February 11, 2008
Okay, Senator McCain is Ninth On My List
The Everyday Economist links to a list of the Laissez-fairist U.S. Presidents, and wishes If only one of them were running for President.
• Grover Cleveland (1885-1889 and 1893-1897)
• Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
• Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
• Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
• Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)
• Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Blog friend Perry Eidlebus recently disagreed with my call for 19th Century government. I will point out that the top four inhabited my Century.
Politics
Posted by jk at February 11, 2008 2:41 PM
21st century American government is so far the worst ever, exceeding even the 20th century's. The 19th century was not as bad, but still far from desirable.
The early 19th century is when the federal government began expanding. At first it was "internal improvements," as the Whigs (pro-Republicans) called them. The "improvements" meant taxing the nation to give subsidies for canals and then railroads -- gifts to political supporters.
Tariffs of Abomination. This was only the beginning of the federal government setting itself up as the supreme authority, long before Gonzales v. Raich.
As I've pointed out before, Lincoln was instrumental in destroying federalism, by consolidating as much power as he could in the federal government. The Civil War saw the first federal income tax. It was later found unconstitutional, but that was the start.
When various Southern states refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, the federal government instituted martial law and rewrote their state constitutions. Most Americans are unaware of this appalling use of coercion.
So which of these is the element of 19th century government you like?
21st century American government is so far the worst ever, exceeding even the 20th century's. The 19th century was not as bad, but still far from desirable.
The early 19th century is when the federal government began expanding. At first it was "internal improvements," as the Whigs (pro-Republicans) called them. The "improvements" meant taxing the nation to give subsidies for canals and then railroads -- gifts to political supporters.
Tariffs of Abomination. This was only the beginning of the federal government setting itself up as the supreme authority, long before Gonzales v. Raich.
As I've pointed out before, Lincoln was instrumental in destroying federalism, by consolidating as much power as he could in the federal government. The Civil War saw the first federal income tax. It was later found unconstitutional, but that was the start.
When various Southern states refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, the federal government instituted martial law and rewrote their state constitutions. Most Americans are unaware of this appalling use of coercion.
So which of these is the element of 19th century government you like?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 11:50 PMOh, and as far as Andrew Jackson being laissez-faire, how do you justify his signing and wholehearted support of the Tariffs of Abomination? I'll even put aside the fact that *he* was the one who told South Carolina that it was subject to federal authority, and not that the federal government was a compact between the state governments.
I should also add that four in the 19th century is better than the 20th century, but there were 24 presidential administrations during the 19th century, and 22 if you don't want to count John Adams or William McKinley.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 11, 2008 11:56 PMI was a little surprised to see Jackson on the list, though I'd think you would applaud his (and Taney's) efforts at fighting the National Bank.
I'll tell you what I love about the 19th Century: all those Presidents are an unknown blur of bald heads, moustaches and sideburns. They didn't create the League of Nations or the New Deal or the Great Society. They governed modestly. I am no fan of tariffs, but they also operated the entire Federal government without income tax.
Post-slavery, pre-income tax. Not a bad time for US Government.
Posted by: jk at February 12, 2008 11:11 AMFighting the Fed's first incarnation was the best thing Jackson did. He was also an honorable man who had the guts to defend his wife's honor. However, things like the Trail of Tears and his support of the Tariffs of Abomination (not to mention his support of federal superiority over federalism) mar his record.
The Constitution explicitly empowers Congress to place a *uniform* tariff to be placed on imports (which tells us that BS preferential treatment like "MFN" status is unconstitutional). It would be an overstatement to call the original tariff levels "modest." It was a fraction of a percent, and indeed it was enough to fund the federal government until the Civil War. The federal government was so in line with its Constitutional limitations that the tariffs didn't need to be high, until Lincoln set an example for LBJ and drew the U.S. into a bloody mess.
The Tariffs of Abomination were deliberately protectionist, by contrast. They were set very high so that foreign machinery would become artificially more expensive than the North's equivalents, so that the South would be forced to buy from the North. Supposedly this was going to help the North's economy, then "trickle down" to the South. This was true force, because if you refuse to pay tariffs, the government will imprison or kill you. If my neighbors otherwise banded together and said they'd levy a tariff on whatever I buy from Wal-Mart, I'd laugh in their face.
And I shouldn't need to add that, like all tariffs, it completely backfired. A country can't get rich by oppressing one half of its economy.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:25 PMBTW, the time was post-slavery, pre-income tax, with massive increases in federal power, such as all the subsidies and charters granted out as political favors, and that the Southern states were forced to ratify an amendment if they wanted the goddamn national army to lift martial law.
Since then, federal power has waned not one bit. It may not have our state legislatures under military rule, but the federal government established itself as higher than the states.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 12, 2008 2:29 PMI would suggest the expansion of government started about 1788 or so, and continued pretty much unabated until today.
I'm as Federalist as the next guy, but you're not getting me to speak against the 13th, a4th and 15th Amendments. I'm in enough trouble celebrating the 19th Century!
Posted by: jk at February 12, 2008 7:06 PMDo you not understand what the 14th Amendment did? There are some good and neutral portions, but for the first time, citizens of the several States were proclaimed citizens of the United States, putting them under federal jurisdiction.
Before, people were "the people of the United States," but unless they were Americans who lived in federal territories or the District of Columbia, they were citizens only of their home state. They were citizens of the United States for purposes of identification when traveling abroad, but until the 14th Amendment, they were not subject to federal authority save in interstate matters. *That* was the natural of our original federalism.
The 14th was the first truly bad amendment. It speaks of "privileges or immunities" when it should be talking about *rights*.
And to boot, as I've already said, Southern states refused to ratify it, so the federal government dissolved their state legislatures and instituted martial law until the Southerners complied.
Oh, and if you want to get technical, the expansion of American government began in 1789 once the Constitution was ratified. Lysander Spooner had an excellent point, and I agree. How do several of the States have the power to approve a compact, thereby forcing the remaining States into it, when the others do not yet approve? Of course, the other states eventually ratified the Constitution themselves, but why should they have been forced to join the new Union before their own ratification?
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at February 13, 2008 3:21 PM | What do you think? [7]