Foreigners Who Served in the American Revolution

The American Revolution wasn't all about white male British subjects lifting up arms against the British Crown. In addition to women and African Americans whose contributions were indispensable, many foreigners cast their lot with the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army.

Roger Saunders, the Feature Writer-Columnist for American History at Suite101.com, wrote an excellent article on "Ten Foreign Men Who Played a Part in the American Revolution."

You can read the article by clicking here.

Why the Controversy Over Religion at the Inaugural?

Why the Controversy Over Religion at the Inauguration?
An Interview on "Bob Burney Live," WRFD, 880 AM, Columbus, OH (January 20, 2009)

The controversy over religion at the inauguration continues. That controversy ranges from the inclusion of "so help me God" at the end of the presidential oath to whether there should be prayers offered at the inaugural event.

Yesterday, I was interviewed by guest host David Stokes (sitting in for Bob Burney, host of "Bob Burney Live," a Columbus, Ohio based talk show). David Stokes is the pastor of Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia (and, as such, is my former pastor) and is also a radio talk show personality in his own right, serving as primary host for "David Stokes Live." You can read more about him at his website.

This was my very first radio interview, so it wasn't mistake-free on my part. At one point, I tried to say "high, thick wall of separation between God and government" and it came out -- well, it came out a mess. At another point, I asserted that Washington "requested" the Bible to be sworn in on at his inauguration. To be fair, I don't know that to be true. I meant to say that Washington "utilized" the Bible and jumbled it up with "a Bible was requested for Washington's inauguration."

Those errors (and a few jitters) aside, I thought the interview came out well. You can download it by clicking here.

Chief Justice Roberts and the Presidential Oath

You have to feel a little bad for Chief Justice John Roberts. The fumbling of the presidential oath between incoming President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts lies squarely on the shoulders of the Chief Justice.

Not only is it the Chief Justice's responsibility to lead the new President through the oath, but it's also his responsibility to correctly administer the oath.

And yet Chief Justice Roberts incorrectly prompted the new President. Things got off to an awkward start when the Chief Justice and the incoming President seemed to be talking at the same time, as the Chief Justice asked Obama if he was ready. And things didn't get any better after that.

The presidential oath includes the phrase "that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States," but Roberts stuck "faithfully" at the end of the sentence instead. It created an awkward moment for Obama and for the inaugural event itself.

Now, let's show a little grace here. Tens of millions of people were watching and it was the first inauguration for Roberts as Chief Justice. It was an unfortunate error, and it's one he probably feels terrible about.

I know I've made my share of mistakes. So far, though, none of them had tens of millions of people around the world watching. :-)

So WHAT if GW Didn't Say "So Help Me God"?

In a just a few days, Barack Obama will follow in the foot steps of previous Presidents from George W. Bush to George Washington and take the oath of office to become President of the United States. Will Obama say "so help me God"? There are many who hope he doesn't. And these same people claim that he shouldn't because (so they say) neither did George Washington.

What???? George Washington didn't say "so help me God"!?? That's their claim, and many of them are downright obsessed about it.

In addition to my writings here, I am a contributor to the blog American Creation, a group effort at discussing and debating the religious dimension to the origins of the United States.

One of the ongoing debates at American Creation is whether George Washington said "So Help Me God." A few AC contributors have become quite taken with this subject, increasingly believing that George Washington did NOT add "so help me God" at the end of his presidential oath. You can read up on the debate here and here.

And now Peter Henriquez, a George Mason University history professor, has added his two cents to the debate with an article titled "'So Help Me God': A George Washington Myth That Should be Discarded."

***See USA Today article: "No proof Washington Said 'So Help me God' - Will Obama?"***

Now, I'm the first to say that we should be honest in our portrayals of history, but I must admit a great deal of frustration at the agenda-driven nit-picking that's going on here.

Was George Washington a Man of Faith & Prayer?

Let's first understand what's really going on here. There's absolutely no question that George Washington sincerely and unequivocally believed in God and prayer. Any historian that questions this no longer deserves to be called a historian.

What's more, it's obvious to anyone with the slightest shred of objectivity and the barest knowledge of early American history that George Washington repeatedly called on the American people to ALSO believe in God and practice prayer.

One only needs to read Washington's circular letter to the states (after his resignation as General-in-Chief in the American Revolution), his First Inaugural Address, his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, and his Farewell Address to see the man's sincere faith in Providence and prayer.

If Washington had been an atheist or agnostic and religiously-motivated people had crafted a "so help me God" myth to make him into something he wasn't, THEN I would be much more sympathetic to this new revisionist effort. But, this is not the case. What we're dealing with here is the proverbial equivalent of a dispute over whether a lion can run 50 or 55 mph.

So, these claims that Washington didn't say "so help me God" at the first presidential oath are NOT driven by any desire to 'set the record straight' concerning Washington's religious faith.

Did Washington Ask for God's Help?

The next angle these revisionists take is that having "so help me God" as an official part of the presidential oath violates the Constitution -- and saying Washington added the words undercuts the Constitution.

First of all....let's get the history straight here. George Washington not only asked God for help at his inauguration, but he also asked the American people to pray for the nation and turn toward God with obedient hearts! Don't believe me? Read Washington's First Inaugural Address for yourself.

Even if George Washington didn't formally add "so help me God" to the oath, he most certainly expressed that very sentiment in his Inaugural Address...

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

Hmmmmmmmm....sounds kind of like Washington was asking for God's help. At least, that's how it sounded to me. And that's how it would sound to just about anyone, unless the person doesn't WANT Washington to believe in God.

Oh, and did you catch that first sentence and its implication? In case, you didn't, read it again....slowly....

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe..."

Now, what does Washington mean by "first official act"? Is he JUST talking about his Inaugural Address? Or is he perhaps talking about the overall inaugural ceremony? Call it a stretch, but isn't the OATH of office at least PART of an incoming President's first official act?

And this leads me to my last point....

The Cynic's Guide to Oral Tradition

It's true that we have no DIRECT evidence (in terms of sworn eyewitness accounts and such) that George Washington actually said "so help me God" at the end of his oath. We DO have INDIRECT evidence of this -- not the least of which would be decades of generally accepted historical tradition.

Herein lies a concern....we have become so cynical in our review and examination of past events that we sometimes (especially in matters of religion, it would seem) DEMAND - that's right, DEMAND! - absolute, 100%, scientifically-verifiable PROOF of something, before we believe it.

If that's going to be our standard, what happens to history? In fact, what happens to oral history? I'll tell you what happens....it's gone!

Why apply this standard if it's not necessary? And, if you're GOING to apply it, then be consistent -- and apply it to every area and across the board! And watch what happens to the study of history as a result.

The bottom line here is that no one can 100% prove (one way or the other) whether George Washington said "so help me God" at the end of his presidential oath. But we DO know that there is a historical tradition (dating back to the 1800s) that says he did. And....we know that saying "so help me God" was customary in western traditions. And...most importantly...that the phrase characterizes Washington's attitude toward Providence and faith.

This isn't really about whether Washington said "so help me God." This is really about atheists, agnostics, and other like-minded activists bitterly wanting to drive God and any reference to God out of the public square. THAT is what this is about.

Thankfully, President-elect Barack Obama isn't playing ball with that agenda. He has put a stop to some of this foolishness for now, by formally asking the Supreme Court Chief Justice to add "so help me God" to the oath.

Take the Quiz!

How Were Women Treated in Early America?

How were women treated in colonial America? How should the nation today evaluate the legacy of the Founding Fathers, when it comes to women? Can American women take a measure of pride in their nation's heritage?

I tackle these (and other) questions in an article published at Suite101 American History titled: "How Were Women Treated in Early America?" I hope you'll check it out by clicking here.

Originalism v. Activism

Happy New Year to all my readers! I'd like to kick off 2009 on this blog by posting on the issue of constitutional interpretation.

"Originalism" -- "Strict Construction" -- "Original Intent" -- These buzz words stir enormous controversy in political, cultural, and legal circles. The vast majority of law schools teach an interpretative approach more in keeping with judicial activism (though tempered by precedent to varying degrees). Most judges on the bench likewise reflect an activist approach, albeit some are more activist than others. This all begs the question...


How should judges interpret the Constitution or any law for that matter?


The following is a discussion on the issue, featuring two Supreme Court Justices. One is Stephen Breyer, a man rightly regarded as a judicial activist and Antonin Scalia, who champions strict constructionism.







While it's true that the authors of our oldest laws (such as the Constitution) couldn't foresee everything and while there were disagreements even among the original authors, it is very hard to escape Scalia's logic that a judicial branch not grounded in the language and original meaning of the laws it interprets makes the judiciary a policy-making branch of government.

Happy Trenton Day!

In addition to wishing my readers a very Merry Christmas, I also want to join blogger Brad Hart in extending a warm "Happy Trenton Day" greeting as well.

Christmas Night 1776 was perhaps the most important night of the American Revolution. While Saratoga is considered the major "turning point" of the American Revolution, there perhaps would not have been a Saratoga at all, were it not for Trenton.

General Washington literally breathed new life into the Revolution with his victory over the Hessians at Trenton on the morning of December 26, 1776 (after an audacious crossing of the frozen Delaware and bitterly cold march the night of December 25). Without that victory, the American Revolution may well have fizzled in the winter months of 1776-77.

For more on this, read Brad Hart's excellent article: "Don't Forget Trenton!"

Richard Dreyfuss Talks Civics

According to actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss, the American people are losing their ability to think and their interest in careful, thoughtful discourse. Because of that, the window of potential for our nation - for civilization itself perhaps - is closing.

Here is an interview with Richard Dreyfuss from the Mike Huckabee Show. The interview aired a week before the recent presidential election...



And here's a panel discussion with Dreyfuss on the same subject...

Revolutionary War Veterans Not Embraced Like Today

Say what you will about the America's faults, but our nation has learned to appreciate and embrace our veterans. While there's still more we could do, and while our nation still makes mistakes, we generally embrace and appreciate our veterans today. Sadly, this was not the case so much after the Revolutionary War.

Revolutionary War veterans were discharged from their service with little to no tangible guarantee of pay. In fact, during the war, the Continental Army was routinely ill-paid and ill-equipped. Bitterness and unrest over poor conditions led to serious problems, even a few uprisings, in the ranks.

There were many reasons for the young nation's failure to adequately care for its Revolutionary War veterans, but the two leading culprits were:

1. An Economy is Disarray
2. A Weak Central Government

Both of these problems would, in time, be addressed. But they were addressed too late for many war veterans.

For more on the Continental Army and our Revolutionary War veterans, read Veterans: Revolutionary War from Answers.com and check out these Amazon resources...

Myths About the Founding

Was the 3/5ths Compromise crafted by racist slaveowners in an effort to dehumanize African Americans? Was the Constitution inspired by the Iroquois? Many Americans today would answer "yes" to both of these questions, due to the "politically correct" revisionist history we've seen since the mid-20th century.

The facts are far different, as Dinesh D'Souza points out in an excellent op-ed titled "Myths About the Founding." I hope you'll read it.

D'Souza correctly argues that the Founders deserve great credit for "a constitution that enshrined the noble principles of liberty and equality under the law."

Check out D'Souza's article (see link above) and, if you get a chance, pick up a copy of his uncompromising What's So Great About America?

History in the Hands of "The Dumbest Generation"

Teenagers and young adults today make up the "Dumbest Generation" in American history, according to author Mark Bauerlein. Bauerlein is the author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30).

Controversial and provocative he may be, but Bauerlein makes some very good (and troubling) points in this interview....



If you're a fan of history like myself, you've got to be troubled by the fact that history's memory is in the hands of this next generation.

**Editor's Disclaimer: As a former high school history teacher, I can say that there are EXCEPTIONS to what Mr. Bauerlein is saying. Some teenagers are very sharp and motivated. But, as a whole, this rising generation represents a crisis for America.

***************

Think the 2008 Election was Nasty?

Well, the 2008 presidential election is over. While it seemed longer than most, I'm not sure it was any nastier. Past presidential elections were far nastier, says Heather Whipps, writing for LiveScience.com.

In her article, Whipps points out (correctly) that the 1800 presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams made the McCain-Obama contest look like a Girl Scout cookie sale competition. She writes that the duo "traded slurs that would put today's genteel candidates to shame."

You can read the complete article here.

For my thoughts on Obama's historic victory, click here and here.

Columbus Day - Should it Stay or Should it Go???

Perhaps the most controversial holiday on our calendars, Columbus Day was officially created by Congress in 1971 (but celebrated by many states and by presidential proclamations since 1892).

The day honors Christopher Columbus, the man who best publicized the discovery of the New World to the old one, on the date (October 12) that Columbus' crew first sighted land.

The legacy of Columbus is a hotly debated subject. Over at American Creation (a very comprehensive group blog on the American founding), Brad Hart poses the question: "Should We Celebrate Columbus Day?"

"Yes!" says David Sprecace, writing last year in a Denver Post op-ed titled "Columbus Should be Celebrated." Sprecace argues that "Columbus possessed admirable qualities, of which all Americans can be proud." He explains:

Even by his detractors, he is seen as a skilled sea captain of the highest order. He challenged the conventional thought that the Earth was flat, seeking to "reach the east by going west," an idea to which the scientists of the day were forcibly opposed. He challenged the Aristotelian philosophy of science that had guided scientists for centuries in favor of the newer philosophy of science that placed observation in a primary role of analysis. He supported the heliocentric concept of the solar system with Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler before it became known by that name. In capitalistic spirit (admirable in the eyes of most Americans), he sought glory, wealth and a title of nobility by opening new trade routes to China and Japan.

Sprecace sidesteps Columbus' atrocities, saying that the Italian explorer (who actually sailed for Spain) has become a "scapegoat for perceived European sins."

These "perceived European sins," however are a wee-bit more than perceptions, and were regarded as rather serious by some of Columbus' own contemporaries.

The Court of Spain appointed Francisco de Bobadilla to review and oversee the situation in the Indies. From 1500 through 1502, Bobadilla conducted a rather thorough investigation of Columbus' work as viceroy and governor, and his report resulted in Columbus being returned to Spain in chains and briefly imprisoned. Though Columbus would have his freedom restored, he was forever stripped of his authority. His reputation, during his lifetime, would never recover.

But, in the centuries following his death, his reputation was revived, with the focus being on his courage and achievements as an explorer - his brutality largely forgotten. Until recently.

In the last couple of decades, a renewed spotlight on Columbus' record has called the appropriateness of "Columbus Day" into question.

In the opinion of THIS author, the full record of Christopher Columbus should be acknowledged. And while the discovery of the New World is, in my opinion, worthy of a national holiday, the brutality practiced by Columbus while governor in the Indies, is most certainly NOT.

Captain Kirk on the US Preamble

This is possibly one of the corniest episodes of "Star Trek," and there were quite a few corny episodes. :-) But if you want to hear Captain James T. Kirk recite the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and explain its meaning to the inhabitants of a distant planet, well then....here's the clip for you.



Yes, it's corny and campy, but it's "Star Trek." What do you expect?

Weren't the Founding Fathers "Community Organizers"?

The recent Republican National Convention took some shots at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's experience as a "community organizer." In particular, Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin slammed Obama's experience, while defending her own qualifications to be Vice President (and possibly President). Here is that excerpt:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.

And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities.

In other words, Palin's experience as smalltown mayor counts as experience much more than Obama's time as a "community organizer." Yet hold on a moment. What does that say about some of our past leaders?

Well, Bonnie Fuller, writing in The Huffington Post, has accused Palin of "dissing" Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and our Founding Fathers. Fuller writes:

Has anyone just stopped for a second to reflect on the fact that Sarah didn't just diss Barack Obama, Rosa Parks and the thousands of other community organizers when she derided the Democratic presidential nominee's experience?

Hello! How about the founding fathers. I watched those guys portrayed in the recent and excellent HBO series, John Adams. It sure looked to me like the American Revolution began with a whole lot of grassroots community organizing done by dedicated private individuals focused on trying to build a better political system to benefit their fellow members of the Thirteen Colonies.

Whether Barack Obama's experience as an Illinois community organizer counts as worthy experience for his presidential resume is beyond the purview of this blog. I write on the American Revolution era, after all. If you want my political views, go to my personal blog. But...

I do want to address whether Fuller is correct about Palin's remarks...

Did Sarah Palin inadvertently discredit our Founding Fathers?

Just to clarify...Palin made these comments in response to her own experience and qualifications being attacked by the Democrats and some in the media. So, she was speaking on the defensive. What's more, Palin isn't saying that it's bad to be a community organizer. She's simply arguing that it's not executive experience, and that it therefore shouldn't be held up as a qualifier for the presidency.

Okay, that's what she's saying. Would the Founders agree?

First, I think it's a mistake for the Republicans to emphasize "executive experience" instead of "leadership experience." By emphasizing the former, the Republicans are putting a prerequisite on the office that the Founding Fathers did not. Not to mention that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than John McCain, which was on my mind the whole time during the Republican National Convention. If "executive experience" is the ultimate qualifier for the presidency, then Sarah Palin is more qualified than John McCain. Is that the message that the Republicans want to convey?

If not "executive experience," what did the Founders expect in a President?

The answer is LEADERSHIP experience. With this in mind, legislative experience, military experience, and (yes) community-organizing experience (on a proportionately large scale) CAN qualify someone for the highest office of the land.

For example, George Washington demonstrated his leadersip experience and qualifications during the American Revolution. Prior to that, he was a Virginia legislator, plantation owner and business man, and hero of the French and Indian War. After the Revolution, he presided over the Constitutional Convention - a parliamentary role, but a critical one. No one questioned Washington's experience, because he hadn't been a governor.

John Adams didn't even have military experience to fall back on. And like Washington, Adams had no experience as a governor. He was a legislator and (yes) a community organizer. He was also an ambassador.

I could go on. In terms of founding era qualifications, it seems that the American people expected their Presidents to be proven leaders.

This is the way Americans today should evaluate the presidential candidates. Does Sarah Palin's experience as mayor and governor qualify? Sure it does.

And then there's John McCain. His only "executive experience" was as commander of an air squadron. This is hardly at the level of George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, or other military figures who took the White House. But few question McCain's qualifications to be President. Why? Because McCain has demonstrated leadership experience during his time in the US Senate.

What about Barack Obama's community organizing experience? Well, by itself, probably not. But is it a good start? Definitely. And if someone takes their experience as a community organizer and then builds on that to become a national leader, then that's something worth looking at. And I think that's where Obama is right now. Whether he'll make an effective President remains to be seen, but he has positioned himself as a national leader. That much is certain.

This post isn't intended to take sides in any kind of partisan way. The truth is that all four of the top contenders for President and Vice President have demonstrated leadership experience, and this is how we should evaluate them, when we make our choice in November.

Fife & Drum Demonstration at Williamsburg

Take a few moments to enjoy a Fife & Drum Corps. performance at beautiful Colonial Williamsburg....

John Paul Jones and the Raid on Whitehaven

John Paul Jones was America's most celebrated naval hero in the Revolutionary War. This video from YouTube talks about Jones' raid on Whitehaven...

The Six-Star General

The highest ranking general in the United States Army is.....dead. Only one person holds the rank, and he is no longer alive - and hasn't been for quite some time. But the rank is official. No one alive has ever held the rank at the time of his (or her) service. And this will probably never change. What am I talking about????

Well, the highest possible rank in the US Army is "General of the Armies of the United States," a rank considered in the 1950s for retired (but still living) five-star General Douglas MacArthur. Had the idea gone through, MacArthur would've received a sixth star! For various complications, MacArthur declined the promotion, and the proposal was scuttled.

But, in the 1970s, the proposal was revived - not for MacArthur (who died in the 1960s), but for a general who died at the close of the 1700s! You guessed it...


George Washington


During the American Revolution, Washington was titled "General and Commander in Chief" and held the equivalent rank of a Major General (who wears two stars). When the Quasi-War with France erupted, President John Adams named Washington as the commander of a newly formed American army - to protect the nation in case of a French invasion (which never came). Washington was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General (a three-star position).

Washington died in 1799, but no one outranked him, until World War I. In that conflict, John J. Pershing was given a fourth star. And in World War II, several leaders were given a fifth star - including Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and George Marshall.

In the 1970s, Congress appropriately moved to remedy this situation. No one, they reasoned (correctly - in my opinion) should ever outrank America's FIRST general. So, they created the position of "General of the Armies of the United States" - a six star general rank. And they posthumously promoted George Washington to the position.

To this day, George Washington is the only person in US history to ever hold this rank. And he, of course, only holds it in death.

Will we ever have a LIVING six-star general? Probably not. And if we do, will they give George Washington a seventh star? :-)

Alexander Hamilton's Anglo-American Vision

Alexander Hamilton and his Vision of an Anglo-American World

For most of the 20th century, the world looked the way Alexander Hamilton would have wanted it to look. The United States, supported effectively and solidly by Great Britain, led the free world. Indeed, the Anglo-American friendship of the United States and the British Empire (later Commonwealth) dominated much of western culture, policy, and trade from the mid-1800s through the end of the 20th century.

The collapse of the Soviet Empire in the late 1980s and early 90s, which ended the Cold War, set in motion a "New World Order" - a multilateral world, in which the rules of economy, warfare, and culture began to rapidly change. And in the midst of this "New World Order," Europe has increasingly reorganized itself as a cautious friend and indirect economic competitor with the United States.

What's more, Asia (particularly India and China) has emerged as a mammoth presence on the international scene, threatening to overwhelm the Anglo-American order Mr. Hamilton would have loved. This all, of course, doesn't even begin to address the fact that nations such as Russia have reasserted themselves into the mix.

Where does all this leave us? And what would Alexander Hamilton have thought? And what would he do about it, were he on the scene today?

Hamilton's America

Let there be no mistake. Thomas Jefferson fought Hamilton's economic policies, during President Washington's administration, but Hamilton won the war.



It's true that results were a little more clouded in the short term. Hamilton got the National Bank (later defeated by Jefferson admirer Andrew Jackson) and the assumption of state debts, but Jefferson won the hearts of the South and the West. Hamilton's immediate popularity and influence receded, while Jefferson's climbed -- all the way to two terms as the President.

Indeed, Alexander Hamilton thoroughly self-destructed in a series of ethical and egotistical missteps that cost him his prestige, split the Federalist Party, and helped defeat John Adams in the election of 1800. Not only that, but Hamilton's personal rivalries (especially with one Aaron Burr) would cost him his life.

In spite of Hamilton's political demise, he was indisputably successful in the long term. Like William Jennings Bryan, the three-time (and always unsuccessful) presidential candidate of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Hamilton's mark was made more in social and legislative change than in electoral success.

For example, Hamilton got his national bank, and though it was ended by President Jackson, it lives on - at least partially - in the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so on. In addition, Hamilton wanted a flexible "construction" (i.e., interpretation) of the U.S. Constitution. He got it. Even Jefferson, the super strict constructionist, became a practical loose constructionist, when Napoleon sold him Lousiana. (Of course, not even Hamilton would be pleased with the extreme 'loose constructionism' we see today).





Hamilton had a vision, and it was straightforward. He wanted to make the United States an economic power-house. Hamilton understood the economic strength translates into military power, national security, and international influence. To that end, he set himself upon the task of rebuilding (really, building) America's economy after the Revolutionary War and reestablishing (really, establishing) America's international credit.

Lewis Lehrman of the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History writes:

No one who has read carefully into the history of state and congressional legislative irresponsibility, and studied the catastrophic inflation of the era of the Articles of Confederation, can fail to be astonished by the economic prosperity set off by the Hamiltonian economic plan of the new republic.

But fashioning a strong American economy depended ultimately, Hamilton realized, on several key decisions. Among them was a commitment to free market capitalism and a strong trading relationship with Great Britain. Each of these policies rankled the Jeffersonians, especially the one about Britain. For the Jeffersonians, an economic friendship with Britain was tantamount to betraying the French and undermining what the American Revolution was about (namely independence from Great Britain).

But as Lehrman explains:

The first Secretary of the Treasury thought Anglo-American entente indispensable to protect our vital commercial interests, not to mention his respect for the centrality of the hegemonic British navy, which, after 1815, insulated the young nation from the threat of entanglements and dismemberment by the competing great powers of Europe.

The United States effectively pursued a policy of neutrality (which was, off and on, a default preference in trade for Britain) until the War of 1812. After the War of 1812, the U.S. and Britain each recognized that further violence was futile and counter-productive. In the decades ahead, they would forge a friendship that Hamilton would've welcomed.

The Anglo-American Modern World

During the 1800s, the Anglo-American alliance was loose, but effective where it needed to be. Britain and the U.S. both agreed that a Latin America, free of French and Spanish influence, was in their best interests. Thus, the Monroe Doctrine, articulated by the Americans, was enforced by the British navy.

In the 20th century, the Anglo-American friendship was much more formalized, with other nations, such as France, eventually joining in. By the mid-20th century, the United States and Britain led the western world (with the US assuming the primary leading influence).

Author Walter Russell Means explores the role of America and Britain in the 20th century with his book God and Gold: Britain and America and the Making of the Modern World.



You can read a Claremont Institute review of God and God by clicking here.

What about China, India, and the "Decline" of Anglo-American Dominance?

Asia is rapidly emerging, especially the nations of China and India. Would Alexander Hamilton be alarmed? Should we be?

Not according to commentator John Stossel. In a Townhall.com opinion piece, Stossel writes:

It is certainly true that China's economy is expanding dramatically -- 10 percent last year. The Chinese build factories like crazy to pump out the inexpensive exports we Americans love to buy. To do that, Chinese producers have to purchase oil, steel and lots of other commodities. The new demand drives prices up.

And as the Chinese and other people get richer, they improve their diets and eat more meat, putting pressure on world food prices.

So media handwringers suggest we should worry about the poor becoming rich.

Actually, we shouldn't. It would be a sad world if one person's economic success depended on another's failure?

Hamilton would probably agree with Stossel's economic idealism, but if we were to take a cold, Machiavellian look at the picture, we would be tempted to say: "Yeah, but this is Business." In other words, the United States (looking at it like Machiavelli would) is a "Business" - and it's a business losing ground to China and India. Right?

In fact, it's also losing ground to Britain. A report commissioned by New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg shows that New York could be supplanted by London as the world's preferred financial center. This would not be good for the American economy, though it would certainly help the British. But this is a subject for a different article.

The truth is that a Hamiltonian America has little to fear from Indian and Chinese prosperity. Why? Because a Hamiltonian America is a capitalist America fully committed to commerce, industry, technology, and opportunity. And such an America sees a rising China and India as new opportunities -- not as threats.

It's a Jeffersonian America that sees China and India as a threat. Some of my conservative friends will be offended by this, pointing out that Jefferson favored smaller government, states' rights, and so forth. This is only partly true (though it's mythically popular). Again, too much for this article. Look for a future analysis of Jeffersonian ideals. For now, by "Jeffersonian America," I refer to those Americans frustrated with a changing social order and who are suspicious of Big Business and "greedy" investors.

First, liberal economic policies, which include minimum wage laws, onerous regulations, and high taxes are partly to blame for all this. These are among the reasons why so many jobs have been shipped overseas and why American manufacturing has lost its position of dominance. But....

All is not lost. The United States can still continue as a major force in technology, information, investment, and trade - if, that is, the politicians don't mess things up.

George Mason University economics professor Alexander Tabarrok explains: "As India, China and other countries become wealthier, companies will increase their worldwide R&D investments." Tabarrok cites "pharmaceuticals, new computer chips, software and chemicals" as examples of R&D expenditures.

"Most importantly," says Tabarrok, "as markets expand, companies and countries will put to work the greatest asset of all for the betterment of mankind: brain power."

Stossel concedes that, in the short term, "richer Chinese and Indians bid up the prices of things." But, he cautions, that's just "the beginning of the story," since "increased demand and higher prices create opportunities for entrepreneurs." That means, if we're ready, American entrepreneurs.

As Tabarrok and Stossel see it (and as Hamilton would certainly have seen it), a more prosperous Asia is good for America -- if (and it's a big 'if') the United States is allowed to take advantage of these expanding markets and opportunities.

****************

The Hamilton image is courtesy of...