For whatever it's worth, I believe Mr. Taft was wrong – specifically:
"The most abiding compliment that can be paid to the American people is to point to the fact that in the Constitution which they framed and have maintained...
Many would suggest that the Constitution of the Founders was not in fact “maintained."
... they have recognized the danger of hasty action by themselves, and have, in its checks and balances, voluntarily maintained a protection against it.
Mr. Madison wrote at length concerning the folly of trusting the federal government, specifically including the judiciary branch, to ‘check’ and ‘balance’ itself (please refer to his Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1800). The real “checks and balances” of Mr. Madison’s ‘compound republic’ (if I remember his term correctly) were completely dependent upon the continued survival of vigorous State governments capable of ‘interposing’ between their citizens and federal tyranny.
The trust is that in this last century we have vindicated popular government in a way that it has never been vindicated before.
The use of the federal military to forcefully retain nearly half of the States and populace within the federal union could be described in many ways, but “popular government” would not be the phrase I would personally select.
Distrust of popular government! The pride that I have that this is a popular Government, and that it has shown itself the strongest in history, is as deeply embed as any feeling that is in me. I would be the last man to exclude from the direction of the ship of state the will of the American people. That is the ultimate source of authority, and it does not in any way minimize my faith and my love of popular government that I insist that the expression of that popular will shall be with the deliberation to make it sound and safe.
Perhaps Mr. Taft should have asked a few of the surviving “states’ rights” advocates whether they ‘distrusted’ the ‘popular government.’
I intend no disrespect to the memory of Mr. Taft. However, the century just ended provided more than sufficient justification for the Jeffersonian distrust of government – the ‘dangerous servant and fearful master’ of Mr. Washington’s observation.
As for Mr. Lind, I believe his book is well worth reading. Interestingly enough, he seems to think that the current Democratic Party has lost whatever attachment it possessed to Hamiltonian ideals (although the party’s Marxist tilt would seem to incline it more towards Mr. Hamilton’s ‘expansive’ government than Mr. Jefferson’s limited government). He also refers to the current Republican Party as “Jeffersonian” in nature, and apparently considers most of its members to be “Jeffersonian yahoos.”
With that in mind, I must ask: do you consider the accomplishments of the Republican Party (increasingly “Jeffersonian” since at least 1980) to be of value? And do you consider yourself (in any way, shape, or form) to be one of the “yahoos” - or do you just enjoy debating us?
;>)
Taft was beloved by southern Democratic politicians, actually. They opposed him on the tariff and the military (they wanted funding cut), but otherwise supported him and were key to some of his greatest legislative successes. Taft sought to break the "Solid South," and although it didn't come until Nixon's time, it was the winning strategy for the Republicans. A classic story is of the Democrats at a banquet for Taft in Richmond (more or less as related here): "Great man, great man," says one. "Indeed," agrees the other. Then some silence. Finally, one says, "You didn't vote for him, did you?" "Vote for him? Vote for him!" says the other. "I'd rather see him in hell first!"
So the answer to your question: Southerners of 1909 were well into the federal game. Southern States more than any other region benefited from Federal expenditures in harbor and river projects. Serious money.
So it seems I must put Taft's comments into some perspective. He was making sense of a crazed age, a time when the Founders were accused by prohibitionists of being drunks and by progressives of being oppressive capitalists. (See Beard's "Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution," a horrid polemic on the economic motives of the Founders).
I totally disgree with your assessment of Taft's hommage to popular government. You base that completely on States rights: I'm with ya on that, but without condemning the Civil War. Again, let's not go there. Dealing with what he had at the time (and understanding that the language dated back to 1831, not 1861), Taft was affirming popular, representative & constitutional government at a time when Sobran's beloved monarchies still ran the world on the one side and on the other mob rule menaced it on the other. Taft stood up to both. So there is no need to disrespect him; try another look.
Perhaps we ought close this by taking sides on that famous "Jefferson Day" celebration of 1830:
Jackson:"Our federal Union: it must be preserved!"
Calhoun: "The Union: next to our liberty, most dear."
Speaking of which, did you know that South Carolina tried to purchase some tons of powder in 1832 from a Maryland gunpowder factory? Silly me, I thought they were just mouthing off. Guess they got some more nerve up thirty years later.
Finally, I again object to your characterization of the 20th century's insanities as a product of the American government -- come on, WIJG! The American people, through their central and State governments, conquered -- not caused -- those evils.
do you consider the accomplishments of the Republican Party (increasingly “Jeffersonian” since at least 1980) to be of value? And do you consider yourself (in any way, shape, or form) to be one of the “yahoos” - or do you just enjoy debating us?Do you really need to ask this? Nuances, gradiations, friend. Even black & white comes in shades of grey...
I think we're getting posts crossed here. My #287 was to your #285. Your #286 next up... Meanwhile, great to see ya here!