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
).
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
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