Note--Our previous thread was getting a little tangled with different topics, so I thought it would be helpful to separate the discussion of history as a separate posting. Here's what I wrote:
Lev's previous post raised two questions, one concerning the nature of historical objectivity and the other concerning the specific interpretation of early American history put forth by the Tea Party. The first is of course one of the great issues in the philosophy of history. I'm happy to chime in with my two cents worth, but I think I'll save this for another time.
I do want to say a few words about the second question. First, some additional reading. I'm not a specialist on Early American history, so I don't want to go too deep in arguing the specifics. But Jill Lepore at Harvard has just come out with a book that addresses precisely this issue: The Whites of Their Eyes:
The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History. I haven't read Lepore's book, but I have read an article she wrote in the New Yorker, which I assume touches on many of the ideas in the book.
To tell you the truth, I actually found Lepore's article a little annoying mainly because she tries to do too many things at once. She is constantly shifting between the American Revolution, the present-day Tea Party, and the bicentennial events in Boston in the 1970s. (Incidentally, I remember these events very well. I was one of the 30,000 protesters at the "People's Bicentennial" at Concord in April 1975 that Lepore mentions briefly). In the midst of all this shifting around, her point gets rather muddled. But she certainly makes her views clear on the Tea Party version of the American Revolution, and these points apply to the link that Lev provided.
So what's wrong with the Tea Party view of history? First, it is simplistic. The Tea Partiers take a period that was rife with discussion, debate and dissent and homogenize it all into a uniform image of the "Founding Fathers" -- as if they agreed on everything and spoke with one voice. The tenth amendment is a good example of this. It's clear that there was intense disagreement in the 1780s and 1790s about the powers of the federal government. Yet the tea party enshrines one set of voices in these debates as dogma--this despite the fact that it was the anti-federalists calling for a weak and circumscribed government who essentially lost the argument.
My second point is that the Tea Party's view of history is tendentious. A conscientious historian, even when arguing a controversial thesis, will present the full range of evidence and craft an argument that accounts for all its elements. What the Tea Partiers do, in contrast, is to pick out of a very rich and diverse base of evidence the pieces that seem to support their interpretation. The link Lev provided is a good example of this. The author traces the debates leading to the inclusion of the tenth amendments and the adoption of the constitution. He cites several petitions from states calling for an explicit listing of the powers of the Federal government in the constitution. He does not, however, acknowledge the numerous arguments put forward in favor of a strong central government whose powers were implied but not enumerated in the constitution. Nor does he acknowledge the more nuanced position of some of the key figures. For example, he might have noted that Madison himself insisted that the word "expressly" be deleted from the phrase "powers expressly delegated" that appeared in the original draft of the 10th amendment. Clearly Madison believed that powers in the constitution could be implied and not explicitly listed. The positions of Alexander Hamilton and George Washington on these questions are barely noted at all.
My final point is that the Tea Party's history is "presentist" enterprise stemming from a need to create a usable past rather than understand history in its own terms. This is most apparent in the tone of the tea party arguments--the over the top polemics, name calling, empty rhetoric masquerading as argument. The author rails against "statist zombies" who are all wrong because "they don't know what they're talking about." Obviously this guy has a pretty serious political agenda and is drawing on history for support. This is understandable, but it doesn't make for good history.
OK, Nathan, it took me quite some time to get writing a response to this post. The reason, why I asked your opinion about the particular article, is that I do not see any point in discussing this issue in general terms. You make some harsh pronouncements about Tea Party’s version of history, but such thing simply does not exist. There are conservatively inclined commentators with rather diverse views, which often have only one thing in common: they all feel that the “official history”, at least its form presented to broader public (particularly students) has a liberal bias. I am not interested in discussing general statements of the kind you made in your post. I do not think that they are methodologically justified and helpful. If we want to talk about conservative views on history, let’s analyze specific texts and arguments. The article, which I mentioned in my post, seemed to me to be written from an intellectually honest position, and is, therefore, worthy of discussion. It should be understood, however, that it is not an academic paper and it should not be judged based on the criteria reserved for scholarly publications. This is a polemic article, and I think that certain rhetorical excesses in it can be excused. I am more interested in its content, and if the arguments offered in it can be, indeed, justified, by historical facts. This is your turf, and I kind of hoped that you would be able to approach it with a less dismissive attitude. Again, my knowledge of American history is very limited, but I did notice that some of your more concrete criticisms of the article are not fair. The author argues against a dismissive attitude toward 10th amendment, and I think he does a good job showing that the ideas of limiting the power of federal government were on the minds of many politicians of the “formative period”. He does mention ambivalence of Madison and “pro-strong government” position of Hamilton. Moreover, he demonstrates that even Hamilton and Marshall, who were the strongest supporters of the central government, worried at the same time about state rights. Given the limited objective of this article to demonstrate that 10th amendment was an integral and substantial part of the Constitutional process in earlier years of American history, it seems to me that it does a good a job. But, again, I am not a historian and probably am missing something. I am ready to learn, but I would like to see something more specific than just general declarations.
ReplyDeleteLev, perhaps for you a discussion of methodology amounts to little more than empty generalities, but for me these issues are at the heart and soul of the historian's endeavor. These methodological points are what separate legitimate historical interpretation from ideological distortions and bias. Furthermore, it is methodology that allows historians from different fields to evaluate each others' work. To be honest, I probably don't know a whole lot more than you do about early American history--it's not my field. But I would hope that my training as a historian would enable me to recognize a tendentious argument or misleading use of sources when I see one. I imagine this is vaguely similar to the use of mathematics in physics. You might be reading something far removed from your area of specific expertise, but if the equations don't work, you'll know that something is amiss.
ReplyDeleteSo, back into the tentherist fray. I admit that there was more to the piece you sent than I initially realized. The author does appear to be a professionally trained historian and he certainly has a wealth of facts at his disposal. I wouldn't dispute that he knows his material. Yet after reading the piece a second time more closely I still stand by my methodological concerns.
The author's general approach seems to be to draw attention away from the big picture by delving deeper and deeper into minutia. He distracts and confuses the reader with a welter of detail, without really explaining what it all means and how it changes the larger context. Thus, he evokes the Declaration of Independence and cites any number of statements by the founding fathers regarding state's rights. But these pieces of evidence do not add up to a persuasive case. The fact remains that the language included in the constitution did not limit the power of Congress to explicitly enumerated points--the notion of implied powers was present from the outset and was repeated reaffirmed when the issue came before the courts. Likewise, the author provides a jumble of ‘context’ regarding Washington's 1790 law on interstate commerce, but the fact remains that Washington did support a strong centralized state, and he did side with Hamilton over Jefferson in establishing the First Bank of the US. Incidentally, speaking of Jefferson, it's very telling that the author, who idealizes Jefferson in every other context, has little to say about the two terms Jefferson spent as President in which he undertook a number of measures that actually strengthened the power of the state. I'm thinking especially of the Louisiana Purchase which violated "tenther" principles in a number of respects--where does it say in the constitution that congress has the right to buy land and administer it as territory outside of the jurisdiction of the states? This is typical of how the author looks at individuals. Rather than viewing historical actors as complex figures whose views developed and matured over time, rather than trying to understand these people on their own terms, he seeks out snippets of opinion that support his ideological position and rejects the rest. Clearly Alexander Hamilton was an adamant supporter of a strong government, yet the author would have us place more emphasis on a single rather ambiguous quote from early in his career provided with very little context. Likewise, the author would have us place more weight on a seemingly random statement by the young John Marshall in 1787 rather than his carefully argued judgment as a supreme court justice. This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I described the article as tendentious.
Incidentally, I hope you took a look at the article that the author was trying to refute. It also was a polemic piece, and the arguments may not always have been carefully framed, but I found it much more persuasive than the rebuttal. Brion McClanahan (the author of the rebuttal) chips away at a few minor points, but leaves untouched a number of key arguments about the dangers of a tenther approach. McClanahan says that Tenthers are actually less dangerous because they leave more power to local people and protect them from the tyranny of the centralized state. But since when are local people inherently any less tyrannical and oppressive than the Federal Government? What is to prevent, say, a dominant group of 'local people' from oppressing, exploiting and brutalizing their neighbors, and then crying "state's rights" when the government tries to bring them to justice?
ReplyDeleteThe subtext of all of this is, of course, race. Without the power of the central government and the judiciary it would have been impossible abolish Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation. It is abundantly clear from the history of the 1950s and 1960s that the Southern states would never have instituted civil rights protections on their own. The federal government was the only power that had the ability to protect the rights of individuals from shameful oppression carried out under the protection of state's rights. Mr. McClanahan, leaves this issue untouched, but makes it very clear that he feels the powers used to impose civil rights are illegitimate. So, it's back to the bad old days of lynchings and segregation? Why do I get the feeling that the McKlanahans of the world don't think this would be such a bad thing?
"The subtext of all of this is, of course, race." ... "So, it's back to the bad old days of lynchings and segregation? Why do I get the feeling that the McKlanahans of the world don't think this would be such a bad thing?"
ReplyDeleteREALLY? ARE YOU SERIOUS? If the last sentence is not an ultimate "ad hominem" attack, which we vouched not to get engaged in, then I do not know what is. We just started talking about interesting things and you are already pulling out the race card? I always thought that this was the weapon of last resort, when all other arguments are exhausted. But you do make some serious arguments which deserve to be discussed. Thus, I really shocked by this outburst. McClanahan's piece has absolutely nothing to do with race, but you are calling him a racist just because yo disagree with him. More generally speaking, I think that to reduce the discussion of 10th amendment to race is simply dishonest. What does 10th amendement has to do with it? Nothing, really. Does 10th amendment stay in the way of Federal government's ability to eliminate lynching or discrimination? Not at all. Both, denying people equal protection of their rights and lynching are violation of main principles of Consitution and the Bill of rights. Federal government has all rights and it is its duty to make sure that these rights are preserved for eveyone. There is absolutely no contradiction with 10th amendment here. As far as Jim Crow's laws are concerned, they are an egregious interference of state governments in business activities and private life of citizens, which is by the way, a direct violation of that(often forgotten) part of 10th amendment, which speaks about powers reserved for people. Federal government has full power as a defender of constitution to void those laws on the basis of 10th amednment. What it cannot do, however, is to force businesses not to discriminate, but this is a separate and complex issue. Thus, Nathan, please stay within the frameworks of intellectually honest discussion. To be continued.
A short afterthought about Jim Crow. I find it ironic that you, while rightfully indignant about those laws, are not afraid of and is even in favor of strong government with unlimited powers. Don't you realize that Jim Crow was possible only because the government was allowed to become too strong and legislate areas that it had no business to get involved in. It does not matter that in this case it were state's governments who breached the limits, which were supposed to be imposed on them by respective states' Constitutions (and I am positive that none of them had provisions allowing their governments to regulate who sleeps with whom, and how people are supposed to run their businesses. So much for usefulness of regulations!). Why do you believe that nothing like this or something even worse than this cannot happen at the federal level under the appropriate circumstances. Are you sure that strong government is, indeed, such a good thing?
ReplyDeleteLev, it seems to me that you are pulling a race card of your own. Indignation -- how dare you call so and so a racist! -- is a very effective way of stopping a conversation. OK, so I ended by remarks with a somewhat snarky rhetorical flourish. But I didn't call anyone a racist--I merely posed a rhetorical question. My remarks were not directed at a particular individual(the McKlanahans of the world)nor were they irrelevant to the matter at hand.
ReplyDeleteYou say that McClanahan's article was not about race--quite right, he avoids the issue like a hot potato. But the constitutional arrangement he advocates, in which the federal government abdicates its regulatory power and state and local authorities can override federal laws (nullification), is precisely the scenario that gave rise to Jim Crow. It is no accident that Jim Crow laws emerged and flourished in the period from the 1880s to the 1930s--precisely the period in which a 'tenther' reading of the constitution was most influential. The very term "state rights" which occupies such a central place in tenther discourse, sets off alarm bells. "States Rights" has long served as a kind of code word to defend the indefensible--first slavery in the build-up to the Civil War, then Jim Crow a century later.
You seem to suggest that a government based on a literalist reading of the tenth amendment would have no problem protecting individual civil rights in general and abolishing Jim Crow laws in particular. Here, I beg to differ. There were two key pieces of federal legislation that turned the tide against Jim Crow. The first was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlawed discrimination in business (among other things)--precisely what you argue is not justifiable. The Act was based on the Commerce Clause, but a tenther would no doubt argue that since banning discrimination is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, it is not among the powers of Congress. The second key law was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This also would be unacceptable under the tenther approach. Where in the constitution, after all, is the federal government given the power to regular how elections are organized on the local level? The other key element in overturning the Jim Crow laws were the decisions of the Supreme Court upholding Federal legislation and overturning discriminatory practices under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. McClanihan makes it clear in several places in his article that he has little more than contempt for the power of the Supreme Court. He writes, "As a principle, the Tenth Amendment movement does not care about the Supreme Court nor does it put its faith in Supreme Court decisions." So much for enforcing the constitution. So essentially, what the tenthers would like to do is to throw out all the mechanisms that played a critical role in overturning Jim Crow. Such powers, McClanahan argues, exist, only for those who need "a strong central authority to ram their agenda down the throats of the American people." Now what might such an agenda look like? Perhaps Mr. McClanahan, with his Ph.D in American History, makes these arguments and the issue of race never once crosses his mind. But all things being equal, it's hard not to suspect some connections.
In response to your second post, for me the key question is not whether the government is strong or weak or large or small, but rather how it is structured and how powers are distributed. Yes, I do favor a state with strong regulatory powers to protect citizens and promote the general welfare. But I also believe in a strong system of checks and balances based on the principles laid out in the Constitution. As long as these checks and balances are functioning properly, I am not particularly worried about the Federal Government. I do worry, however, that the Supreme Court in recent years has not been adequately fulfilling it's balancing role and allowed the Federal Government to take on too much power during the Bush administration with the Patriot Act and other elements of the 'War on Terror.' I can only hope that in time the balance will be restored.
ReplyDeleteOne more word about Jim Crow. In the vast majority of cases, the laws did not so much involve government overreach as they did the failure to protect and regulate. Technically, no one was forced to discriminate, but the laws gave a stamp of approval for those did, and helped to create a culture in which such practices became ubiquitous. Anti-miscegenation laws are in a somewhat different category of laws governing personal behavior which have a long history. There is nothing in the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) that specifically prohibits such laws. In fact, many states, I believe, still have laws against adultery and sodomy on the books. It was only with the passage of the 14th Amendment (passed after the Civil War) that the legal framework was set up for banning the laws against interracial marriage and even so, it was not until the 1960s that these laws were struck down.
Nathan, in Russian there is an expression валить с больной головы на здоровую and I do not know how to translate it in English, but this is exactly what you are doing. I did not pull any cards, and I was not indignant. I was rather surprised though because in my view nothing in our discussion warranted throwing in the race issue. You see, in the current cultural climate racist became a dirty word on par with, for instant, a child pornographer. Would you care to go into details of views justifying child pornography? I would not. By the same token, why to discuss the details of political and ideological movement, which has been determined to be racist? This is a true discussion stopper.
ReplyDeleteNow back to the issue at hand. This is true that 10th amendment (or rather nullification) has been used to uphold Jim Crow laws, but it has also been used by abolitionists in the run up to the Civil war to protect run away slaves. You can find this story here?. Thus, it seems evident that 10th amendment and nullification are just tools and as any tools can be used for good or for evil. The cited article, for instance, gives examples of how states used nullification in recent times to counter federal laws from “human right” prospective. Thus, I do not agree that tenthers movement is inherently racist.
Unfortunately, all this racial staff distracted me from my original intentions (I planned to talk about “big picture” in history, Jefferson and Louisiana purchase), but I will return to them later. Now I want to share some thoughts about the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. Reading about the Black Codes it occurred to me that those laws were not particularly racist. The race was incidental to them as their foundation was purely economical. If slaves were some unfortunate whites, I believe, the same laws would have been enacted. From economical standpoint these laws were of anti-market and anti-capitalist nature. Indeed, one of the important motivations for these laws was the fear of the plantation owners that they would not be able to compete for labor on the free market. In the absence of slave labor, they would have to raise wages to attract free laborers, which would have resulted in increased price of their produce and hurt other industries dependent on cheap cotton, for instance. Thus, the solution, which was gladly accepted by Northern industrialists, was to regulate labor market by forcing former slaves to work for below market price wages. This is quite a clear example of government planning in action and none of the true Tenthers would be in favor of these laws.
In the case of Jim Crow, the situation is different. Many of them are indeed purely racists (prohibition on interracial marriages, for instance), but they also became possible only because the idea that government have unlimited powers to regulate people’s personal and business lives became acceptable. This does not mean, of course, that many of the residents of those states were “multicultural” angels harassed by their governments. People did not object to those laws because they reflected their prejudices, but it does mean that these people forgot how to be free and sold their liberty to entertain their prejudices.
The issue of desegregation and discrimination in business (I do think that current laws against discriminations are bad for everyone, including those whom they are supposed to defend) is a separate topic for a long discussion, so let’s talk about it separately.
A short addition. I believe you are wrong about Jim Crow. A brief look at the examples of these laws show that they actually instituted segregation through regulation and not just allowed people to discriminate. For instance, there were laws specifying the height of a barrier, which restaurant owners had to install to separate white from colored sections. I do not think also that they cultivated the culture of racism and discrimination, these laws simply reflected the prejudices existing among the populace of the respective states. As far as the repulsion of those laws, I believe that 14th amendment was more than sufficient to do the job, and that the federal government waited so long to do it was not because of the lack of the regulatory power, but because the politicians did not have the balls to do what they were obliged to do by the law - to defend the Constitution. It is the civil right movement, not some special additional regulations that changed the equation here.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Supreme Court is concerned your own post reflects everybody's ambivalence toward this "most undemocratic" of the branches of the government. Everybody at one point or another disagrees with Supreme Court, so I do not see anything illegal in formulating your ideological platform without particular regard to its decisions. This is after all just the platform not the call for political actions
And one more addition. 9th amendment actually ensures that personal rights, even those which are not specifically enumerated, are protected from infringement by the government. In other words everything, which is not forbidden is permitted. Thus, those state laws which regulate people's bedroom habits are clearly are unconstitutional by 9th and 14th amendments. This is actually where I am in a strong disagreement with present day Republicans and many of the Tea Partiers. They want to regulate morals, which I think is wrong because no a way a society as diverse as ours can agree on common set of moral principles. Therefore, to impose morals of one group of people on everybody else is also a form of tyranny.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lev, for your comments, which have given me much food for thought. I'm glad to see that there's something here that we both definitely agree on--that government should not try to regulate private personal morality. I would only add that this is a very recent approach to the role of government. Laws governing sexual behavior and morality have been around since the time of the puritans. Thomas Jefferson, of course, was a voice of reason in this regard. He thought it was sufficient merely to castrate sodomites rather than hanging them. Sodomy laws were on the books in many states until 2003 when they were declared unconstitutional by the supreme court (on the basis of the due process clause)and adultery laws in some states are still in effect. So it would not appear that many courts have shared your reading of the 9th and 14th amendments.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get into a long discussion of the Black Codes and Jim Crow, but I'm not sure I quite follow your argument. It seems to me that any law that applies exclusively to a single group of people defined solely by their skin color and ancestry (negros and mulattos) and not to anyone else is by definition racist. It is irrelevant whether the motivation for the law is economic. If the law is applied based on racial categories, then it is racially discriminatory, which in my book amounts to racist.
And this, of course, brings us back to the original point about my supposed allegations of racism. Generally, I try to be careful and precise in my use of language, and so its a bit jarring to see ideas and opinions attributed to me that I did not espouse or endorse. I certainly did not claim that tenthers or anyone else were intrinsically racist, and I definitely did not expect you or anyone else to defend racism. My point was not that the tenthers are racist, but rather that they are advocating a legal constitutional order in which racism has thrived in the past and may again in the future, because the powers and institutions that protect against these things have been stripped away. What I really want to know is why we should assume that 'local people' will always be more enlightened and just than central authorities, who, the tenthers assure us, are inherently oppressive. History shows, I believe, that this is not at all the case, and that more often than not centralized power has been used to protect individuals from the rapacious tendencies of their neighbors. Any proposal to remove these protective powers will inevitably evoke the memory of Jim Crow--the episode in history when the central government most dramatically failed to exercise its powers. Is has hard for me to believe that writers like Mr. McClanahan, with all his knowledge of American history, is not aware of this connection.
I read with interest the article on the fugitive slave act of 1850. I accept the point that the doctrine of nullification was used not only by the southern states to defend slavery and segregation. But this doesn't make it any less dangerous. Mob rule for a just cause is still mob rule. In fact some of scenes described were truly striking--a torch carrying mob surrounding the local jail and demanding the release of a black man who, they promise, will get his just deserts--in this case, freedom, in other cases, death. There is a better way of responding to an unjust law, which goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks and is exemplified in the life and works of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, etc -- peaceful protest and civil disobedience. To be sure, it may not be as satisfying as busting down the jailhouse, arresting the Feds and getting your friend the local judge to back you up, but it's a lot more effective in the long run.
A very short reply. In my book, any law designed for or against any particular group of people is unjust, thus there is no question for me that Black Code laws were wrong. However, my reasons for this conclusion are probably different from yours. Unlike Jim Crow laws, the Black Code were not passed out of fear or hatred or disgust for people of different appearance. The race was circumstantial to their true nature, which was purely economical. Jim Crow, on the other hand, did not have anything in it by racial bigotry. This is an important distinction for me, because we can easily agree that racism is bad, but we may never agree that government intervention in free markets is also bad practice.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your question regarding why "local people" should be more trustworthy than central government, it is quite easy to answer. First, they do understand local conditions better and will make decisions, which could actually be carried out with much less resistance from the populace. Second, they have much less power than central government, and if they stray off the course, the corrections can be introduced much easier. You will counter this, of course, by referring to Jim Crow which flourished for a long time at local level. I will answer to this by repeating the point, which I made earlier. It is not the central government who played the key role in eliminating these laws. It is the local people supported by folks from all over the country who made away with Jim Crow. Without the Civil Right movement no acts of federal government would have been possible or effective. The federal government actually behaved very badly in this case as it was not capable of enforcing its own constitutional principles of equal protection, due process, etc. And when it did interfere, it did all the wrong things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Nathan, I do not quite see a logical connection between the movement of Tenthers and as you put it "legal constitutional order in which racism has thrived in the past and may again in the future, because the powers and institutions that protect against these things have been stripped away." What exactly is this order, which Tenthers seek to destroy? I do not remember reading in the Tenthers literature calls to abolish equal protection rights, or the due process rights, or 14th amendment or any other rights granted by Constitution to all citizens of USA. Nor do they call for elimination of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Essentially, the Tenthers attempts to limit powers of Federal government by requiring it to explicitly demonstrate constitutionality of the proposed regulations. Since Federal government certainly have constitutional duty to enforce equal protection due process and rights to vote, the Voting Rights Act (except of Section 5) and Civil Rights Act would pass the test. The appeal of the southern opposition to these acts to 10th amendments and state rights is, of course, a historical fact, but this is all what it is - a happenstance. As I said, there is no logical deterministic connection between 10th amendments and opposition to civil right legislation. Thus, I think your fear of this movement is somewhat overblown.
ReplyDelete