I know we like to think our nation was
founded by political geniuses armed only with the best of intentions.
But the truth is, if the vast majority of the founding fathers were
to somehow magically reappear in today's political arena, they would
probably be most comfortable as members of the Klu Klux Klan –
being by current definition both sexists and white supremacists.
Under the first constitution for South Carolina (signed in 1778)
Catholics were not allowed to vote. Delaware's first constitution
denied the vote to Jews, and Maryland did not permit the sons of
Abraham to cast a ballot until 1828. And, of course, women and both
sexes of African-American descent either were or would shortly be
arrested if they tried to cast a ballot anywhere in America. But the
most fundamental bigotry in America was and is not racial or
religious. It is monetary. The most hated, despised and
disenfranchised group in America has always been anyone who was “not
rich”.
In ten of the 13 original United States
you had to own at least 50 acres of land or $250 in property before
you were judged qualified to vote. The official price for uncleared
land along the frontier was set at just ten cents an acre, but
usually sold in lots no smaller than a section of 640 acres. At the
same time the average yearly income for a laborer was about ninety
dollars (with the income level in slave states being even lower),
meaning a section would cost a middle class worker over 8 months
salary. Few working people could afford the investment. So the land
speculators stepped in. They had the cash, or the credit, to acquire
hundreds of sections of land at a time, survey, subdivide and resell
the property in plots down to five or ten acres each. It was a system
rife with legal and illegal fraud. And the speculators' profit margins
tripled or quadrupled the price per acre to the yeoman farmers who
usually borrowed to buy the land, often then went bankrupt, lost
their investment, and were forced to move even further west to try
again, still without the right to vote the legality of such monetary rules.
This explains why, forty years after
the revolution, only half a million out of the ten million Americans could qualify to vote, and why in 1824 less than 360,000 actually
cast a ballot. The debacle of 1825, when the “corrupt bargain”
was seen as reducing political office to a commodity, and the earlier
similar debacle in 1800, led to the realization that the first
objective of fair elections must be to keep the professional
politicians from screwing them up and dictating the outcome. That was
why, beginning in the new states beyond the Appalachian crest, the
wealth restrictions on voting were dropped. And slowly this
influenced the politics back in the original 13 colonies. Slowly.
On October 7, 1825, with John Quincy
Adams ensconced in the White House for less than 8 months, Senator
Andrew Jackson (above) rose in the Senate chamber. Nominally he was to
comment on a proposed constitutional amendment to prevent another
“corrupt bargain” from ever happening But, “I could not”,
Jackson assured his fellow politicians, “consent either to urge or
to encourage a change which might wear the appearance of being ...a
desire to advance my own views” (He meant unlike Henry Clay, and
President Adams, of course.) And reluctantly he added, “I hasten
therefore to tender this my resignation.” It wasn't that Jackson
was clearing his schedule for the upcoming 1828 rematch . No, he was
resigning so “my friends do not, and my enemies can not, charge me
with...degrading the trust reposed in me by intriguing for the
Presidential chair.” As he walked out of the Capital that
afternoon, it's a wonder his trousers did not burst into flames. The
proposed amendment was then quietly allowed to die.
On the same day, on the west fork of
the Stones river, meeting in St. Paul's Episcopal Church on East Vine
Street in Murfreesboro, Tennessee (where their capital had burned
down two years earlier), the state legislature unanimously nominated
Andrew Jackson to be the next President of the United States –
three years hence. What a happy coincidence of timing, with those two
events occurring over a thousand miles apart, and on the same day –
proof positive that no one could accuse Andrew “Jackass” of
“intriguing” to ride the wave of populism about to break over the
electoral college. And if any of you reading this are offended by
modern pundits theorizing about the next election almost before the
last one is completed, welcome to the brave new world of 1825
Of course, if you were looking for more
hard evidence of intrigue you might journey to the 9th Congressional
District of Virginia, tucked away in the south-western corner of the
Old Dominion. The two term representative for this last gasp of the
Shenandoah Valley and its encroaching mountains was a transplanted
Pennsylvanian, a graduate of William and Mary, and a
Crawford-Republican named Andrew Stevenson (above). Like many converts, the
dapper Stevenson was heavily financially and emotionally invested in
the peculiar institution of slavery, and savvy about the politics of
his adopted state. He had been the Speaker of the House of Burgess,
where he was considered a member of the “Richmond Junta” which
ran Virginia politics. So why would a member of the Richmond Junta
decide to join forces with a Yankee from the Albany Regency, to
support Andrew Jackson from Nashville, Tennessee, for President?
First, the south had something that New Yorker Martin Van Buren (above) wanted – electoral votes. The institution of
slavery was indeed peculiar because although those humans treated as
property had no rights, each slave did count as 3/5ths of a person
for determining congressional districts and electoral votes. After
the census of 1820 this gave the south 22 additional congressional
districts – and 22 additional electoral votes – which their white
population alone did not entitle them too. This was the deal with
Satan the founding fathers from New England had been forced to make
in order to form a “more perfect union.” Those 22 electoral votes
were more than enough to throw a close election in whatever direction
Van Buren wanted.
What Stevenson and other Southerners wanted was a guarantee
that the economy of the south would be protected from the growing power of the North. Practically,
this meant low tariffs. The slave states produced few of the machines that were
increasingly vital to modern life, largely because slaves were never allowed to
share in their master's profits, and thus had no incentive to invent or invest of themselves more than was required. Meanwhile, a little over two weeks after Jackson's resignation from the Senate, the Erie Canal officially opened, connecting the produce of Ohio to the markets of New York City. It was visible evidence of the economic giant the workers and consumers of the "Free States" were becoming. But in a nation without an income or
a sales tax, a tax levied on imported goods, or a tariff, was the
only way to support projects like the canal, or the national highway..
The Bank of the United States was a
vital part of the infrastructure which John Quincy Adams was
advocating. He believed projects such as the National Road and canals
connecting the great lakes with the Ohio and Mississippi rivers,
would unite the nation both physically and economically. What Adams
saw was government preforming the unprofitable investment in
infrastructure so that business could use it as a base for their future profits. But Stevenson and his ilk saw “Big Government”,
supported by tariffs, as a multi-head snake (above) designed primarily to choke off the South - and thus a threat to slavery. And they
were both right.
In 1831 (six years hence) a young
French official, Alexis de Tocqueville, journeyed to America to
observe the young nation's institutions and people. And in perhaps
his most famous passage he touched upon this central issue. “The
State of Ohio”, wrote de Tocquville,”is separated from Kentucky
just by one river; on either side of it the soil is equally fertile,
and the situation equally favorable, and yet everything is
different...(In Ohio the population is) devoured by feverish
activity, trying every means to make its fortune...There (in
Kentucky) are people who make others work for them...a people without
energy, mettle or the spirit of enterprise...These differences cannot
be attributed to any other cause but slavery. It degrades the black
population and... (saps the energy of) the white.”
So, a hundred years before the
Republican Party adopted its infamous “Southern strategy” to
convert segregationist “boil weevel” Democrats into a southern
Republican block. But Northern Democrats, at very the moment of their
party's birth, made a much more disgusting bargain – agreeing to protect real slavery
in all its foul existence, in exchange for gaining national power.
Jackson was a slave owner, and his
natural inclination would be to support slavery. He was opposed to
the national bank, and Adam's program of “big government”
investments. But was that because he saw them as a threat
to the South, or because he saw Adams as cheating him out of the
White House, and they were Adam's policies? Whatever his priorities
it is clear Jackson had no interest in the details of forming a
political party. His only interest was in winning over those who
“cheated” him. Forming the party that would carry him to victory could
be left to his loyal followers, men like Van Buren and Stevenson, who
were binding North and South together, Southern slave owning ruling
elite to Northern entrepreneurial ruling elite. That accommodation
would be the foundation of the new Democratic Party.
- 30 -
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your reaction.