Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Everybody Just Calm The F*ck Down



It is officially that time of the year when we look back at the previous 12 months and assess, with the clearest of hindsight, whether or not our year sucked.  We assign to this year a pejorative—shitty, good, awesome, fucking miserable, etc, etc.   Each assessment is at once personal and collective as we look back upon not only what we went through, but what We went through. 



And 2015 is no different.  Personally, my year was great!  I got married, I got pregnant (NOT in that order), I spent a lot of good time with family and friends, and I made serious plans for the year ahead. 



Seriously....
Collectively, however, I think we could do better.  We saw great tragedy this year and I think that many of us have started to wonder just how the world got this crazy.  Between mass violence, comical politics, the fact that George Tsoukalos still has a job, and near constant outrage about one trivial thing after another it’s easy to consider 2015 a year of chaos and unparalleled insanity that the world may never recover from.



But is it unparalleled? 



Of course not!  The world has gone crazy.  But it’s gone crazy before.  And *spoiler alert* it’s bounced back. 



Allow me to make us feel collectively better about our present insanity by harkening us back to different time when the world went crazy:





As the sun set on the 1790s in America it is easy to argue that many were looking back on the past decade with pessimism.  The United States had somehow emerged victorious from the Revolutionary War in 1783.  Many Americans weren’t even sure how, exactly, we had pulled that off.  But now we were tasked with creating a nation out of a handful of territories and self-directed colonies on a foundation that no one had ever really seen before, at least not on this scale, and many predicted it was destined to fail.  Further, we had to do this under an umbrella of crippling debt to France and hostility between us and one of the most powerful empires on the face of the planet (Britain). 



The British weren’t about to just let us be—they nearly immediately began digging in their heels regarding the Treaty of Paris that had ended the war—they refused to leave many of the northern forts now firmly in American territory, they were total assholes regarding boundary disputes between Canada and Maine, and they began kidnapping our ships and soldiers (for more on this see the War of 1812 blog: http://theunemployedhistorian.blogspot.com/2014/08/bitch-slaps-and-bad-assery-war-of-1812.html ).  
The response to this in the 1790s was the Jay Treaty.  Wildly unpopular in the US, the treaty did little to advance American interests—it pretty much conceded that the British could seize goods off of our ships in exchange for them again agreeing to leave the forts they had previously agreed to leave but hadn’t.   



For their part, France was nice enough to start a Revolution of their own in 1789 which gave us an excuse to not pay back our crippling debt to them (since it was owed to a different government, har har), which was a total dick move on our part, but more on that later. 



Against this backdrop the 1790s erupted into a thing that many of us now looking back on 2015 would recognize:  years full of partisan and vitriolic politics enflamed by a biased media, war and violence overseas that threatened to pull us in, an economy recovered yet still somehow on the brink, xenophobia, terrorism, and revolt in the cities. 





A Government In Turmoil



Often we are taught history in a way that makes it seem as though the colonies acted as a cohesive whole to overthrow the British and build the new nation upon a constitutional foundation from that point forward. 



Lies. 



First, but not necessarily germane to the topic at hand is that many in the original colonies had reservations about war with Britain. 



Second, and germane to the topic here, is that after the Revolution was won a government was built around the idea of Republican rule, but that was a deeply controversial thing that caused a deep rift within American politics.  Yes, adeeper rift even than that between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  This rift took the form of the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist feud.



See, our original founding document was not the Constitution that we all know and love today.  Instead, it was the Articles of Confederation.  The AoC (as the cool kids call it) set up a government based on a weak central government and strong state governments.  While the AoC may have been what the country wanted, it was not what it needed.  While Congress was capable of raising an army, for example, it was not able to force the states to comply with its request, meaning that states that didn’t want to didn’t have to contribute money or people to any war effort.  Further, Congress could not levy a tax—big deal stuff when your new nation is in debt to its ears.  And nine out of thirteen states had to agree to a law in order for it to be enacted, and to change the AoC itself required a unanimous vote1. 



We couldn’t work like this.



After Shay’s Rebellion in the late 1780s the general public became aware of how weak the AoC actually was and a Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in 1787.  This convention, as we well know, produced the United States Constitution that is still the basis of our government today.  However, this document was surprising to many in the nation at the time, and many weren’t super impressed by it.  Many states preferred to retain their sovereignty.  The framers rejected the idea that all thirteen states had to ratify the document, asking for nine out of thirteen to do so instead.  However, it was important that all states ratify it for unity and symbolic reasons.  This wouldn’t happen until May 17902. 



But the story doesn’t end there.  The ideological battle between those like Washington and Franklin who wanted a strong central government (Federalists) and those like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who favored strong state government and individual rights (Anti-Federalists) would rage on and divide the newly formed nation.  See, people in the 1790s strongly believed that there was really only one right answer and, thus, that the other side was not only wrong, but drawing the nation on a path toward utter destruction (sound familiar?).  This was only made worse by that most insidious of American institutions:



A biased media. 



Fox and MSNBC aren’t the first to the ideologically spun news game.  Historically speaking, a biased news media reporting stories based on their own ideological beliefs is as American as baseball, apple pie, and getting fat.  Back in the 1790s however, this took the form of newspapers and the men that owned them.  Profits were of paramount importance and, with that in mind, only about a decade previous the newspapers had switched to daily printings (for the most part)—thus barraging the general public with a much more continuous news cycle (previously they had been printed only weekly).  Also, in a movement spurred by none other than Benjamin Franklin after his younger brother’s arrest, the press was enjoying a period of unprecedented freedom (this was before the bill of right guaranteed that to all Americans).  These papers picked ponies in some of the most divisive debates, they were outspoken, often inaccurate, and they struck fear of the other side into the hearts of their readers.  This was the beginning of the yellow journalism that would become famous—and pull us into a world war—over a century later3. 



And so the American political landscape was plunged into turmoil—federalist pitted against anti-federalist—with each side seeing the other as out of touch wealthy elite, or uneducated farmers bereft of abstract thought, respectively, all backed up by an overly opinionated media. 



As time went on and this argument evolved and softened, spread and divided again and again, it became clear that it was one that helped to shape the nation that we know today (I’ll post a link at the bottom to the original Federalist papers—I’m glossing here due to space concerns, but full books have been written about this debate, these papers are now considered part of our founding documents collection, and they are definitely worth a read4).   It is telling that we can see echoes of this original political division in our own divisions today, and it is worth noting that, rather than tear the nation asunder, it shaped who we are as a people, and helped to lay the foundation for our future success5. 





War and Terrorism.



Early in the history of the United States the powers that be had decided that Native Americans were a real pain in the ass.  As white settlers who would eventually come to be called Americans moved farther and farther into Native territory, Native Americans came to realize that white people were also a huge pain in the ass that often carried small pox. 



The Miami Indians (as they are called in the historical record) were especially pissed about white incursions into their land in the Ohio Territory.  It didn’t help that this particular band of Natives had managed to be on the wrong side of history through all of their contact with white people—literally—they fought on behalf of the French during the French and Indian War (losers), they fought on behalf of the British during the Revolution (also, losers), and they continued to fight once Americans became a thing.  Specifically, under a leader called Little Turtle. 



But the Miamis don’t take a typical Native American story trajectory here—they actually won.  Twice.  In 1790 a major battle between the Miamis and the American forces under General Harmar resulted in the aptly named Harmar’s Defeat.  Again in 1791 General St Clair was defeated in St Clair’s Defeat.  Apparently we were feeling too defeated to come up with innovative names for these occurrences.  Eventually though, in 1794, the Miamis were defeated at the Battle of Fallen Timbers and, of course, all of their land was confiscated.  But until that point they managed to keep frontier Americans in a very real state of fear from what we would probably today call domestic terrorism6. 



Then again, that’s probably what the Miamis would call it, too.  



 



Remember how we pulled that dick move on France that I mentioned earlier?  Let’s talk about that. 



Because, fuck you.
So in 1789 the French Revolution begins.  They had stolen the idea from us, admittedly, but they did it bloodier.  Severed heads were marched through the streets, for chrissake.  Anyway, also during this time France was at war with Britain (when weren’t they really?), something that was becoming increasingly difficult to finance, thus, they could have REALLY used our debt repayment at the time.  Further, the Jay Treaty allowed the British to seize stuff off of US ships without recompense—this was a thing we AGREED to—but, to be more specific, they were allowed to seize French stuff off of our ships without recompense.  The French were less than pleased.  Now, I’m not particularly sympathetic to the French usually, but we really were pretty sizable dicks to them, especially considering they had our backs during the Revolution…. Mainly because they hated the British, but still…. So did half the world but they didn’t come to our aid.  We kind of owed them.  And we would still owe them today except that that whole Vietnam thing basically made us even…. At least that’s what I would argue. 



Anyway, in response to all of these dick moves France pulls one of their own—they officially sanction the seizure of American merchant ships.  Three commissioners are sent to France to figure out how to fix this shit and are promptly confronted with the fact that the French foreign minister will not even meet with them without a pretty sizable bribe.  The Americans refused and two of them returned home. 



This is known as the XYZ Affair7, so named because the French foreign intermediaries’ names were replaced with these letters when the documents pertaining to it were made public by President Adams.  In 1797 this led us to what is known as the “Quasi-War” with France.  This war was undeclared and fought almost exclusively through the two navies in the Caribbean.  However, it’s important because it ended our formal alliance with France—something that wouldn’t return until the first World War8. 





Civil Unrest



George Washington was our first and only president to be unanimously elected.  Which means everyone liked him.  Right? 



Yeah.  No9. 



So, he was the first to be unanimously elected through electors, which meant that not EVERYONE had to like him, just a large enough majority of people had to like him enough to make all of the electors elect him. 

Elected in 1789 Washington, perhaps our only unwilling president, was confronted with tough civil unrest early on.  Shay’s Rebellion, as was previously mentioned, broke out in 1786, and left a lasting legacy on early Americans.  The unanimous ratification of the Constitution was still questionable, even after the required nine ratified and Washington was elected.  And, further, he was a Federalist at a time when there was significant Anti-Federalist sentiment in much of the new nation, as previously mentioned. 



And then there was whiskey. 



Crippled by debt related to the Revolution, the new government in January 1791, passed a tax on any distilled spirits manufactured in the US.  By today’s
standards, no big deal.  Unless you live in Delaware (and seriously, why would you?) you’re paying taxes on distilled spirits anyway.  So why all the nonsense?



Because apparently the only thing we take more seriously than freedom in this country is whiskey. 



Okay, okay.  Seriously now, the farmers in Western Pennsylvania, which was frontier at this point in our history, often distilled their grains in order to be able to ship them east to civilization without fear of fermentation or ruin.  While this tax was nominal, they maintained that paying it would lead small farmers to financial ruin. 



So they refused to pay.  Something also as American as getting fat. 



In 1792 Washington issued a proclamation admonishing those that were refusing to pay.  These people were called “whiskey rebels” and the Whiskey Rebellion was underway.  Washington’s admonishment fell mostly on deaf ears until 1794 when he sent in nearly 13,000 militia troops in response to the burning of the Philadelphia tax collector’s house.  Most of the whiskey rebels had disappeared—helped in no small part by a wealth of sympathetic locals.  But 150 men were arrested on charges of treason, and two were actually convicted, though they were pardoned later by Washington himself10. 



Late in the 1790s Federalist John Adams became the second president of the US.  In response to the civil unrest still spreading across the nation Adams signed into law perhaps one of the most controversial pieces of early legislation in the United States. 



The Alien and Sedition Acts. 


So, before reading this I’m going to need everyone to get comfortable with the idea that sometimes people screw up, that the founding fathers of the United States were people and, as such, they were naturally fallible.  Got it?  Give yourself a second to squirm in uncomfortable knowledge that high school history teachers don’t like to talk about.  Good?  Okay.



So in 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts became law.  Essentially, these laws were meant to target a perceived threat, both foreign and domestic, to the newly found American way of life.  There was, so the story goes, reason to believe that foreign agents acting like innocent immigrants looking for a better life, and Americans tainted by these immigrants and radicalized in their image, were looking to destroy the nation from the inside out. 



There was reason to believe this.  After all, we were sort of at war with France.  And we had just gotten done with war with Britain.  People were scared.  Deeply entrenched Federalist politicians, in the face of this fear, believed that they were the only party under whom the nation would survive.  So these acts were meant to harshly punish those who spoke out against them—fines and prison sentences could be imposed for speaking out against the government.  Over 20 newspaper editors were imprisoned after the laws were passed11. 



Further, this series of laws were meant to restrict immigration12.  The naturalization process was extended from seven years residency in the US to fourteen years.  The president had the power to deport any foreigners, regardless of how long they had been in the nation, based on his belief that they were a threat to peace and liberty. 



Yes, these were wildly unconstitutional.  But the architects of the legislation maintained that they were just trying to keep the nation safe from internal and external threats.  Also, the principle of judicial review—whereby the Supreme Court can nullify laws that run counter to the Constitution—wouldn’t be set until 1803.  By the time the Supreme Court had established this power for itself, all but one of the laws had been repealed.  And that particular law exists to this day (bonus points for anyone that knows which one it was!). 





So what’s the moral here? 



Well, shit was bad in the 1790s.  And I’ve left a lot out here.  So, correction:  it was really bad.  People were rebelling in ways that the government wasn’t equipped to handle.  Politics were divided in ways that our politicians (and the people that play them on TV) couldn’t imagine today.  Violence was erupting everywhere from the Caribbean, to the Ohio Territory, to Western Pennsylvania.  Our economy was fragile and working people weren’t sure how they would survive it.  The nation as a whole wasn’t exactly a nation yet—we were really just pretending.  We had won a war but were totally unsure where to go with that.  We had assumed a huge national debt, entered into a sort of war with one of the most powerful empires on the planet less than a decade after fighting an actual war with the other most powerful empire on the face of the planet, and we were divided.  Deeply divided. 


This time 230 some odd years ago I’ll bet people were looking back on what had happened, making dire predictions of what would happen, and feeling as if the world had gone batshit crazy before they even noticed. 



But we came back.  Things got better.  We became an example of the resiliency of the human experience. 



And all of the craziness went down in history as what made us who we are.  What made us stronger and our foundation more deeply entrenched. 



We got this shit. 



Happy New Year! 













Sources: 



1.) Articles of Confederation.  U.S. History. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/14b.asp



2.) Articles of Confederation.  U.S. History. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/14b.asp



3.) Breig, J. 2015. Early American Newspapering. Retrieved From: http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring03/journalism.cfm



4.) The Federalist Papers.  The Library of Congress.  Retrieved from: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html



5.)  Also see: Differences Between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Gilder Lehrman Institute of American Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/differences-between-federalists-and-antifederalists



6.) Miami Indians.  Ohio History Central.  Retrieved from: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Miami_Indians?rec=606



7.) Milestones: 1784-1800.  US Department of State, Office of the Historian. Retrieved from: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/xyz



8.) For how this affected debt and national security see:  Chew, R. Certain Victims of an International Contagion.  Journal of the Early Republic.  Retrieved from: JSTOR



9.) Politics in Transition: Social Conflict in the 1790s. US History.  Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/us/19.asp



10.) Kotowski, P.  Whiskey Rebellion.  George Washington’s Mount Vernon.  Retrieved from: http://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/whiskey-rebellion/



11.) The Alien and Sedition Acts. US History.  Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp



12.) Totten, R. 2008.  National Security and Immigration Policy: 1776-1790. Journal of Interdisciplinary History.  37-64.  Retrieved from: JSTOR.



Also, I spend a lot of time eluding to a national debt here.  For a little more info on this see:

Tucker, R. 2013.  America’s Debt, Through the Eyes of the Founders.  The Heritage Foundation.  Retrieved from: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/national-debt-and-the-founding-fathers

No comments:

Post a Comment