Replies

Interesting that this excellent post appears on the same day in which, on another thread, my post appears of parts of John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address--those parts addressing the Constitution's incorporation of the ideas of both "democracy" and "republic"--are treated by him.

Perhaps his tracing of American history through the first 50 years under the Constitution--done by invitation of the New York Historical Society--may be a subject for the future here.

Thanks for this!

One other thought: you refer to Bryan's observations about the necessity of "virtue" in a Republic. JQA's "Jubilee" contains a fairly lengthy discussion of that idea also, which those who are reading Bryan might want to peruse.

In your commentary on that, you include this comment: "Harry Truman, in his homey Missouri way, once made the point that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat on his country."

Samuel Adams commented on both the idea of "virtue among the people" and the relationship between private and public "virtue" in this manner:

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." - Essay in the Public Advertiser, 1749

"He who is void of virtuous Attachments in private Life, is, or very soon will be void of all Regard for his Country. There is seldom an Instance of a Man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the Feeling of moral Obligations in his private Connections." - Letter to James Warren, November 4, 1775

Fascinating. The verses I noted (for myself for my further review as I was reading them) are different from the ones you have cited...yet the questions you have raised from the verses you cited are very legitimate.

My 1st thought (not being knowledgeable about Bryan) is that I like this thinker.

Kudos for your tremendous effort, Publius. (/to work)

BUMP-TO-THE-TOP!

Is there room for elites in American governance, and why or why not? Is there truly a certain native wisdom resident in the People, and why or why not?

My problem with (self-appointed) elites in government is that they often seem to have a theoretical understanding of the needs of the "little people". I heard the point made, I believe by John Stossel, that it is impossible for anyone to know what the needs of all the citizens are because there are simply too many perspectives. This was an argument for maintaining a limited government as a means to protect the "native wisdom" of the population. While it may start a larger argument, this notion goes to the concept of "legislating morality" that our side often falls into.

I believe this also goes to the point of the government closest to the people being the most representative and the government furthest away being the least. "the country", "the State" and "Washington" being the author's definitions.

On a side note... and you may have covered this already... are the italicized portions of the text YOUR italics or the author's?

He writes of "exclusion by rotation". Is this term limits, or possibly my preference for disallowing consecutive terms?

His answer is a group of small republics united in the sphere of foreign relations. To what extent was he right? Is he right today, with a much larger country?

I think he was dead on. I much prefer government to be localized because I like the competition aspect, and IMO there is more liberty. But it seems to me Bryan was not looking at what he would prefer, but what would not dissolve into despotism. Many may argue that the limiting factor was speed of communication, and therefore the situation is much different today, but I believe the inherent problem with large government is that it separates the legislators from the citizens to a great extent. Chances are very good that my senators will NEVER even meet me. I'm not saying we need to shoot pool every Friday night, but there should at least be a chance that we might encounter each other.

Is despotism inevitable, and why or why not?

No, but darn close. There are those that will struggle endlessly for it. I happen to be of the opinion that it will take something big (near revolution or major economic depression) to bring about a return to the love of liberty. Unfortunately, in the two biggest examples we have seen so far we have moved in exactly the wrong direction.

My list of verses largely comports with yours and I look forward to further discussion of these.

My impression of Mr. Bryan is that he, very strongly, embodies what was communicated by the quote below.

“It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government.”

Mercy Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, 1805

Wow! That's quite an opening salvo! A good choice of essay with which to begin the study.

But Bryan grates on the modern ear with his statement that a successful republic would also require that property be fairly equally distributed. How would Bryan see today’s America with its disparities of wealth, some created by merit and others by government?

I read Bryan as saying, not that property ought to be RE-distributed, but merely that a fairly equal distribution of property is a necessary precondition for free government to flourish. In other words, upon seeing vast disparities of property in a nation, he would not be optimistic that a republic could thrive there.

Does this justify the abridgment of property rights? Well, "yes" in certain circumstance; but "no" in most. In ours, I think not, since the acquisition of property is a freedom open to all citizens. (The moneyed powers in America certainly seem to have influenced the laws in their favor, however; so that "no" may in time be changed to a "yes".)

Property equates to a stake in the community. In this regard, the more widespread its possession, the better. (I'm reminded of the Chesterton-Belloc idea of "distributism", based philosophically on the Israelitish distribution of land in Canaan.) Unfortunately, our recent experiment with property gifts (i.e. unwarranted mortgages) was an abysmal failure, and reminds us that some people are rather limited in what they can contribute to our nation, and as such ought to be excluded from our political affairs. As has been well-noted, there are, after all, limits to democracy.

If virtue and a wide distribution of property are conditions essential to a free republic, then free republics depend entirely on the people, since virtue cannot be coerced, and confiscation of property in the name of "freedom" is an oxymoron. A form of government can aid or hinder us, of course; but our freedom depends ultimately upon us.

“25 Mr. Adams’ sine qua non of a good government is three balancing powers whose repelling qualities are to produce an equilibrium of interests and thereby promote the happiness of the whole community.

26 He asserts that the administrators of every government will ever be actuated by views of private interest and ambition to the prejudice of the public good; that therefore the only effectual method to secure the rights of the people and promote their welfare is to create an opposition of interests between the members of two distinct bodies in the exercise of the powers of government and balanced by those of a third.

27 This hypothesis supposes human wisdom competent to the task of instituting three coequal orders in government and a corresponding weight in the community to enable them respectively to exercise their several parts, and whose views and interests should be so distinct as to prevent a coalition of any two of them for the destruction of the third.

28 Mr. Adams, although he has traced the constitution of every form of government that ever existed, as far as history affords materials, has not been able to adduce a single instance of such a government; he indeed says that the British Constitution is such in theory, but this is rather a confirmation that his principles are chimerical and not to be reduced to practice.

29 If such an organization of power were practicable, how long would it continue?

30 Not a day, for there is so great a disparity in the talents, wisdom and industry of mankind that the scale would presently preponderate to one or the other body, and with every accession of power the means of further increase would be greatly extended.”

That is a very insightful statement on the part of Mr. Bryan and one which has been proven true as a practical matter.

•In Verses 16 and 17, Bryan doesn’t believe that a man’s opinion should be trusted just because of his abilities. / Hamilton was no doubt horrified by Bryan’s statement, but even Jefferson would have had his doubts. Is there room for elites in American governance, and why or why not?

The word junto is used (Verse 74 "would either become the head of the aristocratic junto in that body or its minion") and refers to an exclusive club started by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia around 1727.All members lived in Philadelphia and came from diverse areas of interest and business.

Given that the Authors Father was a political figure who enjoyed support from the rural areas of Pennsylvania and more of a contemporary of Benjamin Franklin than the Author himself, the seemingly casual insertion of the word may indicate a negative view of the original Pennsylvania Good Old Boys Club?

A good source of information about the Father of the Author of discussion may be found here . There was speculation that the Father was Centinel but was later found not to be. I'm sure that the influence and reputation of his Father was great and gave great weight to his arguments.

There had been much contention between the rural/frontier areas of Pennsylvania and the urban/Philadelphia powers. Unlike today, those in power had a real fear that an angry mounted mob would take time out of their pioneering endeavors to 'run the rascals out' and in fact it had happened previously. Samuel Bryan must have been aware of the disdain the phrase 'aristocratic junto' would evoke in those outside of Philadelphia.

As to the question 'Is there room for elites in American governance' I contend that, yes, there is room for elites. Any other response would point to an elitism itself.

A BTT for the evening crowd. As this proceeds we are going to try to trace some of the origins of the ideas that informed these debaters. It didn't happen in a vacuum - Bryan mentions, for example, Montesquieu, and we have to consider Locke as well as such contemporaries as Rousseau, Voltaire, Hume, and Burke. We will, as well, attempt to link events chronologically with those of the French Revolution and contrast the two histories. One of these conflicts ended up in an enduring Republic, the other in a new despotism under Napoleon. Many of the reasons for this reside in the debates we are about to examine.

Others reside in where the two upheavals started. We have already seen a hint of the class struggles that were about to send Paris into flames, whose seeds many of the Founders recognized in the New World. Did they avoid them, reconcile them, or merely delay a reckoning?

Well, all right then, the battle is joined.

In Verse 47, Bryan says, “The Congress may construe every purpose for which the state legislatures now lay taxes to be for the general welfare and thereby seize upon every object of revenue.” This line has echoed through American history for two centuries. To what extent was he anticipating the direct taxation that even then was forbidden by the Constitution? Was he anticipating that power would accrete to the center over time, and why or why not?

This verse really resonated with me. I can't tell you how many people I have talked to who seize upon the "general welfare" phrase to open up the floodgates to federal power and taxation. I believe that he was fearful of a government of elites gradually taking over and using such loose phrases as this as the justification for doing so. And he appears to have been correct.

In Verses 57 and 58, Bryan argues that America may be too large for the kind of government envisioned in the Constitution. His answer is a group of small republics united in the sphere of foreign relations. To what extent was he right? Is he right today, with a much larger country? Is despotism inevitable, and why or why not?

I believe that America is NOT too large for the kind of government envisioned in the Constitution, but we don't really have that today, do we? I wonder if we wouldn't be better served today by a group of 5-6 individual republics united by a common currency and foreign relations, but charting their own way in other areas. My first choice would be a return to the original constitution and away from "case law" as the basis for our judicial decisions. However, there are some advantages to this idea, not least of which is greater local control of all issues. Do you think something better would have been done about illegal immigration if it was dealt with by a government closer to the people of the Southwest as a separate republic?

In Verses 16 and 17, Bryan doesn’t believe that a man’s opinion should be trusted just because of his abilities. One would imagine his horror at the opinions of actors being taken seriously! His stance is reminiscent of William Buckley’s famous statement that he would rather be governed by the first one hundred people in the New York telephone directory than by the entire faculty of Harvard. Hamilton was no doubt horrified by Bryan’s statement, but even Jefferson would have had his doubts. Is there room for elites in American governance, and why or why not? Is there truly a certain native wisdom resident in the People, and why or why not?

Is there room for elites in American governance, and why or why not? I suspect that the elites of their time were well educated in history and well tempered by their own religion. These men holding this debate were of all walks of life, some even were "elites" at their time. I think the difference between then and now is a matter of what set their understanding of the Natural Law and the principals that guided them.

The elites of today are schooled, coached in perverted histories and discouraged from embracing any form of religious upbringing or beliefs. They are taught, learn well how to circumvent the law, misinterpret the Constitution with the magic of empty rhetoric. They do this without the least glimmer of a conscience.

It is this observation, of the elite ruling culture of modern times, that causes me to often doubt our current endeavors to restore our Constitution.

Verse 16 and 17..native wisdom or “common sense” does tend to reside with the people.

See Daniel Boone and how he was taken to task by a constituent regarding the government getting involved in settling money upon a man who had died in service of his country.

According to Boone, while it was a worthy and noble cause, it was not the proper place of government to do such.

How many times have so called “experts” said one thing, then, 10 years later, after further study, reversed themselves?

It looks to me like Bryan has no problem with elites being in government, but, he understood having a government of just elites would tend to distance government from the people.

When one class of people runs government, government is going to reflect the biases of that class.