William Dunning's Premise of Conservatives

            If the spirit of America and the revolution was to establish a land where “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” then according to William A. Dunning (in his 1904 journal article, A Century of Politics) and classic liberals, conservatives are in opposition to that end.[1] Conservatives hold true to the old ideals of the “royal and aristocratic classes of the old regime.”[2] Thus, they do not approve of any form of written law or constitution that would bind their prerogative to govern over any people according to their desire; to be so bound would be considered “a hindrance to good government” and “the state is not a mechanism, but an organism.”[3]

            Even after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War and freedom established from the monarchical hold from Great Britain, the sovereign independent States of America were not more than fifteen years old before conservatives crept into the halls of government. It was conservatives, who cried for the Articles of Confederation to be abolished when their attempted amendments failed to give them the power they desired under that written constitution. Nationalism then became their watchword and a new law of the land that would centralize power their driving force.

            As the ideals of classic liberalism were debated against nationalism in the political halls of government, the new Constitution was written. The Bill of Rights was added by the liberals to protect individual rights; but the rallying call of nationalism for defense of all Americans shifted “to aggression.”[4] The conservative movement now “came to be, not the release of a people from foreign rule, but the subjection of every people to its appropriate domestic rule.”[5]

            The debate over liberal and conservative principles and their application in American government came to a head in the 1860s. Once the smoke settled and hundreds of thousands of the dead were buried, “Nationalism and its meaning shifted from one political extreme to the other.”[6] However, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still exist to hinder the conservative to some degree, which allows for the classic liberal to maintain a foothold in modern society.

Even President Barack Obama commented on the difficulty to push forward with a classical conservative agenda in the modern American society, when he was interviewed by Matt Lauer in 2012. “What’s frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008…It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.”[7] As Dunning stated, “Classic Conservatives were against written constitutions. They were not for defined rules or schools of thought as to liberty.”[8]

The interesting aspect of this subject is how the definition of the two principals of liberalism and conservatism has reversed in meaning over the years. This is also why the core beliefs of the Democrats and Republicans from the 19th century and today have also switched. Intentional or not, this flipping of definitions and core beliefs has created a difficulty for the general public to discern the truth behind American political history.

- Scott

Bibliography

Dunning, William A. “A Century of Politics.” The North American Review Vol. 179, No. 577 (Dec., 1904): 801-814.

Jefferson, Thomas. ”Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.” Avalon Project. Accessed on February 28, 2015. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp.

Obama, Barack. “Obama Blames Founding Fathers.” Fox Nation. Accessed on February 28, 2015. http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/06/obama-blames-founding-fathers.

---

[1] Thomas Jefferson, ”Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776,” Avalon Project, accessed on February 28, 2015, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp.

[2] William A. Dunning, “A Century of Politics,” The North American Review Vol. 179, No. 577 (Dec., 1904):804.

[3] Ibid, 806.

[4] Ibid, 809.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Barack Obama, “Obama Blames Founding Fathers,” Fox Nation, accessed on February 28, 2015, http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/06/obama-blames-founding-fathers.

[8] Dunning, “A Century of Politics,” 806.

William Dunning's Premise of Liberalism

            In today’s modern society, the terms for liberalism and conservatism have flipped from their 18th and 19th century meanings. William Dunning noticed this anomaly and wrote his findings on the matter in his 1904 journal article, A Century of Politics. His premise of liberalism “fundamentally…meant democracy,” and those principles are found in what scholars today would label as classic liberalism.[1]

            Just as the meaning of liberalism has been twisted over time, the definition of the word democracy has changed with it. Webster’s complete dictionary of the English language (1886) and a current Webster’s dictionary both state that a democracy is a government by the people or where the power resides in the people; but the older dictionary includes “a constitutional and representative government; a republic.”[2] It is that definition, a republic, and the principles surrounding a constitutional republic that Dunning is referring to in his writings.

            Liberalism then calls for “liberty to all, authority to the qualified.”[3] Thus, the elected representatives in the republic guarantee the rights of all individuals and they govern according to strict limitations provided for them in a written “body of law” or constitution.[4] “The constitutional liberty of the individual” is the upmost aim of the liberal; which often leads the liberal to attempt to restrict centralization of government power and “majority rule in economic organization.”[5]

            Classic liberals today still hold true to these principles. They are motivated to ensure a world where individual happiness and wellbeing can flourish through individual liberty. Limited government is the desired system where “commerce, wealth, and trade are good, while war and conflict are bad.”[6] The classic liberal believes in a society where the individual, “through reason, empirical investigation, and study” can govern themselves through virtue.[7]

            The liberal Founders, like Benjamin Franklin, believed that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”[8] The classic liberal today also understands that liberty is “a prerequisite for virtue.”[9] The constitutional republic created through the Constitution was meant for a virtuous people and “virtuous activity requires having the ability, the capacity to choose.”[10] In other words, liberty must exist for an individual to foster virtue and thus self-govern themselves to discover true happiness.

            Liberty does exist to an extent in today’s society; but it has been severely hampered by the opponent to liberalism, conservatism or nationalism. Great confusion has arisen around the misclassification of these terms and the history surrounding the establishment of the United States government. Nevertheless, the two principles of thought are as strong as ever and still fiercely debated in all the major academic disciplines.  

Bibliography

Ashford, Nigel. ”What is Classical Liberalism?” Learn Liberty. Accessed on February 24, 2015. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-is-classical-liberalism/.

Constitutionalism and Rights. Edited by Bryner, Gary C. and Reynolds, Noel B.  Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1987.

Dunning, William A. “A Century of Politics.” The North American Review Vol. 179, No. 577 (Dec., 1904): 801-814.

Ottteson, James. “Liberty & Virtue.” Learn Liberty. Accessed on February 24, 2015. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/liberty-virtue/.

Webster, Noah. “Webster’s complete dictionary of the English language (1886).” Internet Archive. Accessed on February 26, 2015. https://archive.org/details/websterscomplete00webs.

---

[1] William A. Dunning, “A Century of Politics,” The North American Review Vol. 179, No. 577 (Dec., 1904): 801.

[2] Noah Webster, “Webster’s complete dictionary of the English language (1886),” Internet Archive, accessed on February 26, 2015, https://archive.org/details/websterscomplete00webs.

[3] Dunning, “A Century of Politics,” 804.

[4] Ibid, 805.

[5] Ibid, 808.

[6] Nigel Ashford, ”What is Classical Liberalism?” Learn Liberty, accessed on February 24, 2015, http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-is-classical-liberalism/.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Constitutionalism and Rights, edited by Gary C. Bryner and Noel B. Reynolds, (Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1987), 16.

[9] James Ottteson, “Liberty & Virtue,” Learn Liberty, accessed on February 24, 2015, http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/liberty-virtue/.

[10] Ibid. 

Did the Articles of Confederation Fail?

            The discussion on how the Articles of Confederation failed to meet the challenges facing the new American republic is subjective based upon an individual’s interpretation of what the new American republic was meant to be. The argument then is a debate over governing powers between the States and a strong central federal government or a limited federal government. If the Articles of Confederation was devised to ensure that more power was held by the individual States, while the federal government was granted limited powers to act as a liaison with foreign nations and with the other States respectfully, then it came close to fulfilling its purpose. However, if the American republic was intended to be a strong central government, then the Articles of Confederation failed due to its strict restraints and limiting properties to impede such a government.

            An 18th century definition of a “republick" is: “Commonwealth; state in which the power is lodged in more than one.”[1] The States formed a confederation of independent governments and not a complete union prior to the completion of the Revolutionary War; thus the name, ‘The United States of America.’ The citizens of the various States were not interested in exchanging one strong central government for another; “their loyalties were much more local; they were Marylanders, New Yorkers, and Pennsylvanians, for example.”[2] However, it was evident that the Articles of Confederation was still not sufficient to meet the needs of the individual States.

            Even Thomas Jefferson had indicated that there was need to create “a new compact,” which would establish a “more perfect” constitution.[3] Jefferson like others realized that the Articles of Confederation offered no power to a central government to raise federal revenue, to control commerce internationally or across State lines, to enforce any laws passed, nor to provide for a court system, or even an official city from which to govern from. The other difficulty facing the federal government was that “the Articles were virtually impossible to amend, so unanticipated problems were not easily resolved.”[4]

            The Constitutional Convention and the new governing document, the Constitution, was produced, with great debate, to solve these and many other problems with the Articles of Confederation. With the development of the two-party system and varying opinions on the purpose of the federal government, it is still be debated whether or not the Constitution established a more perfect union and met the challenges facing the republic and the individual States.

           

Bibliography

Callahan, Kerry P. The Articles of Confederation: A Primary Source Investigation Into the Document that Preceded the U.S. Constitution. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2003.

Feinberg, Barbara Silberdick. The Articles of Confederation: The First Constitution of the United States. Brookfield: Twenty-First Century Books, 2002.

Johnson, Sameul. A Dictionary of the English Language. Dublin: W.C. Jones, 1768.

McDowell, Gary L. The Language of Law and the Foundations of American Constitutionalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

  

---

[1] Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, (Dublin: W.C. Jones, 1768).

[2] Barbara Silberdick Feinberg, The Articles of Confederation: The First Constitution of the United States, (Brookfield: Twenty-First Century Books, 2002), 13.

[3] Gary L. McDowell, The Language of Law and the Foundations of American Constitutionalism, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 253.

[4] Kerry P. Callahan, The Articles of Confederation: A Primary Source Investigation Into the Document that Preceded the U.S. Constitution, (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2003), 13.

Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations encapsulated the spirit of the American Revolution.

            The spirit of the Revolutionary War was building in the hearts of Americans even before the shot was heard around the world from Lexington on April 19, 1775. That spirit was a determination to create a world free from tyranny and economic bondage controlled by a strong central government. The war for freedom challenged the predominant ideals of mercantilism. Adam Smith was a man who wrote a book that contained within its pages, the philosophy of economic freedom that Americans were fighting for.

            Adam Smith penned the work, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which would later bring him the title of the father of economics. Smith was motivated by the plight of the world, particularly the poor found throughout the world, and asked the question, “How do we raise the estates of the least among us?”[1] Americans were asking themselves the same question; they asked the ruling authorities, debated among themselves, and decided the only way to give themselves the opportunity to raise their own estates was through independence from Great Britain.

            Americans discovered, as Adam Smith was writing his book, that to truly be free and independent, they had to allow for “commerce, free trade, free migration, limited government.”[2] The many great founders of The United States of American were well studied and learned men, who were coming to this same conclusion as Adam Smith. The founding generation were individuals, who were being hindered by the old economic way of doing things. Their human ingenuity was being stifled under the British System.

            A great awakening had occurred, and individuals like Adam Smith understood that if any nation or people were to succeed and grow up out of poverty, individual ingenuity had to be allowed for. The people needed to be allowed “to investigate, entrepreneurially figure out new ways to do things to satisfy their interests better.”[3] This was the spirit behind the revolution and Adam Smith captured it with his own words in his famous work.

Bibliography

Otteson, James. “Adam Smith: The Invisible Hand.” Learn Liberty. Accessed on February 20, 2015. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/adam-smith-the-invisible-hand/.

Otteson, James. “What Motivated Adam Smith?” Learn Liberty. Accessed on February 20, 2015. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-motivated-adam-smith/.

---

[1] James Otteson, “What Motivated Adam Smith?” Learn Liberty, accessed on February 20, 2015, http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/what-motivated-adam-smith/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] James Otteson, “Adam Smith: The Invisible Hand,” Learn Liberty, accessed on February 20, 2015, http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/adam-smith-the-invisible-hand/.

John Locke's Influence on Thomas Jefferson

            When Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he did not develop a new concept of liberty in a war against tyranny, but he simply articulated in writing the predominant thoughts of Englishmen toward their county and king. Jefferson penned the “expression of the American mind…harmonizing sentiment of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”[1] Locke was indeed a great influence on Jefferson’s writings considering his statement that “Bacon, Locke and Newtwon…I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived.”[2]

            Locke’s philosophy and argument was that the power rested in the people. With sovereignty placed within the people’s own hands, the people were equal and had natural rights. Jefferson shared in this philosophical thought process and witnessed England’s actions as hostile to arbitrary power. The similar train of thought can be seen when elements of the two documents are compared. Locke wrote on the subject:

[b]ut if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they be under, and see wither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouze themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was first erected.[3]

            Jefferson would later write:

[b]ut when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce the [people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.[4]

            Jefferson, the great statesman, was well read and educated in various fields. When it came time to write the Declaration of Independence, he looked to men like Locke to help formulate his words to justify the people’s natural rights to the revolution. Thus it is no surprise that Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government and the Declaration of Independence would have some similarities.

Bibliography

Borgmann, Albert. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Maxifield, Richard M. The Real Thomas Jefferson. Washington D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1983.

Uviller, H. Richard and Merkel, William G. The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.

---

[1] Richard M. Maxifield, The Real Thomas Jefferson, (Washington D.C.: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 1983), 71.

[2] Albert Borgmann, Crossing the Postmodern Divide, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 25.

[3] H. Richard Uviller and William G. Merkel, The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent, (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002), 173.

[4] Ibid.