WEBVTT

NOTE States' Rights in Theory and Practice

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.000
All right, here we are after lunch, and unfortunately, I've got to make the talk after lunch much livelier,

2
00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:12.000
especially since half of you had turkey. Thanks a lot, Lew Rockwell, for choosing turkey sandwiches,

3
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:16.000
of all things, with whatever that stuff is in there that makes you go to sleep.

4
00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:25.000
So we're going to carry on from last time and shift gears a little bit and sort of give an accounting

5
00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:38.000
from the point of view of the Virginians who take the view of the Union that Randolph and others in the Virginia tradition did, whom I mentioned last time.

6
00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:45.000
A few loose ends to tie up from the previous lecture would be the following.

7
00:00:45.000 --> 00:01:03.000
I mentioned in answer to someone's question that there's an important pamphlet to read by Richard Bland from 1765 that lays out a very interesting perspective on what the status of the colony of Virginia was.

8
00:01:03.000 --> 00:01:07.000
And the title of that is An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies.

9
00:01:07.000 --> 00:01:12.000
So nothing particularly difficult about that, but I just couldn't remember it. I looked it up.

10
00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:23.000
The other thing is, I was talking to Mark Thornton at lunch, and he said, maybe I ought to say a little something about what happened, what became of the Alienous Addition Acts after all.

11
00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:34.000
And so I think I will just mention that, as I said in the talk, the Alienous Addition Acts were set to expire on the last day of that administration.

12
00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:39.000
which, by the way, also suggests perhaps the partisan nature of it

13
00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:44.000
because as soon as a new president comes in, he won't be able to use those acts any longer

14
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:51.000
So Jefferson, of course, is elected in 1800 and he allows the Alien and Sedition Acts to expire

15
00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:55.000
and he lets everybody out of jail who had been imprisoned under them

16
00:01:55.000 --> 00:01:59.000
and that's the end of that. Jefferson wins a tremendous victory in 1800

17
00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:02.000
it's sometimes called the Revolution of 1800

18
00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:32.000
It's interesting to note, though, that Jefferson had not, as I said, been eager to appeal to the Supreme Court on this matter, and not only because of his views on concurrent review versus judicial review, but also because of the simple fact that the Supreme Court, in his day, he believed would be likely to uphold the legislation, and it's interesting that a little over a century later, when there was sedition legislation passed during World War I, the Supreme Court in fact did uphold it as being acceptable.

19
00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:50.000
I always tell my students of a case during World War I where you had a Christian minister from Vermont who wrote a pamphlet in which he argued that it would be wrong for a Christian to take part in that war, and he distributed this pamphlet to a grand total of five people.

20
00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:55.000
And for that offense, he was sent to prison for 15 years.

21
00:02:55.000 --> 00:03:03.000
So, you know, the Supreme Court ain't going to help you out a whole leg of a lot in times like that.

22
00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:08.000
And finally, just tying up one last thing, over lunch we were talking about how funny it would be

23
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:15.000
if all of a sudden, on the op-ed pages and the television news programs and political commentary,

24
00:03:15.000 --> 00:03:18.000
all of a sudden people started talking about nullification.

25
00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:33.000
Like all of a sudden the word just kept being used over and over again, and, you know, I don't expect that to happen, but I did point out that, I mean, think about the way a lot of people get their names put out there as potential presidential candidates.

26
00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:42.000
It's mainly because major media people start talking them up, like Larry King starts talking them up or big prominent politicians start talking them up.

27
00:03:42.000 --> 00:03:47.000
For example, how else can we account for how Elizabeth Dole was ever a presidential candidate?

28
00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:53.000
I mean, was anyone ever sitting around saying, my gosh, if I can't vote for Elizabeth Dole, what kind of country is this?

29
00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:54.000
I mean, no one, right?

30
00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:58.000
But it's just that a few people started saying, you know, I think Elizabeth Dole would make a great president.

31
00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:02.000
And then, of course, Bob Dole comes out and says, you know, I think Elizabeth would be great.

32
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:04.000
No one would have thought of her until they were prodded.

33
00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:06.000
Then, of course, well, of course, Elizabeth Dole.

34
00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:10.000
The same way that I don't think on their own a lot of people would have said, you know what,

35
00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:15.080
But we've got to invade Iraq, for heaven's sake. It's a terrible danger. Its defense

36
00:04:15.080 --> 00:04:19.160
budget is almost a quarter of one percent of our own, and we've really got to crack

37
00:04:19.160 --> 00:04:24.400
down on them. It's not the sort of thing that people would have just thought of automatically.

38
00:04:24.400 --> 00:04:27.440
They think of it because everybody talks about it, and you think, of course you've got to

39
00:04:27.440 --> 00:04:33.000
be crazy not to pay for that. So there's some kind of herd mentality out there. It seems

40
00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:37.300
to me, why can't we use the herd mentality for something good? So let's start talking

41
00:04:37.300 --> 00:04:43.580
I'm talking about nullification as much as we can, if nothing else will drive people crazy, the bad guys crazy.

42
00:04:43.580 --> 00:04:48.300
Murray Rothbard used to say that even though we might not win in the short run,

43
00:04:48.300 --> 00:04:55.300
and we might have a lot of setbacks and defeats, nevertheless, it's just so much darn fun fighting against the bad guys.

44
00:04:55.300 --> 00:04:58.300
And so you've got to take comfort from that.

45
00:04:58.300 --> 00:05:03.300
Okay, I don't know if any of you were here for Joe Salerno's seminar a couple weeks ago.

46
00:05:03.300 --> 00:05:06.300
I'm going to make a couple references to it later in the week.

47
00:05:06.300 --> 00:05:12.300
I watched a little bit of it over the webcast, and it's not that I want to wish Joe ill.

48
00:05:12.300 --> 00:05:16.300
I mean, I wish him every good wish in the world, and he's a wonderful guy, and he deserves every good thing.

49
00:05:16.300 --> 00:05:20.300
It sure would have been a lot easier on me, though, if he'd given a really crummy seminar, you know,

50
00:05:20.300 --> 00:05:24.300
because then by comparison I could have a, it's just an average seminar would seem great.

51
00:05:24.300 --> 00:05:28.300
But Joe naturally has to give this brilliant, genius seminar, thanks a whole lot.

52
00:05:28.300 --> 00:05:33.300
So anyway, we'll see, we'll see how I can do maintaining the standard.

53
00:05:33.300 --> 00:05:40.300
Well, what I'd like to start with is a guy, again, you've not heard of and we don't hear much about,

54
00:05:40.300 --> 00:05:48.300
but a guy whose material I'd like to encourage a renaissance in, and that is this fellow, Abel Upsher, U-P-S-H-U-R,

55
00:05:48.300 --> 00:05:56.300
and I want to look at him in the first part of this talk in relation to these issues of the states and the federal government,

56
00:05:56.300 --> 00:05:58.300
because he's excellent.

57
00:05:58.300 --> 00:06:06.300
What I want to focus on in particular is an issue I've covered in the past in various forms, and it's this.

58
00:06:06.300 --> 00:06:13.300
What was the nature of the Union, the Federal Union of the United States?

59
00:06:13.300 --> 00:06:18.300
And this is a debate that goes on in the 19th century.

60
00:06:18.300 --> 00:06:26.300
It really begins to solidify into a full-fledged debate around 1830 with the Webster-Hain debate,

61
00:06:26.300 --> 00:06:34.300
with Daniel Webster arguing against Robert Hayne. They're both senators, one from Massachusetts, one from South Carolina.

62
00:06:34.300 --> 00:06:40.300
And they're talking about what is the nature of the Union. And Webster is taking what has sometimes been called the nationalist position.

63
00:06:40.300 --> 00:06:48.300
In fact, Webster gives a famous speech several years later called, The Constitution, Not a Compact Among Sovereign States.

64
00:06:48.300 --> 00:06:55.300
So he's arguing exactly the opposite of what we've seen so far. Webster takes that view. Webster, this has been, as I say,

65
00:06:55.300 --> 00:07:01.300
This has been called the nationalist theory, because for Webster, the United States is fundamentally one.

66
00:07:01.300 --> 00:07:08.300
At its root, it's one entity. It is not a collection of states, it's not a confederation of states, it's not a league of states.

67
00:07:08.300 --> 00:07:17.300
It is a single whole that happens fortuitously to be divided into states, but this is not of any hugely practical significance.

68
00:07:17.300 --> 00:07:23.300
He doesn't say the states have no lives, that they are to be utterly demolished by the central government,

69
00:07:23.300 --> 00:07:27.760
but certainly they don't have a right of secession, certainly they don't have independent existences

70
00:07:27.760 --> 00:07:34.760
of their own. That's Webster's view that he expounds at great length in the 1830s and

71
00:07:34.760 --> 00:07:42.420
with great rhetorical effect. Webster was in the top tier of American orators and he

72
00:07:42.420 --> 00:07:49.420
wins some interesting historical point. I think he's wrong but he's not an idiot and

73
00:07:49.420 --> 00:07:52.920
and he's not an ineffective speaker by any means.

74
00:07:52.920 --> 00:07:55.760
So this nationalist view thinks of the United States

75
00:07:55.760 --> 00:07:58.300
as being composed of a single American people

76
00:07:58.300 --> 00:08:01.860
taken in the aggregate rather than as individual states

77
00:08:01.860 --> 00:08:04.660
composed of separate peoples.

78
00:08:04.660 --> 00:08:07.540
Whereas this other view that Upshaw maintains,

79
00:08:07.540 --> 00:08:11.480
that Calhoun takes, that Thomas Jefferson took,

80
00:08:11.480 --> 00:08:13.620
is sometimes called the compact theory

81
00:08:13.620 --> 00:08:14.980
because it views the United States

82
00:08:14.980 --> 00:08:16.780
as being fundamentally plural.

83
00:08:16.780 --> 00:08:26.780
The United States are, was the common way of speaking, because the emphasis was on the plurality, that it's more than one, it's not just one entity.

84
00:08:26.780 --> 00:08:33.780
And so according to the compact theory, if you believe in the compact theory, a lot of the stuff we looked at earlier follows logically.

85
00:08:33.780 --> 00:08:40.780
Because if you believe that actually the United States is not a single whole that began as a single whole, one nation, one people,

86
00:08:40.780 --> 00:08:47.780
This actually began when self-governing sovereign states came together voluntarily to join a confederation.

87
00:08:47.780 --> 00:08:54.780
What follows from that, or what can follow from that, is that nullification is allowed,

88
00:08:54.780 --> 00:08:59.780
because if the states, rather than the federal government, the states are the fundamental units of the United States,

89
00:08:59.780 --> 00:09:04.780
and they maintain their sovereignty and their rights of self-government, well then at least it makes sense.

90
00:09:04.780 --> 00:09:09.780
You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a sensible conclusion to say the states have the right to protect themselves

91
00:09:39.780 --> 00:09:41.780
The Nationalist and Unconstitutional Law

92
00:09:41.780 --> 00:09:47.780
The Nationalist pretty much views the states as just kind of arbitrary boundary lines.

93
00:09:47.780 --> 00:09:53.780
So from their point of view, a group of people in some arbitrary boundary line are refusing to obey a law.

94
00:09:53.780 --> 00:09:55.780
So it's just a big insurrection.

95
00:09:55.780 --> 00:10:03.780
It's just a random sampling of individuals rather than a single sovereign whole resisting from within the Union.

96
00:10:03.780 --> 00:10:07.780
What also can follow from the compact theory is the idea of secession.

97
00:10:07.780 --> 00:10:13.780
Because if the United States is a plurality of states, each of them having its own life,

98
00:10:13.780 --> 00:10:20.780
then it's at least not a crazy step to say that that state would also have the ultimate decision.

99
00:10:20.780 --> 00:10:24.780
As much as it could join the Union, it could also withdraw from it.

100
00:10:24.780 --> 00:10:28.780
Whereas again, if you believe that the United States is a single whole and you are a nationalist,

101
00:10:28.780 --> 00:10:31.780
then you would tend not to think that.

102
00:10:31.780 --> 00:10:36.780
If you had secession going on, you would again view that simply as a revolutionary insurrection.

103
00:10:36.780 --> 00:10:45.780
You couldn't even conceive of the idea that this is a sovereign people withdrawing its consent and not wishing to be governed into that structure any longer.

104
00:10:45.780 --> 00:10:54.780
This is why at the end of the semester after I've explained this distinction to my students, which is a distinction that is often just passed over and no one wants to talk about it,

105
00:10:54.780 --> 00:10:59.780
and inevitably something about the Pledge of Allegiance comes up.

106
00:10:59.780 --> 00:11:04.780
There's always something about is it legitimate or should under God be in there?

107
00:11:04.780 --> 00:11:08.780
I asked them, well, on the basis of what we've learned this semester,

108
00:11:08.780 --> 00:11:12.780
apart from whether you should have a pledge of allegiance or not,

109
00:11:12.780 --> 00:11:17.780
the question would be, what do you think would be most objectionable

110
00:11:17.780 --> 00:11:20.780
to, say, somebody like Thomas Jefferson about it?

111
00:11:20.780 --> 00:11:23.780
Would it be the under God part, which is added later?

112
00:11:23.780 --> 00:11:28.780
Maybe, but probably not, because what would be the worst part than that?

113
00:11:28.780 --> 00:11:30.780
It would be the indivisible part.

114
00:11:30.780 --> 00:11:33.780
And they all start thinking, oh my gosh, is this treason?

115
00:11:33.780 --> 00:11:39.780
I can't believe I'm talking about this in the classroom, but, you know, I want them to think. They should think about these things.

116
00:11:39.780 --> 00:11:51.780
Well, the key theorists, I would say, of this nationalist view would be not only Daniel Webster, but also Joseph Story, a great American jurist.

117
00:11:51.780 --> 00:11:56.780
And in fact, Story is one we're going to look at and really develop.

118
00:11:56.780 --> 00:12:06.780
Story is one of the great legal minds of the 19th century, he wrote his commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in 1833 and he takes this nationalist position.

119
00:12:06.780 --> 00:12:13.780
You might say John Marshall, a long time Supreme Court Chief Justice takes this position as well.

120
00:12:13.780 --> 00:12:24.780
Now I was at a conference not long ago sponsored by Liberty Fund, they have these colloquia, invitation only colloquia where they have about 15 people and a discussion leader and somebody else and we get together

121
00:12:24.780 --> 00:12:31.780
I think it's like one of the few outposts of civilization that is still out there where you get together and they pay you to do this.

122
00:12:31.780 --> 00:12:36.780
Unfortunately, I haven't been at one in a long time, but there are great, wonderful, wonderful events.

123
00:12:36.780 --> 00:12:42.780
I remember going to one of them and I got up to go to the restroom and then I returned to my table at the dinner

124
00:12:42.780 --> 00:12:46.780
and the waiter was waiting to put the napkin back on my lap and I thought,

125
00:12:46.780 --> 00:12:49.780
you know, historians can't afford this kind of treatment most of the time.

126
00:12:49.780 --> 00:12:56.780
I was waiting to put the napkin back on my lap and I thought, you know, historians can't afford this kind of treatment most of the time, so I appreciate it.

127
00:12:56.780 --> 00:13:03.780
But at that event we were talking about the Webster-Hain debate, which was a major debate over this very issue.

128
00:13:03.780 --> 00:13:11.780
It started off as a debate over the disposition of the public lands and it eventually developed into a full-scale debate over the nature of the Union.

129
00:13:11.780 --> 00:13:15.420
and there's an excellent collection of documents on this subject

130
00:13:15.420 --> 00:13:21.700
on the Webster-Hain debate by Herman Bels of the University of Maryland that Liberty Fund puts out

131
00:13:21.700 --> 00:13:25.300
and the weekend was devoted to covering that subject

132
00:13:25.300 --> 00:13:29.540
and most of the people there supported Daniel Webster in the nationalist view

133
00:13:29.540 --> 00:13:32.860
and I think it was just Clyde Wilson and me

134
00:13:32.860 --> 00:13:37.420
who were arguing for Hayne and the other side

135
00:13:37.420 --> 00:13:41.740
And what was interesting to me was that the Webster side more or less conceded to us

136
00:13:41.740 --> 00:13:45.900
that all right, strictly speaking, historically you guys have the better argument,

137
00:13:45.900 --> 00:13:53.340
but Webster's argument savers more of poetry and this sort of thing.

138
00:13:53.340 --> 00:13:58.740
And I thought, well, I don't think you can really like overturn a whole settled order on the basis of poetry, right?

139
00:13:58.740 --> 00:14:00.780
I mean, you have to have a rigorous argument.

140
00:14:00.780 --> 00:14:05.580
So I was totally unmoved by their claims.

141
00:14:05.580 --> 00:14:10.580
Well, Upshaw wrote, as I said in my previous talk, in 1840, he wrote a book called

142
00:14:10.580 --> 00:14:14.580
A Brief Enquiry into the True Nature and Character of the Federal Government,

143
00:14:14.580 --> 00:14:19.580
Being a Review of Judge Stories Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

144
00:14:19.580 --> 00:14:24.580
That's the title. We'll just call it the brief inquiry.

145
00:14:24.580 --> 00:14:29.580
That's Upshaw's book, and it's short. It's probably 150 pages.

146
00:14:29.580 --> 00:14:39.580
It was recently brought back into print by an extremely obscure legal press and it was super expensive and then it's fallen out again.

147
00:14:39.580 --> 00:14:45.580
It's basically not read anymore. But I don't know why that is. Well, I do know why that is.

148
00:14:45.580 --> 00:14:51.580
It's not saying what people want it to say, but it's a fascinating and really, really excellent treatment of this stuff

149
00:14:51.580 --> 00:15:05.580
because Upsher goes, takes Story's book, Story's commentaries, in which very often Story is trying to build up a theoretical edifice to support the nationalist theory and he really dismantles it.

150
00:15:05.580 --> 00:15:12.580
And not in a way that's just obnoxious or crude, but in a way that's very sophisticated and intellectual.

151
00:15:12.580 --> 00:15:25.580
Now one of the positions that the nationalist folks have typically taken, and of course, by the way, this culminates in Lincoln, who considers secession, although he does make a comment about secession being okay in 1848,

152
00:15:25.580 --> 00:15:40.580
he does more or less view the Union as being one single indestructible that our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation in 1776, Lincoln would say, even though of course it was 13 separate states, this all culminates in Lincoln.

153
00:15:40.580 --> 00:15:49.580
A common theme that you hear throughout these guys is that the people who compose what we call the United States,

154
00:15:49.580 --> 00:15:55.580
as early as the colonial period, began to constitute one people.

155
00:15:55.580 --> 00:16:03.580
At some point in that colonial period, Americans began to, in some ways, coalesce into a single people.

156
00:16:03.580 --> 00:16:08.580
And it's from this idea of Americans as constituting a single people,

157
00:16:08.580 --> 00:16:15.580
It's on that base that they build this sort of superstructure of this nationalist theory

158
00:16:15.580 --> 00:16:24.580
that it's wrong to place too much emphasis on the powers of the states given that Americans were very, very early on one people.

159
00:16:24.580 --> 00:16:29.580
So here's what Joseph's story says, developing this idea.

160
00:16:29.580 --> 00:16:37.580
He says, although the colonies, so of course he's talking about from 1607, the settlement of Jamestown all the way up to the 1770s,

161
00:16:37.580 --> 00:16:41.580
Although the colonies were independent of each other in respect to their domestic concerns,

162
00:16:41.580 --> 00:16:44.580
they were not wholly alien to each other.

163
00:16:44.580 --> 00:16:50.580
On the contrary, they were fellow subjects and for many purposes one people.

164
00:16:50.580 --> 00:16:54.580
Every colonist had a right to inhabit if he pleased in any other colony

165
00:16:54.580 --> 00:16:59.580
and as a British subject he was capable of inheriting lands by descent in every other colony.

166
00:16:59.580 --> 00:17:04.580
The commercial intercourse of the colonies too was regulated by the general laws of the British Empire

167
00:17:04.580 --> 00:17:08.580
and could not be restrained or obstructed by colonial legislation.

168
00:17:08.580 --> 00:17:13.580
So this is some evidence that he is inducing that you in fact do have one people here

169
00:17:13.580 --> 00:17:18.580
and so that it's not a long stretch to look at the United States as being a single whole fundamentally.

170
00:17:18.580 --> 00:17:24.580
Likewise, John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said,

171
00:17:24.580 --> 00:17:37.080
All the people of this country were then, referring to the colonial period, subjects of the King of Great Britain and owed allegiance to him, and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here flowed from the head of the British Empire.

172
00:17:37.080 --> 00:17:43.580
They were, in a strict sense, fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects, one people.

173
00:17:43.580 --> 00:17:53.580
Now, this is all very loose language, though, because we have John Jay saying, in a variety of respects, one people, Joseph Story saying, for many purposes, one people.

174
00:17:53.580 --> 00:17:56.580
Well, how about some specifics? How exactly were they one people?

175
00:17:56.580 --> 00:18:00.580
Well, Upshur is going to develop this and look into is this true or not?

176
00:18:00.580 --> 00:18:04.580
And he looks at the evidence induced by historian Jay and he says,

177
00:18:04.580 --> 00:18:11.580
every one of these historical facts is the result of the relation between the colonies and the mother country

178
00:18:11.580 --> 00:18:15.580
and not the result of the relation between the colonies themselves.

179
00:18:15.580 --> 00:18:19.580
And he goes on to say that although these facts that we've just heard

180
00:18:19.580 --> 00:18:24.580
So far as the rights of the mother country are concerned, they existed in the same form and to the same extent over every other colony of the empire.

181
00:18:49.580 --> 00:18:52.740
That is the right to make commercial legislation for the colonies, etc.

182
00:18:52.740 --> 00:18:55.860
Did this make the people of all the colonies one people?

183
00:18:55.860 --> 00:19:02.180
If so, the people of Jamaica, the British East Indian possessions, and Canada are, for

184
00:19:02.180 --> 00:19:05.580
the very same reason, one people to this day.

185
00:19:05.580 --> 00:19:10.280
If a common allegiance to a common sovereign and a common subordination to his jurisdiction

186
00:19:10.280 --> 00:19:15.220
are sufficient to make the people of different countries one people, it is not perceived

187
00:19:15.220 --> 00:19:21.220
Why the people of Gaul, Britain and Spain might not have been one people, while Roman provinces.

188
00:19:21.220 --> 00:19:27.220
Now, Upshur defines the term people, like what would it mean to be one people?

189
00:19:27.220 --> 00:19:34.220
He says this way, he says, we're speaking of a political corporation, the members of which owe a common allegiance to a common sovereignty

190
00:19:34.220 --> 00:19:41.220
and do not owe any allegiance which is not common, who are bound by no laws except such as that sovereignty may prescribe,

191
00:19:41.220 --> 00:19:46.020
who owe to one another reciprocal obligations, who possess common political interests,

192
00:19:46.020 --> 00:19:52.020
who are liable to common political duties, and who can exert no sovereign power except in the name of the whole.

193
00:19:52.020 --> 00:20:01.020
Now, let us look at the American colonies and see if in any way they could be described as one people.

194
00:20:01.020 --> 00:20:05.020
True, each of the colonies owed allegiance to the British King,

195
00:20:05.020 --> 00:20:09.820
but this was not a common allegiance of a single people to a common head.

196
00:20:09.820 --> 00:20:13.820
It was an individual allegiance held separately by each colonial government.

197
00:20:13.820 --> 00:20:19.820
It does not amalgamate them because each one of them separately is loyal to the British King.

198
00:20:19.820 --> 00:20:23.820
Each of these colonial governments, furthermore, possessed powers of legislation

199
00:20:23.820 --> 00:20:27.820
and were in no way subject to any other colony in the enactment of laws.

200
00:20:27.820 --> 00:20:32.820
So they could enact laws without the consent of Georgia or the Carolinas and so on.

201
00:20:32.820 --> 00:20:35.820
And they were not bound by the laws of another colony.

202
00:20:35.820 --> 00:20:40.820
So this seems to be a fairly major way in which they are not one people.

203
00:20:40.820 --> 00:20:44.820
They paid no taxes to another colony. They did not serve in the militia of another colony.

204
00:20:44.820 --> 00:20:46.820
They didn't vote in its elections.

205
00:20:46.820 --> 00:20:52.820
There was no official capacity in which the colonies could act politically as one people.

206
00:20:52.820 --> 00:20:56.820
And in fact, one of the points I make in my first chapter of my book is that

207
00:20:56.820 --> 00:21:01.820
very often when the colonies were invited to join inter-colonial confederations,

208
00:21:01.820 --> 00:21:07.540
Confederations, either to guard against Indian attacks or for whatever purpose, they were

209
00:21:07.540 --> 00:21:15.260
extremely reluctant to do so and they did so only with grave reservations. So that's

210
00:21:15.260 --> 00:21:21.700
an additional consideration. Their distinctness is evident even in Britain's dealings with

211
00:21:21.700 --> 00:21:26.820
them. They were not established at the same time. They were established under an authority

212
00:21:26.820 --> 00:21:31.420
that applied to themselves alone. Many of them had their own charters. They had different

213
00:21:31.420 --> 00:21:37.420
and organizations, different types of governments, their charters at various times in their histories were altered in different ways,

214
00:21:37.420 --> 00:21:43.420
in ways that affected individual colonies, but without regard to any other.

215
00:21:43.420 --> 00:21:51.420
And so Upshur concludes, thus they were separate and distinct in their creation, separate and distinct in the forms of their governments,

216
00:21:51.420 --> 00:21:56.420
separate and distinct in the changes and modifications of their governments, which were made from time to time,

217
00:21:56.420 --> 00:22:01.420
Separate and distinct in political functions, in political rights, and in political duties.

218
00:22:01.420 --> 00:22:06.420
Separate, not one people. A multiplicity of peoples.

219
00:22:06.420 --> 00:22:11.420
In fact, at one point later on in American history, long after the colonial period,

220
00:22:11.420 --> 00:22:17.420
into the 19th century, John C. Calhoun, one of the great compact theorists,

221
00:22:17.420 --> 00:22:22.420
actually said that, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as the American people.

222
00:22:22.420 --> 00:22:30.420
There is no such thing. There are the people of Massachusetts, the people of Vermont, the people of South Carolina, but there is no such thing as the American people.

223
00:22:30.420 --> 00:22:39.420
Okay, September 1774, we have a meeting of the First Continental Congress.

224
00:22:39.420 --> 00:22:48.420
This is several months after the British have imposed the Coercive Acts, which were intended really to punish the colonies,

225
00:22:48.420 --> 00:22:53.420
is both for the Boston Tea Party and other insubordination.

226
00:22:53.420 --> 00:22:59.420
And for Joseph's story, the First Continental Congress represents a general national government.

227
00:22:59.420 --> 00:23:05.420
It was organized with the consent of the people acting in their primary sovereign capacity.

228
00:23:05.420 --> 00:23:09.420
Well, let's look at the First Continental Congress. What exactly was it?

229
00:23:09.420 --> 00:23:15.420
What we have here is a meeting where delegates from the various colonies were sent to discuss

230
00:23:15.420 --> 00:23:20.620
What should our response be to this intolerable British action against us?

231
00:23:20.620 --> 00:23:22.620
What should we do with these coercive acts?

232
00:23:22.620 --> 00:23:26.820
And they developed a series of responses.

233
00:23:26.820 --> 00:23:30.260
But was this in fact a government, this First Continental Congress?

234
00:23:30.260 --> 00:23:36.140
And did it in fact represent the maturation of one people?

235
00:23:36.140 --> 00:23:42.660
Well, according to the story, the United Colonies, in this case,

236
00:23:42.660 --> 00:23:47.660
must be considered as being a nation de facto as a result.

237
00:23:47.660 --> 00:23:52.660
Well, let's look at more detail as to what the First Continental Congress of September,

238
00:23:52.660 --> 00:23:56.660
that began September 1774, what did it consist of, what was it?

239
00:23:56.660 --> 00:24:03.660
Well, what you have there are delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island,

240
00:24:03.660 --> 00:24:10.660
parts of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, parts of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina.

241
00:24:10.660 --> 00:24:16.660
North Carolina was not represented until mid-September, Georgia not at all.

242
00:24:16.660 --> 00:24:23.660
It's arguable that New York was not represented as a colony, but merely as different parts of New York.

243
00:24:23.660 --> 00:24:32.660
One gentleman from Georgia was admitted, but he did not vote because he was not a representative of his colony.

244
00:24:32.660 --> 00:24:35.660
He was just a guy from one part of Georgia.

245
00:24:35.660 --> 00:24:40.660
And Upshur accounts for this. He says the fact that Georgia was in effect not represented,

246
00:24:40.660 --> 00:24:47.660
New York was sporadically represented. He says this, why that would be, why this was not a concern to people.

247
00:24:47.660 --> 00:24:55.660
He says, in point of fact, the Congress, the First Continental Congress was a deliberative and advisory body and nothing more.

248
00:24:55.660 --> 00:25:02.660
And for this reason, it was not deemed important or at least not indispensable that all the colonies should be represented.

249
00:25:02.660 --> 00:25:06.740
Since the resolutions of Congress had no obligatory force whatsoever,

250
00:25:06.740 --> 00:25:11.300
it was appointed for the sole purpose of taking into consideration the general condition of the colonies

251
00:25:11.300 --> 00:25:17.620
and of devising and recommending proper measures for the security of their rights and interests.

252
00:25:17.620 --> 00:25:24.340
Now, he goes on to conclude that given that the acts of the First Continental Congress

253
00:25:24.340 --> 00:25:29.060
appeared in the form of resolutions rather than in the form of laws and commands,

254
00:25:29.060 --> 00:25:35.260
that they were recommended to their constituents, like each colony had sent delegates,

255
00:25:35.260 --> 00:25:38.460
those delegates recommended these measures to their constituents,

256
00:25:38.460 --> 00:25:41.960
whatever they thought were to their advantage, but commanded nothing.

257
00:25:41.960 --> 00:25:48.360
Each colony was at perfect liberty to act on these recommendations or not to act on them,

258
00:25:48.360 --> 00:25:52.160
however they might, you know, as they may think proper.

259
00:25:52.160 --> 00:25:58.560
So this does not demonstrate to us a governing structure that derives from one people

260
00:25:58.560 --> 00:26:00.760
or constituting a general or national government.

261
00:26:00.760 --> 00:26:07.360
It had no more powers than what they could recommend to the various colonies.

262
00:26:07.360 --> 00:26:11.060
They had no sovereign authority to behave in this way or that.

263
00:26:11.060 --> 00:26:17.860
They were merely an advisory body that could offer counsel, but not beyond that.

264
00:26:17.860 --> 00:26:21.260
So it does not prove what story wants it to prove.

265
00:26:21.260 --> 00:26:25.560
What it actually shows is that the colonies are still just as independent as before,

266
00:26:25.560 --> 00:26:31.060
or just as distinct as before, even if for certain limited purposes they may wish to collaborate,

267
00:26:31.060 --> 00:26:35.060
even then they do so not at the command of a single sovereign government,

268
00:26:35.060 --> 00:26:40.060
but just simply as their own good judgment will inform them.

269
00:26:40.060 --> 00:26:52.060
Okay, let's go on. This, okay. Likewise, let's finish this.

270
00:26:52.060 --> 00:27:02.060
Upshur goes on to note that the first Continental Congress decides they're going to meet again next year,

271
00:27:02.060 --> 00:27:09.060
so there'll be a second Continental Congress, which there was following the battles of Lexington and Concord in May of 1775.

272
00:27:09.060 --> 00:27:13.860
They met again as the second Continental Congress and then they just don't go out of existence.

273
00:27:13.860 --> 00:27:19.860
It stays functioning throughout the war for independence.

274
00:27:19.860 --> 00:27:25.060
And it's a structure that I guess we have to for shorthand call it a government.

275
00:27:25.060 --> 00:27:30.060
We should understand that it's not like the U.S. government under the Constitution.

276
00:27:30.060 --> 00:27:34.860
It has one branch. It has basically a legislative branch.

277
00:27:34.860 --> 00:27:40.860
And even there, they have no coercive powers over the colonies now becoming states.

278
00:27:40.860 --> 00:27:45.860
Once they recognize their independence, we'll just call them states, but still colonies in 1775.

279
00:27:45.860 --> 00:27:48.860
They have no powers of coercion over them.

280
00:27:48.860 --> 00:27:55.860
So once again, we don't have a single people operating in some originally sovereign way.

281
00:27:55.860 --> 00:28:01.860
We have instead a multiplicity of states once again sending delegates.

282
00:28:01.860 --> 00:28:07.860
The first recommendation to send deputies to this general congress was issued to the colonies as such.

283
00:28:07.860 --> 00:28:14.860
Each colony acted for itself, choosing its own delegates, did not interfere in the choice of any other colony.

284
00:28:14.860 --> 00:28:19.860
And when they met, they governed, they voted by colony, each colony got one vote.

285
00:28:19.860 --> 00:28:25.860
No matter how great their population or how many delegates they sent, they got one vote.

286
00:28:25.860 --> 00:28:29.860
Again emphasizing that the fundamental unit is the colony.

287
00:28:29.860 --> 00:28:41.860
Certainly, if this were a national government, if this Second Continental Congress and the Congress that followed were a national government,

288
00:28:41.860 --> 00:28:52.860
this would not have functioned this way, would not have granted such centrality to the individual colonies in the government.

289
00:28:52.860 --> 00:28:58.860
Until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, which was not adopted until 1781.

290
00:28:58.860 --> 00:29:02.860
This is the document that, as you know, precedes the Constitution.

291
00:29:02.860 --> 00:29:06.860
Until that time, the Congress that was established,

292
00:29:06.860 --> 00:29:08.860
the Second Continental Congress or simply the Congress,

293
00:29:08.860 --> 00:29:12.860
had really no powers at all other than advising the colonies,

294
00:29:12.860 --> 00:29:17.860
other than openly deliberating, did not claim sovereignty of any kind.

295
00:29:17.860 --> 00:29:26.860
It was an occasional body, renewable, although de facto they may have exercised this or that power.

296
00:29:26.860 --> 00:29:31.860
It needs to be remembered that during a time of great danger in the colonies,

297
00:29:31.860 --> 00:29:36.860
it was thought that this may not be the time to wax philosophical about the functions of government.

298
00:29:36.860 --> 00:29:40.860
But it was understood that whatever measure this government may take was, again,

299
00:29:40.860 --> 00:29:45.860
up to the discretion of the colonies to agree to or not.

300
00:29:45.860 --> 00:29:54.860
But what's significant is that there is nothing in the powers that were exercised by this Congress

301
00:29:54.860 --> 00:30:03.860
around the time of the War for Independence, even prior to the Declaration and then shortly afterward and before the Articles of Confederation.

302
00:30:03.860 --> 00:30:10.860
So from 1775 to 81, nothing that is done by that government or that institution, that Congress,

303
00:30:10.860 --> 00:30:16.860
is inconsistent with the idea of the states retaining their absolute liberty and independence.

304
00:30:16.860 --> 00:30:24.860
It's true that, as Story would point out, that this Congress did assume the right to declare war and make peace,

305
00:30:24.860 --> 00:30:32.860
to authorize captures, to institute appellate prize courts, to direct and control all national, military and naval operations,

306
00:30:32.860 --> 00:30:38.860
to form alliances and make treaties, to contract debts and issue bills of credit on national account.

307
00:30:38.860 --> 00:30:44.860
But, these powers were not by any means exclusive to the Congress.

308
00:30:44.860 --> 00:30:50.860
And in fact, when the troops were raised, or vessels of war were commissioned,

309
00:30:50.860 --> 00:30:54.860
or various military operations were conducted by the colonies,

310
00:30:54.860 --> 00:30:58.860
these were done by the colonies in their own separate manner.

311
00:30:58.860 --> 00:31:05.860
Ticonderoga, according to as Upshur points out, was taken by the troops of Connecticut before the Declaration of Independence.

312
00:31:05.860 --> 00:31:10.900
Massachusetts and Connecticut fitted out their own vessels to cruise against English ones.

313
00:31:10.900 --> 00:31:15.780
In October 1775, South Carolina followed suit.

314
00:31:15.780 --> 00:31:21.500
New Hampshire authorized her executive branch to issue letters of mark and reprisal,

315
00:31:21.500 --> 00:31:25.620
which again, these are the functions of sovereign entities.

316
00:31:25.620 --> 00:31:30.300
So as Upshur concludes, these examples suffice to show that in the conduct of war,

317
00:31:30.300 --> 00:31:33.020
Congress possessed no exclusive power,

318
00:31:33.020 --> 00:31:39.020
and that the colonies, or the later states, retained and actually asserted their own sovereign right and powers to that matter.

319
00:31:39.020 --> 00:31:46.020
They proved that Congress exercised no power which was considered as abridging the absolute sovereignty and independence of the states.

320
00:31:46.020 --> 00:31:56.020
Interestingly, for example, another thing that shows the limits of the powers Congress had, although the Congress was allowed to issue bills of credit,

321
00:31:56.020 --> 00:32:02.020
they couldn't make them legal tender, they couldn't punish counterfeiters of them, they couldn't bind the states to redeem them,

322
00:32:02.020 --> 00:32:16.020
They could receive ambassadors, but they had no power to extend to ambassadors the protection that ambassadors typically enjoy under international law that they would typically receive from the government of a sovereign nation.

323
00:32:16.020 --> 00:32:19.020
They had no authority to extend that protection to them.

324
00:32:19.020 --> 00:32:28.020
So there's an interesting case of a fellow named de Longchamp who entered the house of the French minister plenipotentiary in Philadelphia

325
00:32:28.020 --> 00:32:38.020
and threatened to commit violence against the Secretary of the French Legation, the Consul General of France, and later in fact did assault and beat this guy in the public street.

326
00:32:38.020 --> 00:32:44.020
For this offense, de Longchamp was indicted and tried in a Philadelphia court and punished.

327
00:32:44.020 --> 00:32:56.020
Well, the question arose whether the authorities of Pennsylvania should in fact deliver up this man to the French government and let the French government deal with him however they wish.

328
00:32:56.020 --> 00:33:20.020
But at no time do we see the federal government being thought of as possessing any authority over this matter, or that in any way was it appropriate or proper to refer this to the federal government, even though, as I've said, offering protection to diplomats from other countries is considered to be a power that follows from sovereignty and that follows from a sovereign government.

329
00:33:20.020 --> 00:33:28.020
Well, it doesn't occur to people that the government they have meets those criteria, they think instead of the more local government.

330
00:33:28.020 --> 00:33:39.020
Okay, and finally we have this point that although the powers that were at times exercised by this Congress were substantial,

331
00:33:39.020 --> 00:33:43.020
nevertheless the states did not always just sit back and accept them.

332
00:33:43.020 --> 00:33:48.020
So for example, the Congress for a long time wanted the power to lay an embargo,

333
00:33:48.020 --> 00:34:18.020
Now, we also know from the evidence of the way that certain treaties have been drafted that the 13 American colonies, and then after 1776 states, were viewed as being 13 separate Sovereigntys, so in the Treaty of Alliance with France, 1778, we are told that an alliance has been struck between, on the one hand, the most Christian king, and on the other hand, the United States of America, two or three of them.

334
00:34:18.020 --> 00:34:22.580
New Wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, so on and so forth,

335
00:34:22.580 --> 00:34:25.260
and all of them are mentioned by name.

336
00:34:25.260 --> 00:34:30.540
We see the same formula used in a treaty of amity and commerce with the states general

337
00:34:30.540 --> 00:34:38.180
of the United Netherlands in early 1780s and another treaty with Sweden.

338
00:34:38.180 --> 00:34:45.180
Now it's true that you can see in another treaty with the Netherlands, 1782, concerning

339
00:34:45.180 --> 00:34:50.220
and Recaptured Vessels, you can see the term, instead of reciting all the states, the term

340
00:34:50.220 --> 00:34:55.460
the United States of America as the style that they're using. And in some other treaties

341
00:34:55.460 --> 00:35:01.880
you can see that. But in effect these two were considered to be equivalent ways of speaking,

342
00:35:01.880 --> 00:35:08.880
that the United States of America are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, etc.

343
00:35:08.940 --> 00:35:14.680
Now of course when the treaty is established with Great Britain establishing American independence,

344
00:35:14.680 --> 00:35:30.680
His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States to wit New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, all the way down, all of them, to be free, sovereign and independent states that he treats with them as such.

345
00:35:30.680 --> 00:35:39.680
Well, whatever the case may be in terms of the relation of the states to that Second Continental Congress that then stays in power,

346
00:35:39.680 --> 00:35:44.920
The fact is that once 1781 comes along and the Articles of Confederation are drafted,

347
00:35:44.920 --> 00:35:50.840
there's no question about the status of the states there because right in the Articles of Confederation expressly says

348
00:35:50.840 --> 00:35:58.040
that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this confederation

349
00:35:58.040 --> 00:36:02.120
expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

350
00:36:02.120 --> 00:36:08.320
So there it is, okay, so there it is, that the sovereignty of the states is absolutely acknowledged in that document.

351
00:36:08.320 --> 00:36:23.320
So in effect that is what, in fact what we see in there is that it is said that the states retain their sovereignty, freedom and independence, which strongly indicates that it's something they must have been possessing all this time because they retain it under this document.

352
00:36:23.320 --> 00:36:32.320
So that's sort of an overview of how Upshur looks at the status of the colonies during the colonial period

353
00:36:32.320 --> 00:36:39.320
and the sort of government that's established, first and second Continental Congress, and then Articles and Federation.

354
00:36:39.320 --> 00:36:49.320
What he sees are a multiplicity of jurisdictions that are in no way amalgamated in a way that could make them legitimately considered to be one people.

355
00:36:49.320 --> 00:37:05.320
A figure that is of some importance but doesn't get much mentioned any longer, and yet he has something rather interesting to say on this, is Orestes Brownson.

356
00:37:05.320 --> 00:37:09.320
I don't know how many people know who Orestes Brownson is. I don't have the copy of his book right here.

357
00:37:09.320 --> 00:37:19.320
Orestes Brownson was probably the best-known Catholic convert in the United States in the 19th century.

358
00:37:19.320 --> 00:37:25.320
And given a lot of his writing, he's sometimes been compared to Cardinal Newman,

359
00:37:25.320 --> 00:37:31.320
who was the great English scholar and convert to Catholicism as well.

360
00:37:31.320 --> 00:37:35.320
He's sometimes been compared to Newman. Newman admired him and spoke very well of him,

361
00:37:35.320 --> 00:37:41.320
Brownson, being the way he was, constantly denounced Newman all the time, so unfortunately it was not mutual.

362
00:37:41.320 --> 00:37:47.320
But Brownson published something called Brownson's Quarterly Review for a long time.

363
00:37:47.320 --> 00:37:52.320
His thinking, he's one of these guys who starts off sort of as a transcendentalist,

364
00:37:52.320 --> 00:37:57.320
and then he becomes a traditional Catholic, arguing that the Pope has the right to depose secular rulers.

365
00:37:57.320 --> 00:38:00.320
I mean, he goes from one extreme to the other, then he takes that back.

366
00:38:00.320 --> 00:38:07.320
He's sort of a little bit of a wanderer, ideologically, but there's been a lot of books written on him.

367
00:38:07.320 --> 00:38:11.320
Arthur Schlesinger, if Arthur Schlesinger likes him, he's got to be great.

368
00:38:11.320 --> 00:38:13.320
You've got to drop everything and read him.

369
00:38:13.320 --> 00:38:20.320
But Schlesinger says that some of the most interesting political thought was taking place in articles in Brownson's quarterly review.

370
00:38:20.320 --> 00:38:26.320
Well, toward the end of his life, around 1875, he wrote a book called The American Republic.

371
00:38:26.320 --> 00:38:35.320
Do not buy this book. I wrote the introduction to an edition that came out two years ago, and I'm actually telling you not to buy it.

372
00:38:35.320 --> 00:38:40.320
I like my introduction. No, that's not true. You should rush out and get it immediately.

373
00:38:40.320 --> 00:38:44.320
You should rush out and get it. I don't want that getting back to the publisher that I'm discouraging sales.

374
00:38:44.320 --> 00:38:49.320
I mean, it's a fine book. It's just a frustrating book, really, I find. It's a frustrating book.

375
00:38:49.320 --> 00:38:54.320
And so I had to write the introduction for this new edition that came out a couple of years ago.

376
00:38:54.320 --> 00:39:05.320
And what I found is this about Brownson, and it says a lot about, I think, the nationalist theory of the Union.

377
00:39:05.320 --> 00:39:10.320
When I mentioned the Liberty Fund conference that I went to, and that people who supported Webster

378
00:39:10.320 --> 00:39:15.320
and argued that the United States was a single whole with a single aggregated people,

379
00:39:15.320 --> 00:39:23.320
and they said that, okay, maybe the history doesn't lean this way, but it seems so much more poetic and pleasant.

380
00:39:23.320 --> 00:39:27.320
Well, in a way, that's the attack that Brownson is largely going to take.

381
00:39:27.320 --> 00:39:34.320
Incidentally, in case anybody is secretly wondering, doesn't the Constitution say,

382
00:39:34.320 --> 00:39:38.320
we the people of the United States do ordain and establish this Constitution?

383
00:39:38.320 --> 00:39:44.320
Doesn't that seem to suggest that it is a single whole, it is a single aggregated people?

384
00:39:44.320 --> 00:39:51.320
But the short answer to that is that, and that was an argument that Daniel Webster seriously put forth,

385
00:39:51.320 --> 00:39:58.320
was that, hey, it says, we the people, it is one American people who did this together and so we should be nationalists.

386
00:39:58.320 --> 00:40:04.320
But the point is that originally it didn't say that. Originally it said, we the states, and it listed all the states.

387
00:40:04.320 --> 00:40:09.320
But since you couldn't know in advance which states were going to ratify the Constitution, you couldn't,

388
00:40:09.320 --> 00:40:15.320
the Committee on Style decided it would be a little bit, I don't know, kind of presumptuous to put every state in there.

389
00:40:15.320 --> 00:40:19.320
You don't know if they're even going to ratify it. So we have to wait. We have to see what state ratifies it.

390
00:40:19.320 --> 00:40:28.620
So we'll say we the people of the United States, but that was understood to mean the people of Massachusetts, the people of Virginia, the people of Georgia, not a single people.

391
00:40:28.620 --> 00:40:34.620
And I mean, if it had been meant in that manner, then certainly there would have been an enormous debate over this.

392
00:40:34.620 --> 00:40:41.620
I mean, if you're going to fundamentally change the whole nature of American life, people are going to debate that, and there was no debate over that.

393
00:40:41.620 --> 00:40:53.620
Anyway, Brownson came to this position in the mid-19th century that divine providence has ordained a certain kind of political form for the United States.

394
00:40:53.620 --> 00:40:59.620
And he came to this conclusion that divine providence has ordained a kind of political life for every country in the world.

395
00:40:59.620 --> 00:41:09.620
And that it is the job of the statesman to using his reason and in effect throwing himself into and immersing himself in the history of his people

396
00:41:09.620 --> 00:41:14.820
to sort of divine what that tradition is and then perfect it and defend it.

397
00:41:14.820 --> 00:41:21.660
So every people has this separate divinely ordained type of government for them and every

398
00:41:21.660 --> 00:41:23.260
one is not the same.

399
00:41:23.260 --> 00:41:26.580
So the American system works for the United States but it's not something that you would

400
00:41:26.580 --> 00:41:28.500
want to export everywhere.

401
00:41:28.500 --> 00:41:33.860
Everybody every people suitable to its own circumstances and temperament has its own divinely

402
00:41:33.860 --> 00:41:38.180
ordained unwritten constitution as it were.

403
00:41:38.180 --> 00:41:46.180
Well, Brownson takes this position. I mean, you can sort of see almost even more conservative than Edmund Burke, really.

404
00:41:46.180 --> 00:41:55.180
I mean, almost like Joseph de Mestre, like very conservative position, because once you figure out what that divinely ordained unwritten constitution is, then that's it.

405
00:41:55.180 --> 00:42:00.180
Okay, there ain't no change in it, because then you're obviously interfering with divine providence.

406
00:42:00.180 --> 00:42:08.180
So, what does Brownson choose as the divinely ordained mode of government for the United States?

407
00:42:08.180 --> 00:42:14.180
He says, this nationalist position, where the United States is a single indestructible hole,

408
00:42:14.180 --> 00:42:17.180
this is the way divine providence intended it.

409
00:42:17.180 --> 00:42:19.180
And then he's going to go and try and defend that position.

410
00:42:19.180 --> 00:42:26.180
Well, if divine providence intends it this way, then naturally secession would be considered like the height of blasphemy.

411
00:42:26.180 --> 00:42:32.180
But this is going to be the position that Brownson puts forth in great detail in his book, The American Republic.

412
00:42:32.180 --> 00:42:38.180
So he suggests that the idea of the United States as a single people, instead of as a collection of sovereignties,

413
00:42:38.180 --> 00:42:43.180
formed the backbone of this unwritten divine constitution.

414
00:42:43.180 --> 00:42:48.180
And he argued that the American colonies had amounted to a single people,

415
00:42:48.180 --> 00:42:52.180
although he says they only became a single people when they broke with Britain.

416
00:42:52.180 --> 00:42:54.180
Then all of a sudden they became a single people.

417
00:42:54.180 --> 00:43:00.180
and that none of the original thirteen colonies or of the states they eventually became,

418
00:43:00.180 --> 00:43:05.180
none of them had ever possessed on their own the full attributes of sovereignty.

419
00:43:05.180 --> 00:43:14.180
And for Brownson, he thought there was still further confirmation of his view that divine providence wants the country to be a single indivisible whole,

420
00:43:14.180 --> 00:43:20.180
was the fact that attempts to establish the opposite didn't work.

421
00:43:20.180 --> 00:43:28.180
The southern states tried to show that the country was divisible, but what happened to them?

422
00:43:28.180 --> 00:43:32.180
They were defeated. That's divine providence, showing that that's not how it's supposed to work.

423
00:43:32.180 --> 00:43:39.180
I can't believe I'm even saying these things, but that's Brownson's position.

424
00:43:39.180 --> 00:43:42.180
As I say, he's a super serious and important intellectual.

425
00:43:42.180 --> 00:43:45.180
Well, I think he's going to have a problem.

426
00:43:45.180 --> 00:43:48.180
Well, he's dead, so he doesn't have to worry about this anymore.

427
00:43:48.180 --> 00:44:18.180
But anybody who's going to pursue this line of thought is going to have a problem applying it to the United States because, all right, you could at least, you know, in the case of France, for instance, you might be able to make a plausible argument that if you're going to take Brownson's view and there's a certain type of traditional type order that France has assigned to it by divine providence, you could say that the French revolutionaries certainly broke with a long-standing tradition. They subjected monarchical France to a

428
00:44:18.180 --> 00:44:25.180
ceaseless innovation and novelty and made fruitless and repeated attempts throughout the 1790s to impose new constitutions.

429
00:44:25.180 --> 00:44:33.680
But the American case is much more difficult. It's much more difficult to ascertain what precisely would have constituted a revolutionary break with tradition

430
00:44:33.680 --> 00:44:40.180
to be condemned by Brownson, other than the establishment of a monarchy or a hereditary aristocracy.

431
00:44:40.180 --> 00:44:45.680
The point is that in the American case you can find intelligent people like Story and Webster

432
00:44:45.680 --> 00:44:51.680
on one side of the most fundamental question in American political life

433
00:44:51.680 --> 00:44:55.680
is the U.S. a single whole or a collection of states?

434
00:44:55.680 --> 00:45:01.680
And on the other side you can find super smart people, Jefferson, Calhoun, Upshur, take the other view.

435
00:45:01.680 --> 00:45:05.680
Now, if Divine Providence has established a single system for the U.S.

436
00:45:05.680 --> 00:45:10.680
then presumably, men of goodwill would be able to apprehend what that system is.

437
00:45:10.680 --> 00:45:13.680
Why would you have brilliant minds on both sides of this

438
00:45:13.680 --> 00:45:20.680
If statesmen are expected to build upon the unwritten constitution given to them by Providence,

439
00:45:20.680 --> 00:45:24.680
it just seems strange that so fundamental an issue would be the source of so much controversy.

440
00:45:24.680 --> 00:45:30.680
You would expect the contours of this providential constitution to be obvious to men of intelligence and goodwill.

441
00:45:30.680 --> 00:45:36.680
And in fact, even Brownson himself conceded during the war, when talking about the Catholic Church in the war,

442
00:45:36.680 --> 00:45:40.680
he said that, you know, many Catholics have supported the right of secession.

443
00:45:40.680 --> 00:45:47.680
And he said that, you know, it's probably okay not to forbid communion to people who believe in the right of secession

444
00:45:47.680 --> 00:45:52.680
because the doctrine of state sovereignty has been very widespread.

445
00:45:52.680 --> 00:45:57.680
Well, why would it be so widespread if it's the opposite of what Divine Providence wants?

446
00:45:57.680 --> 00:46:02.680
Then, Brownson cites John Quincy Adams as someone who had argued that, quote,

447
00:46:02.680 --> 00:46:08.680
Americans were always one people and the states hold from the union, not the union from the states.

448
00:46:08.680 --> 00:46:12.680
Thomas says, you see, look, there's John Quincy Adams holding up divine providence for us.

449
00:46:12.680 --> 00:46:16.680
Well, the problem with that is that I can find another quotation from John Quincy Adams.

450
00:46:16.680 --> 00:46:25.680
This is the opposite. Not only did Adams argue in 1843 that the acquisition of Texas would justify dissolving the Union,

451
00:46:25.680 --> 00:46:29.680
but we also have this in commemoration of the Constitution's 50-year Jubilee.

452
00:46:29.680 --> 00:46:31.680
Here's John Quincy Adams. He says,

453
00:46:38.680 --> 00:47:08.680
If the day should ever come, may heaven avert it, when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together, parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies, and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship rather than in hatred.

454
00:47:08.680 --> 00:47:13.480
from each other than to be held together by constraint.

455
00:47:13.480 --> 00:47:18.800
So the chief problem with Brownson's point seems to be that here's even a guy he supports

456
00:47:18.800 --> 00:47:23.480
in favor of his view, which he insists is the providential one, was actually ambiguous

457
00:47:23.480 --> 00:47:24.480
on the question.

458
00:47:24.480 --> 00:47:29.840
And on top of that, we have all the great Americans who held the compact view, and so

459
00:47:29.840 --> 00:47:33.420
given this, it seems that it's fraught with difficulty, at the very least, to describe

460
00:47:33.420 --> 00:47:40.420
and I describe one of these as the providentially established one.

461
00:47:40.420 --> 00:47:46.420
Brownson also deals with an objection that Upshur raised. I don't think he realized that Upshur raised it.

462
00:47:46.420 --> 00:47:53.420
Upshur asked to the nationalist folks, what would have happened if you had a...

463
00:47:53.420 --> 00:48:00.420
what would have happened if some state had chosen not to ratify the Constitution

464
00:48:00.420 --> 00:48:02.420
and had just stayed out of the Union.

465
00:48:02.420 --> 00:48:06.420
What relationship would the Federal Union have had with that state?

466
00:48:06.420 --> 00:48:09.420
If it were really one people all the time,

467
00:48:09.420 --> 00:48:12.420
then how could that state have an existence apart from the Federal Union?

468
00:48:12.420 --> 00:48:16.420
What would the relationship have been?

469
00:48:16.420 --> 00:48:19.420
And so, and Upsher had wondered that and he said, you know,

470
00:48:19.420 --> 00:48:23.420
obviously if one state had refused to ratify the Constitution,

471
00:48:23.420 --> 00:48:26.420
then it would have been an independent state

472
00:48:26.420 --> 00:48:29.420
and we would have had absolutely no authority to coerce it.

473
00:48:29.420 --> 00:48:33.420
follows absolutely logically from the compact theory, not to brown some.

474
00:48:33.420 --> 00:48:37.420
He says that if one of the states had not ratified the Constitution,

475
00:48:37.420 --> 00:48:40.420
then it should be treated as a U.S. territory.

476
00:48:40.420 --> 00:48:43.420
I mean, it wouldn't be a full-fledged state of the Union,

477
00:48:43.420 --> 00:48:45.420
but it would be treated as a territory.

478
00:48:45.420 --> 00:48:48.420
He says, if nine states had ratified the Constitution

479
00:48:48.420 --> 00:48:50.420
and the other four had stood out and refused to do it,

480
00:48:50.420 --> 00:48:52.420
which was within their competency,

481
00:48:52.420 --> 00:48:55.420
they would not have been independent sovereign states outside of the Union,

482
00:48:55.420 --> 00:48:58.420
but territories under the Union.

483
00:48:58.420 --> 00:49:03.420
I don't know if I need to refute this or not, but it seems sort of odd.

484
00:49:03.420 --> 00:49:08.420
But since in Brownson's view, the states and the Union were coeval,

485
00:49:08.420 --> 00:49:11.420
and one could not exist without the other,

486
00:49:11.420 --> 00:49:16.420
it was impossible to conceive of some of the states enjoying independent existences apart from the Union.

487
00:49:16.420 --> 00:49:19.420
Brownson believed the American people were one,

488
00:49:19.420 --> 00:49:23.420
so a state that had refused to ratify the Constitution would not, by that omission,

489
00:49:23.420 --> 00:49:29.420
have separated itself from the political order to which he believes it is inextricably bound.

490
00:49:29.420 --> 00:49:32.420
It would rather have become a territory of the United States.

491
00:49:32.420 --> 00:49:37.420
And given that Providence, according to him, has established the American people as an indivisible whole,

492
00:49:37.420 --> 00:49:40.420
no other answer appears to be available to him.

493
00:49:40.420 --> 00:49:44.420
Well, Upshur has an even greater difficulty to raise.

494
00:49:44.420 --> 00:49:52.420
He says, what would have happened if one of the colonies had refused to agree to the Declaration of Independence

495
00:49:52.420 --> 00:50:22.420
Upshaw asks, could the other colonies have rightfully compelled it to unite with them in their revolutionary purposes on the ground that, hey, you're part and parcel of one people, right, so you have no right not to declare independence, we're all one people, so you are going to fight against Britain with us, and Upshaw takes the position that, no, to the contrary, the recusant colony would have possessed a status during the conflict no different from that of Canada. Having declared war,

496
00:50:22.420 --> 00:50:27.420
For the other colonies may well have considered the people of this colony of loyalists to be their enemies,

497
00:50:27.420 --> 00:50:30.420
but they would have had no right to treat them as traitors.

498
00:50:30.420 --> 00:50:35.420
To what purpose then, inquired Upsher, were the people of the colonies one people?

499
00:50:35.420 --> 00:50:41.420
If, in a case so important to the common welfare, there was no right in all the people together

500
00:50:41.420 --> 00:50:45.420
to coerce the members of their own community to the performance of a common duty?

501
00:50:45.420 --> 00:50:48.420
There goes the theory of the one people.

502
00:50:48.420 --> 00:50:56.420
If you're in this situation and you have absolutely no right in any way to coerce a fellow colony that refuses to fight against Britain,

503
00:50:56.420 --> 00:51:00.420
then in what way can you be called one people?

504
00:51:00.420 --> 00:51:05.420
Well, anyway, so that in effect, that's sort of an overview of that's the way,

505
00:51:05.420 --> 00:51:15.420
that gives you at least a flavor of how Upshur as really a spokesman for this Virginia-inspired tradition

506
00:51:15.420 --> 00:51:20.420
would have looked at American history to defend the compact version of the Union.

507
00:51:20.420 --> 00:51:26.420
And this is the type of argumentation that can be used later on when Lincoln gives the Gettysburg Address

508
00:51:26.420 --> 00:51:32.420
and really puts forth the nationalist view in that short and succinct treatment.

509
00:51:32.420 --> 00:51:37.420
This is the type of argumentation you could refer to to say that Lincoln is simply wrong to say

510
00:51:37.420 --> 00:51:40.420
that there was one nation brought forth in 1776.

511
00:51:40.420 --> 00:51:44.420
There's nothing about any of that history that would indicate that.

512
00:51:44.420 --> 00:51:47.420
Instead, you have 13 separate sovereignties.

513
00:51:51.420 --> 00:51:53.420
Given that the title of this talk is,

514
00:51:53.420 --> 00:51:55.420
States' Rights in Theory and Practice,

515
00:51:55.420 --> 00:51:58.420
I think that's enough theory to last a good long time.

516
00:52:01.420 --> 00:52:04.420
But now we get to the fun part,

517
00:52:05.420 --> 00:52:08.420
because here's stuff that you don't hear covered much

518
00:52:08.420 --> 00:52:10.420
when dealing with states' rights questions,

519
00:52:10.420 --> 00:52:12.420
because there's this desire,

520
00:52:14.420 --> 00:52:20.420
I admire the part of some people to portray states' rights as a barbaric, backward, terrible theory

521
00:52:20.420 --> 00:52:28.420
that is advanced only by people who support slavery, segregation, oppression, whatever, murder, whatever.

522
00:52:28.420 --> 00:52:35.420
And no rational person would support it, no good-hearted person, everybody should favor federal supremacy, all that.

523
00:52:35.420 --> 00:52:41.420
The only time you hear states' rights mentioned is the Southern states wanting to protect slavery.

524
00:52:41.420 --> 00:52:49.420
And incidentally, the southern states were perfectly willing to use the federal government to protect slavery time and time again, so let's spare that in mind.

525
00:52:49.420 --> 00:52:56.420
But what I want to do is look at some of the northern states, some of the ones that were most angry at the south later on, and see what they were up to.

526
00:52:56.420 --> 00:53:05.420
And I'm not going to go into the standard stuff that you could read about, for example, because you should just read about it in Tom DiLorenzo's book and then I can talk about other things.

527
00:53:05.420 --> 00:53:09.420
Tom DiLorenzo has a book on Lincoln, as you all know, the real Lincoln.

528
00:53:09.420 --> 00:53:19.420
Robert Lincoln has got a chapter on secession that's very good that talks about the fact that the New England states several times threatened secession.

529
00:53:19.420 --> 00:53:31.420
They threatened it over the Louisiana Purchase. You hear a little bit them threatening, not a lot of people listen to them, but they threatened, some of them at least threatened secession over the embargo that was imposed under Jefferson that we're going to talk about.

530
00:53:31.420 --> 00:53:39.420
There was at least an implicit, at least an implied threat of secession at the Hartford Convention toward the end of the War of 1812.

531
00:53:39.420 --> 00:53:50.420
You get this, okay, and that indicates that you've got northern states that do believe in the rights of the states, that in practice they believe in the compact theory, if they believe they have the right to withdraw.

532
00:53:50.420 --> 00:53:54.420
But instead I want to look at some issues that I think are perhaps less well known.

533
00:53:54.420 --> 00:54:16.420
I want to look at what was happening starting in late 1807 to early 1809 with this embargo that Thomas Jefferson imposed because, as I say, here is a totally lost aspect of American history.

534
00:54:16.420 --> 00:54:20.420
People know about the embargo, but not some of this other stuff, I think.

535
00:54:20.420 --> 00:54:28.020
What's going on here, as many of you doubtless know, is that given that for years now, on and off,

536
00:54:28.020 --> 00:54:32.220
Britain and France have been at war with each other and their allies,

537
00:54:32.220 --> 00:54:39.220
and that means that, given obviously the tremendous naval presence that the British have,

538
00:54:39.220 --> 00:54:43.720
that if you are engaged as a neutral in trading with either of these sides,

539
00:54:43.720 --> 00:54:47.020
you are going to involve yourself in some kind of peril.

540
00:54:47.020 --> 00:54:52.020
Because if you trade with one side, the other one is going to try to confiscate your ship and vice versa.

541
00:54:52.020 --> 00:54:58.020
But the American position was that since we're neutral in these wars, we have the absolute right to trade, you know,

542
00:54:58.020 --> 00:55:03.020
non-contraband items with belligerence or with anyone we like.

543
00:55:03.020 --> 00:55:07.020
Well, those neutral rights were, to say the least, not being respected.

544
00:55:07.020 --> 00:55:15.020
So Thomas Jefferson came to the conclusion that he did not want to go to war, if it could be avoided, with Britain,

545
00:55:15.020 --> 00:55:20.660
So he thought it might be necessary, because people were very much in favor of it by 1807.

546
00:55:20.660 --> 00:55:25.860
But Jefferson eventually is going to impose an embargo.

547
00:55:25.860 --> 00:55:29.780
But the embargo is not going to be an embargo just on Britain and France.

548
00:55:29.780 --> 00:55:34.260
It's an embargo that's going to forbid any American ship from leaving for any foreign

549
00:55:34.260 --> 00:55:36.980
port anywhere in the world.

550
00:55:36.980 --> 00:55:41.140
And in case you're wondering why would it be so broad, I mean, first of all, the reason

551
00:55:41.140 --> 00:55:43.300
he's doing this is to punish Britain and France.

552
00:55:43.300 --> 00:55:48.740
The thinking is, they need American commerce for their prosperity, and if we cut it off,

553
00:55:48.740 --> 00:55:51.780
then it's going to bring them to heel.

554
00:55:51.780 --> 00:55:55.700
And Jefferson said, you know, the beautiful thing is that they'll ask us, hey, what can

555
00:55:55.700 --> 00:55:57.780
we do to restore commerce with the U.S.?

556
00:55:57.780 --> 00:55:58.780
What do you want us to do?

557
00:55:58.780 --> 00:56:02.660
And they're going to find out that all we're asking is for them to treat us fairly.

558
00:56:02.660 --> 00:56:07.940
So he was going to, so he called this peaceable coercion, peaceable coercion, use economic

559
00:56:07.940 --> 00:56:11.700
means to try to bring these folks to heel.

560
00:56:11.700 --> 00:56:41.700
Now at first there wasn't a huge amount of opposition to this, because for one thing it's December 1807, most of the ports are frozen, you can't be shipping much anyway, it's not a big problem, but as the months go on and as it warms up and you get to the spring of 1808, the New England states are obviously displeased by this, because many of them make their livelihoods in one way or another in trade or related fields such as that, and this is destroying their livelihoods, absolutely destroying and ruining them.

561
00:56:41.700 --> 00:56:47.100
Now, given that Americans were great smugglers from the colonial period to then, they were classic smugglers,

562
00:56:47.100 --> 00:56:53.200
some estimates have it that as much as half of American trade, nevertheless, persisted, thanks to smugglers.

563
00:56:53.200 --> 00:57:00.900
But still, it was a tremendous disability and the New Englanders were very upset about it.

564
00:57:00.900 --> 00:57:06.400
It may seem that they're being unreasonable because, after all, isn't Jefferson imposing the embargo really for them?

565
00:57:06.400 --> 00:57:11.400
I mean, he's trying to vindicate the rights of American neutrals on the high seas, so what's the problem?

566
00:57:11.400 --> 00:57:21.400
Well, the problem is that American ships could at least, they could take out insurance against possible capture or harassment by the British or French,

567
00:57:21.400 --> 00:57:24.400
and they could more or less live with it while they had to.

568
00:57:24.400 --> 00:57:28.400
But this was absolutely shutting everything down and ruining them.

569
00:57:28.400 --> 00:57:35.400
Well, Jefferson is one of these people who used to save everything, you know, never threw anything away, all right?

570
00:57:35.400 --> 00:57:37.900
We all know people like this, never throw anything away.

571
00:57:37.900 --> 00:57:41.400
Well, Jefferson saved the letters people wrote to him.

572
00:57:41.400 --> 00:57:47.400
In fact, there's one historian who's collected the various letters that came in to Thomas Jefferson and published them as a book.

573
00:57:47.400 --> 00:57:52.400
And he would get letters asking, you know, can you find me a job somewhere?

574
00:57:52.400 --> 00:57:57.900
Maybe I could work in a customs house or whatever, or even saying, you know, maybe you could lend me a couple of bucks.

575
00:57:57.900 --> 00:57:58.900
I'm kind of short.

576
00:57:58.900 --> 00:58:04.400
And the funny thing is, Jefferson would sometimes put money in an envelope and mail it back to the person.

577
00:58:04.400 --> 00:58:09.400
And he generally, as long as you weren't just abusing him, like Thomas Jefferson, you're a big jackass.

578
00:58:09.400 --> 00:58:13.400
As long as you weren't saying that, he would more or less try to answer you.

579
00:58:13.400 --> 00:58:15.400
But he saved them, saved all the letters.

580
00:58:15.400 --> 00:58:21.400
I mean, as late as the 1920s, Warren Harding used to answer the front door of the White House.

581
00:58:21.400 --> 00:58:23.400
It's like a totally different world here.

582
00:58:23.400 --> 00:58:29.400
Well, anyway, I don't know what condition he was in when he opened the door, of course, but anyway.

583
00:58:29.400 --> 00:58:31.400
So Thomas Jefferson saved all these letters.

584
00:58:31.400 --> 00:58:36.320
Well, the letters he gets during the embargo are pretty bad.

585
00:58:36.320 --> 00:58:39.960
For example, Jefferson is getting this letter.

586
00:58:39.960 --> 00:58:43.440
Mr. President, if you know what is good for your future welfare,

587
00:58:43.440 --> 00:58:47.120
you will take off the embargo.

588
00:58:47.120 --> 00:58:50.240
Another one. Look at the situation in the country when you took the chair

589
00:58:50.240 --> 00:58:53.680
and look at it now. I should think it would make you sink with despair

590
00:58:53.680 --> 00:58:57.440
and hide yourself in the mountains.

591
00:58:57.440 --> 00:59:02.080
And then he says, another person says,

592
00:59:02.080 --> 00:59:07.680
Take off the embargo, be ashamed of yourself and never show your head in public company again.

593
00:59:07.680 --> 00:59:12.520
My gosh, I'd love to say to some president, never show your head in public company again.

594
00:59:12.520 --> 00:59:14.640
And then my favorite one,

595
00:59:14.640 --> 00:59:23.840
I have agreed to pay four of my friends $400 to shoot you if you don't take off the embargo.

596
00:59:23.840 --> 00:59:27.120
I mean, that's one thing that the government is actually very efficient at.

597
00:59:27.120 --> 00:59:31.520
I mean, today, you'd be halfway through that first sentence and you'd be in jail, basically.

598
00:59:31.520 --> 00:59:37.820
All right, so, that's the kind of frustration that you have in New England at that time.

599
00:59:37.820 --> 00:59:44.320
And as I said, you even begin to hear at least some talk of secession.

600
00:59:44.320 --> 00:59:48.320
Now, what's interesting about this embargo, first of all, is that sometimes we have this image of Jeff...

601
00:59:48.320 --> 00:59:53.520
I mean, certainly this is, no question, Jefferson's low point is enforcing this embargo.

602
00:59:53.520 --> 01:00:01.520
Robert Gallatin was the person who mainly enforced the embargo was Albert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury.

603
01:00:01.520 --> 01:00:07.520
And the irony of that is that Gallatin had been arguing for months against the idea of an embargo.

604
01:00:07.520 --> 01:00:13.520
It's a stupid idea, it's terrible, it's obviously not going to change the behavior of the government.

605
01:00:13.520 --> 01:00:17.520
It's not going to change the behavior of the government.

606
01:00:17.520 --> 01:00:25.520
It's a stupid idea. It's terrible. It's obviously not going to change the behavior of those who are harassing us.

607
01:00:25.520 --> 01:00:31.520
And it didn't. All it did was alienate New England entirely and destroy New England commerce.

608
01:00:31.520 --> 01:00:34.520
That's all it did. It had none of the desired effects.

609
01:00:34.520 --> 01:00:38.520
So Gallatin was totally vindicated. He's the one put in charge of enforcing the embargo.

610
01:00:38.520 --> 01:00:44.520
And Jefferson really doesn't want to be involved in the day-to-day activity of it.

611
01:00:44.520 --> 01:00:53.020
So, there's a letter from Jefferson at one point where he's saying that he's just not feeling well.

612
01:00:53.020 --> 01:00:56.020
He says, I've got like one hour a day where I feel okay.

613
01:00:56.020 --> 01:00:59.020
And during that hour I'm too busy to think about this embargo.

614
01:00:59.020 --> 01:01:01.520
He's complaining of headaches.

615
01:01:01.520 --> 01:01:05.020
So we've got letter after letter of him saying to Gallatin,

616
01:01:05.020 --> 01:01:10.020
I trust you, you take care of this, you keep an eye on it, whatever, over and over again.

617
01:01:10.020 --> 01:01:12.520
And whenever Gallatin would try to go up to him and say,

618
01:01:42.520 --> 01:01:51.520
Jefferson doesn't know the first thing about it, really, so he writes a letter to Gallatin much sooner than really ought to be, after this relative of his had died, saying,

619
01:01:51.520 --> 01:01:58.520
I know things are really difficult for you, but the embargo's kind of falling apart over here, maybe you might give us some advice as to how to...

620
01:01:58.520 --> 01:02:02.520
So, I mean, poor Jefferson, right? This isn't his sort of thing.

621
01:02:02.520 --> 01:02:13.520
Well, the obnoxious aspect of the embargo wasn't simply that it cut off international trade,

622
01:02:13.520 --> 01:02:19.520
but it was that you could have your ship seized, confiscated by the government,

623
01:02:19.520 --> 01:02:23.520
on the mere suspicion that you were intending to violate the embargo.

624
01:02:23.520 --> 01:02:31.520
Now, mere suspicion is not exactly probable cause, and so this was liable to tremendous abuse.

625
01:02:31.520 --> 01:02:37.520
The Federal District Court in 1808 ruled that the embargo was constitutional.

626
01:02:37.520 --> 01:02:41.520
And it was a case that was initiated by the federal government.

627
01:02:41.520 --> 01:02:47.520
It was involving a ship that violated the embargo and they were seeking the forfeiture of that ship.

628
01:02:47.520 --> 01:02:52.520
And it was a case that was initiated by the federal government.

629
01:02:52.520 --> 01:02:56.520
And it was a case that was initiated by the federal government.

630
01:02:56.520 --> 01:03:26.520
The defense tried to argue that the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, but that power cannot be, these are their words, cannot be understood to give a power to annihilate, so in other words, if the federal government has the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it does not give it the power to annihilate foreign commerce, so the embargo, according to the defense, was unconstitutional, but the court rejected this.

631
01:03:26.520 --> 01:03:33.520
and instead began going down the path of taking the commerce clause and interpreting it very broadly

632
01:03:33.520 --> 01:03:38.520
and began arguing that, quote, the great impending peril of the times,

633
01:03:38.520 --> 01:03:43.520
by which they meant British and French assaults on American commerce,

634
01:03:43.520 --> 01:03:48.520
meant that the commerce clause, quote, must take a still more expanded range.

635
01:03:48.520 --> 01:03:52.520
So the embargo is constitutional.

636
01:03:52.520 --> 01:03:57.160
What's significant here is that even though a federal court ruled the embargo constitutional,

637
01:03:57.160 --> 01:04:00.360
the New England states did not consider that to be the end of the story.

638
01:04:00.360 --> 01:04:04.680
Oh, a federal court has ruled, let's all bow down and wave incense before it.

639
01:04:04.680 --> 01:04:05.760
They didn't say that.

640
01:04:05.760 --> 01:04:09.360
To the contrary, they continued pressing the point.

641
01:04:09.360 --> 01:04:14.920
In early 1809, the Massachusetts Senate, which described the union as a confederation of

642
01:04:14.920 --> 01:04:20.040
equal and independent states with limited powers, dealt with this question.

643
01:04:20.040 --> 01:04:24.880
Did the fact that a federal court had found the embargo to be constitutional, did that

644
01:04:24.880 --> 01:04:25.880
settle the matter?

645
01:04:25.880 --> 01:04:29.120
I mean, are we all done arguing?

646
01:04:29.120 --> 01:04:31.860
Absolutely not, said the Massachusetts Senate.

647
01:04:31.860 --> 01:04:38.720
They said, if that were true, that the measures of government, once passed into an act, the

648
01:04:38.720 --> 01:04:43.920
constitutionality of that act is stamped with the seal of infallibility and is no longer

649
01:04:43.920 --> 01:04:48.880
a subject for the deliberation or remonstrance of the citizen, to what monstrous lengths

650
01:04:48.880 --> 01:04:55.880
Well, both houses of the Massachusetts Legislature describe the embargo acts as being, quote,

651
01:04:55.880 --> 01:04:59.880
might not be inflicted on the prostrate liberties of our country.

652
01:04:59.880 --> 01:05:03.880
If such a doctrine were true, our Constitution would be nothing but a name,

653
01:05:03.880 --> 01:05:07.880
nay worse, a fatal instrument to sanctify oppression

654
01:05:07.880 --> 01:05:11.880
and legalize the tyranny which inflicts it.

655
01:05:11.880 --> 01:05:15.880
Well, both houses of the Massachusetts legislature describe the Embargo Acts

656
01:05:15.880 --> 01:05:19.880
as being, quote, in many particulars, unjust,

657
01:05:19.880 --> 01:05:23.880
oppressive and unconstitutional. And they said,

658
01:05:23.880 --> 01:05:27.800
While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence,

659
01:05:27.800 --> 01:05:32.080
all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice

660
01:05:32.080 --> 01:05:35.200
in the strong arm of the state government.

661
01:05:35.200 --> 01:05:37.680
And the embargo, they said, was, quote,

662
01:05:37.680 --> 01:05:42.680
not legally binding on the citizens of this state.

663
01:05:42.680 --> 01:05:48.000
And although Massachusetts, at no time did they say,

664
01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:50.400
we have to just obey this law and deal with it,

665
01:05:50.400 --> 01:05:51.960
what they did say was, quote,

666
01:05:51.960 --> 01:06:01.960
All parties aggrieved by the operation of this act should abstain from forcible resistance.

667
01:06:01.960 --> 01:06:07.360
But in effect, they're more or less saying, just try to ignore it the best you can.

668
01:06:07.360 --> 01:06:16.960
Interestingly, during this crisis, a New York congressman who expressly called into the discussion

669
01:06:16.960 --> 01:06:20.960
The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 said,

670
01:06:20.960 --> 01:06:26.960
Why should not Massachusetts take the same stand when she thinks herself about to be destroyed?

671
01:06:26.960 --> 01:06:30.960
So there's a reference there to the principles of 98.

672
01:06:30.960 --> 01:06:34.960
Again, an idea that has just disappeared, there it is.

673
01:06:34.960 --> 01:06:36.960
A Connecticut congressman said,

674
01:06:36.960 --> 01:06:41.960
If any state legislature had believed the act to be unconstitutional,

675
01:06:41.960 --> 01:06:45.960
would it not have been their duty not to comply?

676
01:06:45.960 --> 01:07:02.960
And then he added that the state legislatures, and then these are his words, whose members are sworn to support the Constitution, may refuse assistance, aid or cooperation, unquote, if they think a federal act is unconstitutional and state officials could do likewise.

677
01:07:02.960 --> 01:07:05.960
The Connecticut governor spoke this way,

678
01:07:27.960 --> 01:07:30.960
Well, there's Madisonian interposition.

679
01:07:30.960 --> 01:07:46.960
Connecticut goes on to say this General Assembly are decided in the opinion and do resolve that the acts aforesaid are grievous to the good people of this state, dangerous to their common liberties, incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, and encroaching upon the immunities of this state.

680
01:07:46.960 --> 01:08:05.960
And that resolution went on and in fact directed the executive, obviously the executive branch enforces, trusted with the enforcement of the law, instructed executive officials in the state not to offer, quote, any official aid or cooperation in the execution of the Act aforesaid.

681
01:08:05.960 --> 01:08:11.960
And, quoting just one more time from Connecticut, we have this statement.

682
01:08:11.960 --> 01:08:17.960
Resolved, that to preserve the Union and support the Constitution of the United States,

683
01:08:17.960 --> 01:08:23.960
it becomes the duty of the legislatures of the states, in such a crisis of affairs,

684
01:08:23.960 --> 01:08:30.960
vigilantly to watch over and vigorously to maintain the powers not delegated to the United States,

685
01:08:30.960 --> 01:08:33.960
but reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

686
01:08:33.960 --> 01:08:45.960
and that a due regard to this duty will not permit this assembly to assist or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act passed to enforce the embargo.

687
01:08:45.960 --> 01:08:53.960
And finally Rhode Island, when the embargo was at its conclusion, declared that the legislature of Rhode Island had the duty, quote,

688
01:08:53.960 --> 01:09:03.960
To interpose for the purpose of protecting the people of Rhode Island from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."

689
01:09:03.960 --> 01:09:09.960
Again, to interpose. There is the language of the principles of 1798.

690
01:09:09.960 --> 01:09:15.960
Now, I've been, for a number of years now, I've been teaching American history having to use a textbook.

691
01:09:15.960 --> 01:09:19.960
There is no textbook that I know of, now I'm happy to be corrected,

692
01:09:19.960 --> 01:09:31.960
This is an ongoing idea. It's not just something that Jefferson and Madison thought of, and then everybody was embarrassed by it. Nobody talked about it anymore.

693
01:09:31.960 --> 01:09:37.960
Even the very section of the country that had been most vocal in their opposition to it, ten years later, is now saying,

694
01:09:37.960 --> 01:09:43.960
Hey, Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Hey, all the cool kids are interested in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions all of a sudden.

695
01:09:43.960 --> 01:09:45.960
What a wonderful and glorious thing.

696
01:09:45.960 --> 01:10:03.960
Well, there's much more to be said in the future, which we'll be doing tomorrow, like things involving disputes in the War of 1812 and Daniel Webster's beautiful speech about why conscription is incompatible with liberty and all this, and the National Bank and how they try to stop it.

697
01:10:03.960 --> 01:10:09.960
Just glorious examples of the states. And I mean, they're still states, after all. We can't get that excited about them.

698
01:10:09.960 --> 01:10:25.960
But the fact that they stand up and get right in the face of the big federal behemoth is such a glorious thing to see when today they're absolutely demoralized and ground down, they don't dare to say anything, they don't dare to resist and they don't want their highway money taken away or whatever.

699
01:10:25.960 --> 01:10:35.960
You know, it reminds you that there used to be people who were courageous and politically creative rather than simply referring every single matter to be decided by Washington D.C.

700
01:10:35.960 --> 01:10:42.960
Well, having said that, I will take any comments on this, or questions, I'll happily take them.

701
01:10:42.960 --> 01:10:44.960
Okay, I have one, two, and then three.

702
01:10:44.960 --> 01:11:00.960
I have a question. You were talking about Joseph Story and talking about the various states of the United States and the United Kingdom, and that's an argument against Joseph Story's nationalism.

703
01:11:00.960 --> 01:11:16.960
I was thinking that it just resembles NATO or something like that, some alliance that has military command, but it's just comprised of opposition armies and all that sort of thing.

704
01:11:16.960 --> 01:11:18.960
I don't think that NATO is a country.

705
01:11:30.960 --> 01:11:37.960
is with a country, but nevertheless is an alliance that serves certain purposes in a corporate way,

706
01:11:37.960 --> 01:11:42.960
but then at the same time consists of smaller independent militaries,

707
01:11:42.960 --> 01:11:46.960
and so I think that is an apt comparison. And did you have a question?

708
01:11:46.960 --> 01:11:53.960
Maybe more of an anthropological question, I guess, but it seems like it cuts on politics and history,

709
01:11:53.960 --> 01:11:58.960
of whether or not there's such a thing as a nation, like an American nation,

710
01:11:58.960 --> 01:12:04.960
that there are any kind of nation, a German nation, that exists outside of the political order of the time.

711
01:12:04.960 --> 01:12:14.960
So if you only have 13 states or something like that, and we don't have a United States at that point,

712
01:12:14.960 --> 01:12:22.960
or there is no American nation, then can you still say there is an American nation just based on the culture of it coming?

713
01:12:44.960 --> 01:12:50.960
...extrapolation from cultural commonalities not be drawn.

714
01:12:50.960 --> 01:12:55.960
I would just be concerned that people like Story would say,

715
01:12:55.960 --> 01:12:59.960
well look, we all speak the same language and we all have this and that in common,

716
01:12:59.960 --> 01:13:02.960
so in effect in some mystical way we are in fact one people.

717
01:13:02.960 --> 01:13:08.960
I mean, in a certain sense, I may feel a kinship with people who share these different qualities of mine,

718
01:13:08.960 --> 01:13:37.960
According to the Nationalists, why did the Founders even bother with the Constitution,

719
01:13:37.960 --> 01:13:50.960
The Constitution or the Articles of Confederation, why not just, I mean, shouldn't they just have been able, on the nationalist account, just, you know, by the fiat of the Congress or whatever, create the kind of government they wanted?

720
01:13:50.960 --> 01:13:55.960
Why did they, did they have an explanation for why it was necessary to have these conditions?

721
01:13:55.960 --> 01:14:03.960
Yeah, I mean, I think, because that is an argument that's raised against them actually. That's an argument that Upshaw raises.

722
01:14:03.960 --> 01:14:09.960
The question being, if the nationalists believe that there is one people all this time,

723
01:14:09.960 --> 01:14:15.960
then really what's the point of drafting the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution,

724
01:14:15.960 --> 01:14:21.960
and then having it ratified, whatever, if the first Continental Congress had been established

725
01:14:21.960 --> 01:14:25.960
by the fiat of the whole, by the will of the whole people,

726
01:14:25.960 --> 01:14:30.960
then couldn't the fiat of that organization, that Continental Congress, could they just have imposed something?

727
01:14:30.960 --> 01:14:35.120
Why would they have to go through all these awkward channels?

728
01:14:35.120 --> 01:14:39.400
I think maybe the argument they would use would be that

729
01:14:39.400 --> 01:14:43.040
you do want to get the broadest possible consent

730
01:14:43.040 --> 01:14:45.280
to the political order that you're establishing.

731
01:14:45.280 --> 01:14:48.800
And so, at the very least, you would want the people

732
01:14:48.800 --> 01:14:50.840
to be able to debate it and discuss it

733
01:14:50.840 --> 01:14:54.040
so that they can feel like it's not something wholly alien to them

734
01:14:54.040 --> 01:14:56.840
and it's not something that was imposed without their input.

735
01:14:56.840 --> 01:14:59.800
And, you know, this would make it function more smoothly

736
01:14:59.800 --> 01:15:04.800
If they felt that it was something, you know, that emerged in some way from their own will.

737
01:15:04.800 --> 01:15:10.800
But I wonder if some of the more extreme ones might secretly say that, you know, that's really the only, you know,

738
01:15:10.800 --> 01:15:12.800
it's just to give people a sense of belonging.

739
01:15:12.800 --> 01:15:17.800
I mean, have them debating things and discussing and becoming politically aware.

740
01:15:17.800 --> 01:15:21.800
But I don't know what real, I mean, if they're really going to take this thing totally seriously,

741
01:15:21.800 --> 01:15:28.800
that there's already one people there, it does seem to lead to what you're saying.

742
01:15:28.800 --> 01:15:44.800
I have a question, a comment. The question is, in the embargo, was that just an executive decision, or what did Congress have to say? It looks like it was clearly an act of war. What, certainly that could have been...

743
01:15:44.800 --> 01:15:56.800
Well, it's the president's discretion as to how, you know, I mean, there would be specific types of hard cases that would be involved.

744
01:15:56.800 --> 01:16:07.800
There would be some people who were just so financially burdened by it that Gallatin would say, well, can't you make an executive exception for such and such?

745
01:16:07.800 --> 01:16:20.800
So, I mean, it was open to being micromanaged by the executive, but basically it is, you know, it is congressionally authorized, but it leaves a tremendous discretion to the executive to deal with individual cases.

746
01:16:20.800 --> 01:16:40.800
And the comment was only there was 14 colonies that remained loyal. It's the smallest colony and didn't participate. That of course is the colony of West Florida. It had a royal governor and was governed exactly the same way.

747
01:16:40.800 --> 01:16:52.200
and so and so nobody went into West Florida and and tarred and feathered

748
01:16:52.200 --> 01:17:00.600
anybody right so because so right right well I'd love to talk about is is are

749
01:17:00.600 --> 01:17:04.360
there hurricanes like everywhere in Florida are there parts that you could be

750
01:17:04.360 --> 01:17:09.080
safe there any parts you can be safe in Florida because we've actually thought

751
01:17:09.080 --> 01:17:15.080
We thought about moving there and, oh no, Lawrence Vance is from Pensacola and he's shaking his head.

752
01:17:15.080 --> 01:17:19.080
So we're not really talking about the Bonnie Blue Flag, right?

753
01:17:19.080 --> 01:17:23.080
Well, I mean, I know the song, but...

754
01:17:23.080 --> 01:17:25.080
No, West Florida, the Bonnie Blue Flag.

755
01:17:25.080 --> 01:17:29.080
Oh, the West Florida, right. No, I'm thinking of For Southern Rights Hurrah.

756
01:17:29.080 --> 01:17:34.080
Here I am going on the record singing that. There goes my career.

757
01:17:34.080 --> 01:17:37.080
Other thoughts, comments, or whatever? Yes?

758
01:17:37.080 --> 01:17:52.080
I actually have a second question. Did the federal government have any sort of agency that they had to enforce this, you know, like a, I mean, yeah, I guess like a custom or police agency or do they just rely entirely on the states to enforce it?

759
01:17:52.080 --> 01:18:03.080
You know what, I'd have to look into that because it's an excellent question and I don't want to say something that might actually just be me speculating. So, I mean, I'm sure I can find this out in, you know, in no time.

760
01:18:03.080 --> 01:18:23.080
You sort of alluded to this in your remark, that after all these are just states' lessons, I get too excited, but for somebody from a Rothbardian perspective who might be inclined to dismiss all of this and say, well, why would I study these disputes? It's all based on illegitimate things anyway. Is there an adequate answer to give to that?

761
01:18:33.080 --> 01:18:42.080
The answer I gave is that given that, you know, most of the world is not coming at life from this perspective, it, you know, it does buttress.

762
01:18:42.080 --> 01:18:51.080
I mean, I think, you know, if your particular historical tradition, you know, in some ways does buttress a pro-liberty position,

763
01:18:51.080 --> 01:18:56.080
then you should make it another of the arguments in your arsenal, because some arguments appeal to some people, some arguments appeal to others.

764
01:18:56.080 --> 01:19:02.080
I mean, it's like if you're trying to, if you're a missionary and you're trying to convert somebody to, let's say, Christianity,

765
01:19:02.080 --> 01:19:07.080
I mean, some arguments work with some people, some don't, I mean, emotional arguments work with some people, like,

766
01:19:07.080 --> 01:19:11.080
look at how beautiful Christ's life was and people get weepy and they love that.

767
01:19:11.080 --> 01:19:18.080
Other people say, but look at how logical it is, like Saint Anselm would say, it makes perfect sense that God should have become man,

768
01:19:18.080 --> 01:19:23.080
and that works for other people, you know, so I feel like whatever argument works, you know, should work.

769
01:19:23.080 --> 01:19:53.080
should work. But I guess my point would just simply be, all I want to say to my fellow Americans basically is that you don't have to sit, you don't have to sit, you know, in this supine, abject, you know, pathetic way and sit here and accept all these, you know, federal mandates and incursions in your life when we have, you know, states that, you know, states are, institutionally they're more powerful than just scattered individuals that have resisted in the past.

770
01:19:53.080 --> 01:20:10.080
In the past, given that the states exist, they are institutional mechanisms that exist and they can be used, as we've seen, to keep the federal government in check, then anything that can be used to keep the federal government in check, I favor using.

771
01:20:10.080 --> 01:20:19.080
Then, of course, we have to keep that thing in check, and believe me, we've got to keep an eye on the state government too, but it seems to me that this is another angle that we could legitimately take.

772
01:20:19.080 --> 01:20:49.080
I mean, I think, I mean, I know that Rothbard himself typically, you know, was a localist, you know, I mean, like he would, he believed in natural rights, but he believed in the local enforcement of those rights, just simply on a, as a practical matter, because, you know, it would be, as I'm going to say tomorrow, if the mafia is giving you a problem, as Stefan Kinsella would say, it's not necessarily the best idea to go say, well, I'll go get a much bigger mafia to protect me from the smaller mafia. I mean, in the short run, that might seem wise,

773
01:20:49.080 --> 01:21:04.080
I was fascinated by the Ludwig von retreat in poetry.

774
01:21:04.080 --> 01:21:12.080
I'm wondering, when you hold somebody's feet to the coals on this constitutional issue, what sort of retreat do you find?

775
01:21:19.080 --> 01:21:28.080
to a critique of my treatment of nullification that was written by one of the people associated with the Claremont Institute.

776
01:21:28.080 --> 01:21:31.080
People, let's come on now, let's be nice.

777
01:21:31.080 --> 01:21:36.080
And you can sort of see the types of arguments that they make.

778
01:21:36.080 --> 01:21:40.080
Because they'll quote things that Madison did say.

779
01:21:40.080 --> 01:21:47.080
But the fact is, I have an all-purpose Madison for any occasion, and that doesn't settle anything.

780
01:21:47.080 --> 01:21:56.080
If we're just going to sit here and appeal to authority, when that authority contradicts himself, frankly, I think that can be shown. That's not helpful.

781
01:21:56.080 --> 01:22:11.080
I think it's more of an emotional thing that secession and nullification just seem chaotic to people, or they are out of the mainstream.

782
01:22:11.080 --> 01:22:14.080
You know, so there's this thinking that, well, if only we could just...

783
01:22:14.080 --> 01:22:18.080
I think the Claremont people think that if only we could just enforce the Constitution

784
01:22:18.080 --> 01:22:22.080
and we could get people who believe in natural rights to be elected,

785
01:22:22.080 --> 01:22:25.080
then that would be the way of dealing with it.

786
01:22:25.080 --> 01:22:27.080
And I don't remember the name of the program,

787
01:22:27.080 --> 01:22:31.080
but I was on one of these sort of right-wingy radio shows a few months ago,

788
01:22:31.080 --> 01:22:34.080
and the whole thing ended up being this big, long argument about,

789
01:22:34.080 --> 01:22:36.080
do the states have a right to secede?

790
01:22:36.080 --> 01:22:38.080
And I absolutely insisted they did.

791
01:22:38.080 --> 01:22:43.080
And I said, look, you don't even have to want to secede to at least believe that they have a right to secede

792
01:22:43.080 --> 01:22:46.080
and that it can be a useful constraining force against the Federal Government.

793
01:22:46.080 --> 01:22:49.080
This guy said, well, that's just crazy, I could never believe that.

794
01:22:49.080 --> 01:22:55.080
And I said, well, what strategy do you propose for, you're going to have this Federal Government, how do you want to restrain it?

795
01:22:55.080 --> 01:23:01.080
And I kid you not, he said, well, you know, we just need to vote for good people.

796
01:23:01.080 --> 01:23:07.080
And so, since it was his show, and I felt like, you know, he's nice enough to have me on as a guest,

797
01:23:07.080 --> 01:23:11.080
I'm not going to be a wise guy or a jerk, but what I wanted to say was,

798
01:23:11.080 --> 01:23:15.080
how's that strategy been working out for you? Has that been working okay?

799
01:23:15.080 --> 01:23:19.080
Doesn't that answer itself? This hasn't worked, so let's keep trying it,

800
01:23:19.080 --> 01:23:24.080
and then see what happens. Or you're crazy to bring up nullification.

801
01:23:24.080 --> 01:23:28.080
When everything you've tried has not only not worked,

802
01:23:28.080 --> 01:23:33.080
but the situation has gotten worse exponentially,

803
01:23:33.080 --> 01:23:41.080
Maybe it's time to, you know, think of what other, what other things do we have in the American arsenal that we can pull out and use. That's my attitude.

804
01:23:41.080 --> 01:23:45.080
Okay. One and then two. Oh, yes, sir, you're the one.

805
01:23:45.080 --> 01:23:52.080
I'd just comment that something you said there reminded me that in the bicentennial up in Boston they were reenacting some things.

806
01:23:52.080 --> 01:23:56.080
They had all the colonial costumes and all like that.

807
01:23:56.080 --> 01:24:03.080
In the middle of the celebration, only the primers of the event knew this was going to happen.

808
01:24:03.080 --> 01:24:09.080
There was a big low-water explosion and smoke, and then when they spoke, of course, people scattered away from the dance floor.

809
01:24:09.080 --> 01:24:15.080
And when they spoke clear, there's a sudden message. King George III, he says,

810
01:24:15.080 --> 01:24:20.080
How do you like taxation with representation?

811
01:24:20.080 --> 01:24:50.080
Yeah, I know it. I know it. And I mean, that unfortunate phrase of no taxation without representation, you know, that it means that a lot of school kids think, you know, well, everything's fine today, then, you know, because we have, we have representation. So I'm handing over half my income. That's what we fought for, baby, you know, I wanted to give my consent to hand over half my income. Now we're fine. Oh, I know. That's why I always portray it as a, as a question

812
01:24:50.080 --> 01:24:56.080
The question of self-government. That's the way that taxation without representation, it was a subset of self-government.

813
01:24:56.080 --> 01:25:03.080
The colonies were arguing that they alone have the right to legislate for their own domestic affairs, including taxation.

814
01:25:03.080 --> 01:25:10.080
That was just one point, because otherwise, no taxation without representation gives them the totally wrong understanding of everything.

815
01:25:10.080 --> 01:25:19.080
Because then they totally don't understand the Whiskey Rebellion, 1794, when people refused to pay or rose up against tax collectors.

816
01:25:19.080 --> 01:25:26.080
I was wondering, in your opinion, what's the basis for the greater likelihood of abuse by a higher order of government. Is it because it's physically farther, because it's a bigger government, or because it's voting governments? What's the explanation for that?

817
01:25:49.080 --> 01:25:54.080
How can you provide a higher level of governance when it might be a peaceful one?

818
01:26:19.080 --> 01:26:28.080
If things are much worse than living in the US, which I like doing, I don't want to have to do that, then it's not as much of a constraint on them.

819
01:26:28.080 --> 01:26:40.080
My own theory, now this is not necessarily correct, but my own theory is that, although it's true, a lot of people use the state government as stepping stones so they could someday work in the federal government.

820
01:26:40.080 --> 01:26:48.080
But I sometimes think that if you're a really crazed ideologue, you want to be a congressman, a senator or the president.

821
01:26:48.080 --> 01:26:55.080
You don't want to be the district attorney for, you know, New Jersey or something.

822
01:26:55.080 --> 01:26:59.080
Well, I don't know, New Jersey would be better, but like Arkansas, you just wouldn't want to.

823
01:26:59.080 --> 01:27:04.080
You never would. By the way, I love Arkansas, a wonderful place, but you'd want to go for that.

824
01:27:04.080 --> 01:27:09.080
So, I mean, I think there are ideologues shot through government because of the very nature of it.

825
01:27:09.080 --> 01:27:19.080
But I think the real ideologues who want to run everybody's lives and force everybody into the same mold that Frederic Bastiat describes in the law, like everybody wants to...

826
01:27:19.080 --> 01:27:27.080
Rousseau and everybody, they all want to make us into one mold. You know, Arkansas is just small peanuts for them.

827
01:27:27.080 --> 01:27:32.080
They don't want to just sit on the school board, even though there are annoying people on your school board too.

828
01:27:32.080 --> 01:27:35.080
They want the whole thing. They want to run the whole thing.

829
01:27:35.080 --> 01:27:38.080
I didn't go to the John F. Kennedy School of Government

830
01:27:38.080 --> 01:27:42.080
so that I could be the treasurer of the state of Delaware.

831
01:27:42.080 --> 01:27:46.080
I think that the ones who are the most crazed

832
01:27:46.080 --> 01:27:50.080
tend to want the most power.

833
01:27:50.080 --> 01:27:53.080
I find that the more local the government is,

834
01:27:53.080 --> 01:27:56.080
it's still obnoxious and you can't deal with them,

835
01:27:56.080 --> 01:27:59.080
but you're more likely, I think, to meet a normal human being

836
01:27:59.080 --> 01:28:01.080
who's just got a dopey job,

837
01:28:01.080 --> 01:28:07.080
Whereas it's very hard to find anything but sheer evil and malice to me in Washington, D.C.

838
01:28:07.080 --> 01:28:13.080
This is just more of an anecdotal point on my part.

839
01:28:13.080 --> 01:28:21.080
So I think the worst ideologues tend to go right to the top where they can impose things on everybody else.

840
01:28:21.080 --> 01:28:25.080
Okay, well I think that's about it. So, thanks again.