[DiogenesLamp]

Terribly wrong there. A century ago the New England Yankees were penny pinching conservatives.

Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true. The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.

The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses. That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry.

Yes, the common folk of New England were known for frugality and hard work, but the captains of industry may have been stingy with their own money, but were very welcoming of any government spending that helped them make money.

Urban political machines became favorable towards federal spending when it was offered, but virtually all the urban machine politicians were Democrats, and in those days, Republicans could still get elected in Boston, New York, Chicago, and other cities.

There is a good argument that urbanization is inherently socialist and desirous of large taxation and heavy spending. Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.

It's like the difference between a street gang and the Mafia.

[cowboyusa]

Ah, but the JACKSONIAN School, which Trump agrees with had 4 pillars: The Union, Small Government, a hatred of Trusts and huge Combinations, and a f.p. of I will leave you alone but if you attack me I will wipe you off the face of the Earth. I’m a Jacksonian.

[x]

Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true. The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.

They got what they wanted, though: a national market and a protective tariff. They were contented. The progressive push came from the malcontents. They did find some allies among the rich. That's how the two party system works -- people with money could bet on either side -- but if you owned a textile mill or an iron foundry, you were probably contented with post-Civil War conditions and didn't want much more government.

The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses. That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry.

Or, Hamilton's view was that the country should foster national prosperity and national unity, not an unworthy goal, by encouraging business. It was people who didn't want the Hamiltonian protective tariff who gave us the income tax and truly big government. For the most part they were Democrats. FDR was a great admirer of Jefferson, and Wilson became one over time. This messes up the neat view of history as big government Hamiltonians versus small government Jeffersonians, but there it is.

Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.

I said as much. The federal government wasn't splashing much money around before FDR. Except during wartime, we weren't taxed that much, so there wasn't that much money for the federal government to spend. When the spigot was turned on in the New Deal, the urban Democratic machines lapped it up, and they -- or the new political machines that replaced the old political machines -- have been doing so ever since.

History books can give a distorted view of history. Out of ten college grads 100 years ago, something like nine probably went to work in business, industry, or the professions and kept out of politics. One of the ten might go into politics or journalism or become a "social justice warrior," and that's the one who makes it into the newspapers and into the history books.

Out of people who didn't go to college, even fewer made it into the history books, so this can give you a skewed view of what elites or the rich as a whole were thinking and doing. The current situation where colleges are basically indoctrination factories and grads all get their opinions from the liberal media didn't apply a century ago.

In other words, plenty of people whose families made money in the 19th and early 20th century weren't looking for more government. Of course, there are always things to criticize about the rich. If they're not callous about other people's suffering, they're bothering them with their "concern," and vice versa, but they aren't a scapegoat or an alibi for everything the country does wrong.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Of the "hoi polloi" this is true, but of the "elite" "robber baron" class, this is not true.
The elite wanted government money and government laws to help them make money.
The Hamiltonian view of government is that it should be used as a tool to increase the prosperity of businesses.
That government should not be neutral, but activist in favor of business and industry."

What DiogenesLamp describes vaguely as "government money and government laws", more specifically amounted to:

1. Protective tariffs.
   These were supported by every Founder, including Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, along with Hamilton.
   The issue was never the existence of tariffs, but rather the amounts charged on each commodity.
   These were originally around 13% overall, under Pres. Washington, rising to over 25% under Pres. Madison after the War of 1812, then to 48% under Pres. Monroe in the Tariff of 1824.

   By 1824, the theoretical benefits of protective tariffs were clashing with the practical costs imposed on foreign necessities and luxuries.
   And contrary to what DiogenesLamp wants us to believe, opposition to ever higher tariffs came not only from Southerners, but also from many New Englanders.
   Support for protective tariffs came from Mid-Atlantic, Mid-Western and western Upper South states.

   Support also came from the most important political figure of his time -- Tennessean, Andrew Jackson.
   Jackson wanted the extra revenues from high tariffs to pay off the national debt.
   And thus: the highest ever 1828 "Tariff of Abominations", which peaked at nearly 60% overall and caused a Nullification Crisis with threats of SC secession.

   My point here is: this was not 100% about Northerners wanting Federal bounties.

2. Federal spending
   For national defense (i.e., forts, ships, weapons), infrastructure (i.e., roads, canals, harbors bridges & lighthouses), hospitalizations and pensions.
   These were then, and are today, sometimes claimed to be skewed to benefit "the North" versus other regions.
   In reality, such spending, being controlled by Congress, was remarkably balanced-out over time, based on each region's populations and elected representatives.
   So Southerners' complaints that they were being outvoted should be balanced by realizing that they were already overrepresented in Congress (by ~20%) due to the 3/5 of slaves rule.

3. The National Bank
   Much was made then, and even today over the old National Bank, but the reality is the US seemed to get along just fine after Pres. Jackson abolished it in 1836.
   I, for one, don't understand what all the fuss was about.

DiogenesLamp: "There is a good argument that urbanization is inherently socialist and desirous of large taxation and heavy spending.
Yes, the New York City government was run by Democrats in this era, but the corruption they engendered tended to be of the local variety, not the national variety.
It's like the difference between a street gang and the Mafia."

I think even DiogenesLamp realizes that's pure nonsense.
In reality, Big City Democrat political machines, such as New York's Tammany Hall were critical to Democrats' election successes beginning with at least the election of 1800, when New York's Aaron Burr got Democrat Thomas Jefferson elected over Federalist John Adams.
Tammany Hall made Aaron Burr Jefferson's Vice President.
That is not just "street gang", it's not even the Mafia, rather it's Democrats doing what Democrats have done since nearly Day One of our Free Republic -- allying globalized Big Business interests with Big City immigrant voters.