or scandal.  Monroe became the second man to run unopposed for the Presidency since Washington: only a vote for John Quincy Adams by a rogue Elector prevented Monroe from becoming the second man other than Washington to unanimously win all Electoral College votes.  It's ironic that such success makes a man forgettable: but history is more intriguing with intrigue; interest in history more focused on war and divided debate.

If there was any failing to Monroe's actions as President, it was that he failed to see the consequences of his primary goal of ending partisan strife (as noted, A-P Presidents never plan for the consequences of their acts).  He may have created an Era of Good Feelings through efforts to incorporate Federalists into government and Federalist policy into his administration, and he may have tempered the back-room struggles of his fellow Democrats over who would lead the party... but he basically put a lid on a lit powder-keg by doing so.  By leading with Federalist (pro-Union) ideology on a lot of issues, he angered up the Republican-Democratic states-rights' (which by this time devolved into Southern State dominance) believers.  By refusing to choose a successor among the obvious candidates such as Henry Clay, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, or even John C. Calhoun (that bastard), Monroe created the environment for his own party to shatter into factions and re-ignite partisan divisions... only this time along more geographic lines and with more rancor than before.

A possible failing for Monroe would be the Missouri Compromise.  Yes, it was a compromise over a contentious issue - the addition of a slave state further north than had been previously allowed, and in the Louisiana Territory where northerners hoped to apply the anti-slavery clauses of the Northwest Ordinance - but like all A-P actions it had consequences.  It created the "You Shall Not Pass" line for slaveowners blocking them from northerner territories but allowed them to expand to the south of that line: That encouraged the strain of Manifest Destiny that drove the United States to aggressively pursue territorial acquisition into the Texas and California regions then held by the newly forged Republic of Mexico.

Another failing - more debated (not debatable, I mean it's more talked about, actually more shouted about) - was with the Monroe Doctrine: for all its political virtue, it also engendered a vice (again, something Monroe never saw coming).  Future American governments interpreted the Doctrine to allow ourselves the power to meddle in the affairs of Central and South American governments.  After all, it never limited what the U.S. could do in our own "back yard" (and it implied that the U.S. would intermediate for foreign powers under the right circumstance).  For all the good things the Monroe Doctrine created (the gradual end of empire), it also created distrust among Latin American nations due to incursions ("filibusters") and attempted takeovers by American citizens looking to colonize for themselves.  The Doctrine also bred the fervor for Manifest Destiny - combined with the long-term failure of the Missouri Compromise - that led to conflict with Mexico.  The neoconservatives running around today crying all for military intervention everywhere - without thought of consequence and the destructiveness of war - get some of their "seeding democracy" argument from what the Monroe Doctrine sought to protect.  And nowadays, just try talking about the CIA anywhere south of the Rio Grande and see if you can avoid getting punched in the face.

There's a lot about our nation today that formed from the actions of President Monroe: it's a little disappointing how our history books don't do a better job examining Monroe's administration and its effects on the rest of 19th Century and current American history.

Some print references to follow:
Whitney, David and Whitney, Robin, American Presidents 8th Ed., Readers Digest: Pleasantville NY, 1993, p. 47 - 54

Weinberg, Neil, "Waiting in Line at Mount Rushmore: Understanding the Rankings of Presidential Greatness" (2012). Senior Honors Theses. Paper 292. p. 32 - 34

If you have access to JSTOR, see if Murray, Robert and Blessing, Tim, "The Presidential Performance Study: a Progress Report, " Journal of American History, v.70 n. 3 (Dec. 1983) p. 535-55 has anything on character.

Please comment with more research suggestions on Monroe or on Presidential Character as defined by Barber.  As I noted at the beginning, we're getting into uncharted waters here with the 19th Century Presidents...
Read more ...

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Reading The Beast of Political Thought

mintu | 11:42 AM | | | | | | Be the first to comment!
Also known as "oh no, we got a homework assignment on Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan."

Ta-Nehisi Coates, boss of bosses, has decreed that the Lost Battalion of the Horde should read Leviathan next as our social project of the season.  Hobbes is in the grouping of must-read political thinkers as Locke and Rousseau: Leviathan is spoken of as the serious tract on politics compared to the borderline satire of Machiavelli's Prince.

That said, as a librarian I heartily recommend everyone wanting to keep up with TNC's reading project to ask your local library for a copy of Leviathan for check out.  Better still, for those of you with ereader devices or a budding ebook collection should visit Project Gutenberg and download an ebook copy (most ereader formats available)!

To the bookshelves, Horde!
Read more ...

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Presidential Character: Week Four, Wrong Man Wrong War

mintu | 3:09 PM | | | | Be the first to comment!
Just to note: Sober Nate Silver recently posted a statistical review of Presidential popularity to determine how a two-term President would fare by historians' measurements during the second term.  Not much to relate to the ongoing character series I'm doing here, just noting it for people with an interest in Presidential history.

That said, time to move onto our fourth Federal foreman, our fearless Founder James Madison.

This was the guy when it came to the creation of the Constitution.  It was his "Virginia Plan" that formed the basis of most of the final product: he had a hand in the writing of the legal language in the document itself: he was a key defender of the final product - alongside Hamilton and John Jay - being one of the contributors to the Federalist Papers.  You would think Madison would prove one of our more effective Presidents, someone who knew the system well enough to manage and moderate it, forging a term of office that would rank among the top five ever.

Re-review that link to Silver's article.  It has James Madison at 15th overall ranking by historians.  And to be honest, that's a bit high.  Mostly because two-term Presidents get more positive views by historians (save the more glaring disasters like Nixon, Coolidge, and Bush the Lesser) while one-termers get more unflattering judgments.

Why am I dissing a guy ranked at 15th as overrated?  Mostly because his actual performance as President left a bit to be desired.

If you look back at the first three guys I've reviewed for character, you'll note a common thread: the push for war.  Europe had been ablaze for decades as a consequence of the American rebellion, especially France and Great Britain being at each others' throats during both the French Revolution and then the Napoleonic Empire.  Each of the new Presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson - had to cope with the foreign policy nightmare of getting entangled with an overseas war that our young nation could ill afford.  Sheer logistics aside - the thing that hampered England and France during the American tussles - the fledgling United States had been working on stabilizing our finances at home and with our overseas trading.  The one war we did get into - the Barbary Coast War during Jefferson's tenure - was against an overseas power that was par to the nation's strengths and over specific grievances that hampered our Mediterranean trade.

All other times, our Presidents kept us out of war on Europe, a large-scale enterprise involving tens of nations and millions of lives that showed little sign of ending thanks to the revolutionary zeal of France at the beginning and then later the military skill and conquering hunger of Napoleon.  Washington did so because of his Passive-Negative character (note well his farewell address begging America to avoid all permanent alliances).  Adams' Active-Negative character made him intelligent enough to know how hard a war would be, and worried enough about his legacy to avoid starting something he couldn't finish.  Jefferson's Active-Positive sentiments allowed him to be open-minded and capable of trying alternative solutions, hence the Embargo acts that actually did no good.

Problem was, during all those years the pressure from other politicians (and sometimes from the public at large) to go to war grew.  A boiling pot of resentments and outrages at various actions by Great Britain or France (sometimes both) driving the popular mood into a war-hawk mentality.

Into this came a Passive-Positive president like Madison.

The one word to describe P-Ps... uh, that doesn't sound so good, let's stick with Pass-Pos's... anyway, the word is Compliant: they are amenable, well-liked, have low-self-esteem masked by outward friendly behavior.  Like Passive-Negative brethren, the Pass-Pos reacts to situations rather than lead or innovate. These are the types of guys you'd want running the farm when the farm's operating in the black, everybody knows their roles and are competent at those jobs, and there's no sign of oncoming drought or famine for the next, oh, twenty years or so.  In short, this is a Caretaker.

For all of Madison's work getting the Constitution created, it wasn't always his initiative driving him to do it, nor any ambition on his part to lead.  Madison's mentor was Jefferson, to whom a lot of Madison's ideas originated and toward whom Madison dedicated a lot of work.  The name on the Virginia Plan was Edmond Randolph, not Madison (even though most knew Madison was the primary source).  Madison was bright, well-educated, capable... but he answered to and sought approval from so many others.

What this meant was that sooner or later under his administration the push for war by the War-Hawks (an actual yet informal group in Congress: this is where John C. Calhoun pops up, the bastard) would finally give way.  It didn't help that the causes for war - ongoing British impressment of sailors off American ships, growing frontier tensions with the natives and with Spanish and British colonists along the borders - were still hot topics by Madison's first term of office.  It also didn't help that the War-Hawks were primarily a generation that had come of age and political influence after the American Revolution: they had little first-hand experience with war and didn't realize what the costs would be.  For example, a good number of the Hawks believed invading Canada and seizing it as more territory for the US of A would be sweet, simple, and quick.  Whatever wisdom Washington, Adams and Jefferson had that kept us out of war was in short supply with Madison, who followed more than led.

Madison began the War of 1812 with almost no Army and a small Navy.  Most manpower had to be raised by the states through their militias - say hello to the militia provision of the Second Amendment, by the by - and in terms of supplies and organization the United States wasn't ready one bit.  Another problem was that during all this time the national military had failed to churn out competent army leadership: most high-ranking officers were political appointments with almost little experience.  The state-organized militia leadership wasn't any better (and in a lot of cases, worse).  A more Active President might have made sure he had the right men leading his army first before declaring a war: Madison, well...

Hampering the war effort was the fact that the states and the population were NOT unified in their interest in going to war.  The states of New England, still pro-British and still pro-let's-not-do-anything-to-mess-with-trade, refused to raise militias as needed to help with any invasion of Canada.  Madison had little political influence: being a Southern and Democrat-Republican, he wasn't too popular with the Federalist-led New England populus.  Any decent war-time President (usually an Active) would tell you: get ALL the people rallied to the cause first, then declare war.  (I will grant that this was the first time a President had to do such a thing: Madison had no guide-book to follow)

For those who slept through this part of the history classes: the War of 1812 did not go well for the Americans.  Canada was NOT an easy pick as the War-Hawks believed: in fact, the war brought out a nationalist fervor in Canadians that led them to defend their commonwealth home (still a colonial holding at the time to the British) with enough determination and victories to provide a basis of pride and identity (Canadians remember this war with pride the way they remember with pride their service in World War II).  The British weren't even interested in fighting the first fourteen months of this war, due to focusing on Napoleon and European warfare instead.  Once Napoleon abdicated after his failures in Russia, Great Britain finally sent major forces into Canada and the United States.  This is the point where British troops seasoned against the likes of Napoleon's best faced American civilian militias that fled the battlefield faster than jackrabbits fleeing from hunting dogs.

During all this time, Madison and his Cabinet continued to mismanage the war.  Lacking the skills of an Active President, Madison kept relying on people still eager for war and failing to recognize better need of logistics and organization.  Over-reliance on militias that kept proving themselves unable to stay on the field longer than 30 seconds left Washington DC itself undefended in August 1814, leading to the great embarrassment of the British occupying our nation's capitol and burning nearly every building to the ground.  Only an organized defense of Baltimore by officers who had enough military experience to know what they were doing staved off complete defeat.

British indifference to the whole war - plus the fact that both sides kept winning then losing battles preventing any momentum - was pretty much the only reason the Treaty of Ghent was completed.  The causes of the war - naval impressment, native uprisings along the frontier - were long done: England finished its war on Napoleon and had no need of impressment; the war itself killed off much of the hard-line Indian leadership like Tecumseh and essentially pacified the native tribes of the Great Lakes region.  Canadian resistance to invasion proved the War-Hawks wrong and ended most thoughts of warring with our northern neighbors (save for one more territorial issue, will cover it later).  The treaty itself retained the status quo: all occupied areas reverted back to original ownership.  The only significant change was that the United States got British (formerly Spanish) Florida out of the deal, which made sense to the British giving up a tempting piece of territory that the southern slave states would want sooner or later.

The only reason any American would remember the War of 1812 is the final battle, the great victory at the Battle of New Orleans... which historians will always note came two weeks after the Treaty of Ghent only because ship travel kept news of the treaty for another four weeks or so.  The British practically don't remember the war at all, a mere afterthought to the struggle against Napoleon.  Canadians, as mentioned earlier, remember every victory like they were hockey scores. ;-)

There was little else to say or note about Madison's two terms.  The war dominated most of the administration's focus, especially during the second term.  Most of the sound and fury during the war - the War-Hawk drum beats, the New England Federalist refusal to fight - pretty much died off on their own accord, not due to any influence on Madison's part.  In terms of political issues, Madison retained enough of a Republican view of federalism to veto a major roads and canals bill, yet was open to Federalist ideas of financial policy that retained the federal banking system and high tariffs that favored the New England business interests.

So why am I down on Madison as a Passive-Positive?  He was the wrong man for the wrong war.  Being Positive made him think well of things (relying on militias and not a standing army as the Founders hoped) without considering the consequences or think long-term: being Passive made him rely on the wrong people (War-Hawks) pushing for what needed to be done.  A Negative-inclined President would have paused before bending to a war cause or at least started the war on his terms rather than the War-Hawks' (who had no clue of how to wage war themselves); an Active-inclined President would have avoided war (Active-Negative) or at least made a more energized effort to get it organized and find competent leadership (Active-Positive).

So there we have the first four Presidents, and four examples of what each Character entails as promised from the first time I mentioned this (during my rant about Romney being a Passive-Negative).  Next up: James Monroe, and I'm gonna let you readers start guessing which Character he is.  C'mon, leave me some comments guessing (or at least showing me you're reading other resources on James David Barber's work on Presidential history).  C'mon, I dares ya.
Read more ...

Monday, January 21, 2013

Inauguration Day 2013

mintu | 7:23 AM | | | | | Be the first to comment!
Technically, Obama was sworn in to his SECOND TERM BEECHES on Sunday because the Constitution specifies it happens on January 20th no matter what... which caused a problem one year conflicting with a Super Bowl, which forced President Reagan to stave off the inauguration parties until Monday, so even though the Super Bowl is now in February and the games this Sunday were for the Conference Championships, Obama is carrying on a proud tradition of recognizing Americans' priorities (sports and beer).

Anywho, here's a Liveblog from the Washington Post if you wanna track that sort of thing.  I'm pretty sure the networks are covering it... no, the networks are still talking about Manti Te'o's fake girlfriend.  Again.

/headdesk

Anyways, baseball season is around the corner.  Go Rays!
Read more ...

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Presidential Character: Week Three, It's All Jefferson's Fault

mintu | 5:19 PM | | | | Be the first to comment!
It's a hell of a way to open up a blog post, you think?  Blaming Thomas Jefferson for everything?

Well, not everything.  But still...

We're up to the example of Presidential Character for the Active-Positive types.  The one word to describe this type is Adaptive: these are the guys who enjoy not just the perks of being the President but also the duties, self-deprecating but also self-confident, self-starters who seek accomplishments and problems to solve before anyone else even realizes there's a problem, and someone willing to compromise with others in politics to get things done.

The perfect example of Jefferson's adaptive style was the biggest event during his tenure: the Louisiana Purchase.  By Jefferson's administration France fell under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte, and during his reign building up to Emperor Napoleon had negotiated Spain - then a vassal state under his brother's rule - to hand over the Louisiana Territory that took up the middle third of the North American continent.  His intent was an overseas empire combined with French holdings in the Caribbean.  However, ongoing disasters with Haiti including a slave uprising discouraged Napoleon to where he decided against keeping it.  At the same time, Jefferson had sent envoys to France to negotiate either a lease or the purchase of the City of New Orleans, the key trading port of the Mississippi River.  Jefferson feared that if Napoleon secured Louisiana, he could tie up a major waterway route for the western edge of where the United States then reached.

Instead of negotiating over New Orleans, Napoleon offered up all of the Louisiana Territory.  For $15 million.  Even in that time, this was effing dirt-cheap (roughly 3 cents for every acre) and essentially the biggest land deal of the millennium (well, for the U.S.  For the native tribes already living in the Territory, they never saw one red cent).  Napoleon either didn't know the value of land, or simply wanted to get rid of what he then saw as useless (he also probably sought to buy off American neutrality as his war against Britain was kicking into high gear again).

This quickly became a major dilemma for Jefferson, for two reasons: One, he simply wasn't prepared for such a major land-mass addition to the nation's frontier; two, there wasn't any rule for this anywhere in the Constitution.

I need to back up a bit and note how Jefferson was the leader, the banner carrier of the Democratic-Republican Party.  Unlike the Federalists who used a loose interpretation of the Constitution to establish laws and precedence, the Democrats believed in strict interpretation of the Constitution, including the limitations of powers on the Executive and ensuring the states had rights nearly comparable to the federal government.  Jefferson's original view of government was opposed to a strong Federal system.

But now here was something challenging that view.  He may have had power to conduct treaties and leasing arrangements, but there was no authority in the Constitution to make a land purchase from a foreign nation of this size.  Jefferson could have gone to Congress, explained the deal Napoleon was offering, and wait for Congress to give him the political authority via amendment to get the deal done.  But that meant working with a Congress that could bicker over every detail, delaying what was clearly an impulse buy: Napoleon could well change his mind within another week or month waiting for something to happen and kill the offer.

So Jefferson did what any Active-Positive would do: he broke his own rules.  He authorized the purchase without first securing Constitutional authority to do so, pressing Congress to get the funds lined up as quick as possible.

And so, thanks to Jefferson's A-P attitudes, we went from being a decent-sized nation made up of states into an expanding pre-formed empire with enough territory to double in size and to equal the same land-mass as most of Europe.  Before this, no one had any notion of Manifest Destiny: the Pacific Coast seemed so far off.  After this, reaching the Pacific was now a genuine possibility (and the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery proved it, although their original intent to find a Northwest Passage water route didn't pan out).  And now all of a sudden the issue of slavery, which was confined to southern states and territories and could have moved no further than the Mississippi, became a bigger hot potato... underlying the passions under the colonization of Texas by southerners, leading to their rebellion against Mexico... leading to Texas annexation into the U.S. and soon after stirring up the Mexican-American War, solidifying our nation's reach between two oceans... adding even more territory that slave-owners sought to acquire for their ever-growing reliance on slave labor economics.

This kinda needs to be pointed out that Active-Positive Presidents are NOT always good things, no matter how... positive... the wording seems.  A-Ps are active and very aggressive with their powers... and while they resolve a lot of challenges they never take into consideration the consequences of their actions (political axiom: Every political action generates an unequal and disproportionate reaction (pa < dpr) ).  In short, they are quick to act, but fail to plan ahead (Active-Negatives tend to at least put more thought into what they're doing).

Another example is Jefferson's attempt to engage Great Britain for transgressions during the Napoleonic Wars.  The United States tried to remain neutral but England kept impressing - raiding American ships and taking crewmen the British claimed were deserters - to the point of the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair.  Rather than pursue the threat of war - Jefferson knew as his predecessors did that the U.S. was in no condition for war - Jefferson tried instead a series of embargoes blocking off all trade with Great Britain.  He figured that the lost trade would hurt England enough to force them to terms.  He failed to figure that the American traders would also get hurt in the process - and that England had other trade partners and colonial holdings to keep them stocked with supplies.  The embargoes failed quickly and spectacularly, causing major rifts across the U.S., and Jefferson ended his term of office repealing those acts before they caused more damage.

Jefferson's two terms of office were very active indeed, more than the administrations of the first two Presidents Washington and Adams.  But a lot of those actions had unintended consequences, which led to things like the War of 1812, the march of Manifest Destiny - which Natives, Mexicans, and even Americans would come to loath - and the increasing debate over slavery.  Whether or not Jefferson's actions were good, the positive aspects of his actions are obvious... and the negative aspects are obvious as well.  The debates will not end here.  Not until much later...
Read more ...

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

When Bills Are Passing The House Despite the Majority

mintu | 9:07 AM | Be the first to comment!

This sorta happened last night:

A very big thing happened last night in the House of Representatives. For the second time this month, Boehner broke the Hastert Rule. The issue was Hurricane Sandy relief, a follow-up vote to a smaller package approved earlier this month. It passed, but the important thing is how it passed:
Yeas: 241 (192 Democrats, 49 Republicans)
Nays: 180 (Rep. Jim Cooper + 179 Republicans)

Just what is the Hastert Rule? It's a nickname of the political concept for "Majority of the Majority," which states that the House Speaker will not allow a vote on a bill unless that bill has a majority of the majority party backing it.  It essentially kills the party in the minority to even bring up any bills that a small portion of the majority could and would support, because the majority leadership will cut off that outreach in a heartbeat.

For Boehner to allow a vote that required, NEEDED the minority party to pass is a big deal.  That it's the second such vote inside of two weeks (the "fiscal cliff" deal passed on New Years Day also broke the Rule). In a way, it questions the very need or existence of that majority party in the first place. 

In truth, this is not about how Boehner is breaking the Majority rule: Boehner is not the problem here.  This is really a sign of how dysfunctional and broken the House is when even the majority of the majority cannot be counted on to pass bills that are no-brainer "this has broad public support" deals.  There were enough Americans in favor of getting aid to Sandy victims.  A previous vote attempt that got dumped by the House GOP led to a massive public outcry and very public rifts between the two wings of the Republicans: the Populists (pretty much the only moderate force left in the GOP) and the Wingnuts (the Batsh-t Crazies).

If the GOP majority of the House continues to be obstructionist on key issues - the Debt Ceiling conflict is a big one, the planned Sequester is the other - are we going to see more votes that will pass with Democratic plus moderate support? 
Read more ...

Monday, January 14, 2013

I Take It These People Never Studied 19th Century Utopias In College

mintu | 5:29 PM | | | | | Be the first to comment!
I got a one-two punch here:

Over on Salon.com, they got an article about Glenn Beck wanting to start an Ayn Rand inspired Utopia community.

Over on Balloon Juice, they got an article about the gun-worshiper crowd offering up a map of the proposed Citadel, a walled community of Second Amendment acolytes defending themselves from the imminent global apocalypse brought on by godless fascist commie libruls.  See below:

This looks like a beginner-level Dungeons & Dragons module from 1982.

(The quality of such a walled-in community is best left to the military experts.  But having just one route in or out through two gates is a major flaw design.  And a serious campaign using siege engines like trebuchets would make quick work of the walls and housing without even risking troop incursions... and we're talking using weaponry from the Middle Ages, peoples.  Like Patton said, fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man.)

And for any of you regular readers, you kinda already know how I feel about Utopian thought: the absolute expression of an -ism ideology brought to the real world... where Utopias quickly fall apart from internal strife and mismanagement.

It does amaze me that there are yet another round of generations eager and willing to buy into this kind of Utopia business pitch (and there is money involved here.  Why not?  Libertarianism is all about the free market).  Part of it may well be that most of my fellow Americans pursuing these libertarian communities simply don't remember their American history, or that our schoolbooks no longer devote a chapter to the attempts like New Harmony and Oneida and Fruitlands to build a "model community".

It doesn't amaze me that there seem to be enough Americans willing to buy into these communities out of what looks like cultural fear.  There's been that fear brewing for ages, brought to the fore with having Obama in the White House, and it's gotten to the point where such communities are openly promoted on the national stage.  From where I stand, this is an unfounded fear: there is no Apocalypse or Armageddon approaching, there are no invading hordes charging across the oceans. 

Look, a lot of the anger stirred up against Obama are from partisan media hacks paid to stir up trouble.  Always talking about the current President as ZOMG WORST PREZ EVER.  Which is what they've been saying since the days of George Washington for God's sake (yes, even he got demonized by the masses during his two terms).  A lot of this anger from the Far Right?  I heard a lot of this sh-t back during Bill Clinton's tenure.  Guess what?  Nation's still here.  There was a lot of wailing and pulling of hair from the Far Left (and then the centrist Left, and then about 60 percent of the nation) during Bush the Lesser's tenure about him being the WORST EVER.  Guess what?  Nation's still here.  Every President - even James Monroe, the only other guy than Washington to run unopposed - gets demonized by the opposition: it all depends on how accurate they truly are.  Do you think ANY of these wingnutters are going to feel sheepish about how they've been behaving these years when Obama finishes out his term and exits in 2016 with the United States of America still here?  I doubt it...

Back to the planned Citadel and GlennBeckistan communities.  If you're seriously intent on throwing in your money on these communities, just remember: they've tried this already with something called Future Cities Development and they filed for bankruptcy in 2012.  There's a list of attempts on the Economist's website as well, and none of them ended with smiles and sunshine.  Caveat emptor, people (it's Latin for "suckers").

Read more ...
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

Search

Pages

Powered by Blogger.