 |
The Old Republicans: Southern conservatism in the age of Jefferson by Norman K Risjord
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Norman K Risjord Edition: Hardcover Audio: English (Published); English (Unknown) Published: 1965 ISBN: N/A Number of pages: 340 Publisher: Columbia University Press
Book Reviews of The Old Republicans: Southern conservatism in the age of JeffersonBook Review: The standard history on the origins of one strand of American conservatism Summary: 5 StarsThere is irony in my choice of title as well as in Risjord's. Risjord's first line is, "Jeffersonian Democracy is a movement that my be described as liberal but not necessarily progressive" (p.1). But in 1965, when this book was first published, people still used the word "liberal" with a sense of it's history. In the present day of talk radio, such a nuanced sense of history is largely gone.
But if you enjoy someone who did have a nuanced sense of history and who wrote beautifully then Risjord is the writer for you. This is a classic study of an important group of men who were followers of Jefferson (at least, the Jefferson of the 1790s): John Taylor of Caroline, John Randolph of Roanoke, Nathaniel Macon, Albert Gallantine, William Harris Crawford among others. Risjord follows the careers and philosophies of these men as they weather the Alien and Sedition Acts, define themselves in opposition to Madison during the Jefferson administration, support and contest against Madison in his own administration and finally fight the congressional and judicial wars against a national bank, for hard money, against the tariffs, against internal improvements by the national government and against any sort of military during peacetime.
I want to briefly emphasize that last point as that is an issue that tends to be glossed over by those who would have us go back to "the principles of 98". Those principles would leave us with hardly any national armed forces. We would mostly be reliant on state militias. I would like all of you to imagine how different the history of the world would be if we had stuck to those ideas over the last two hundred years. Can anyone imagine that this country would exist? In the spring of 1810, two years away from war with Britain, Nathaniel Macon was urging not to fix the army, not to make it more efficient or effective but to disband it altogether (p.109).
So what are 'the principles of '98"? Good question, really. The phrase refers to Madison's and Jefferson's anonymous counter-attack to the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration. M and J authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions which championed a compact reading of the Constitution and claimed that the states had the right to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law and to possibly nullify that law within the borders of individual states. I say possibly because there were differences between the two resolutions, between Madison and Jefferson at the time and later. Jefferson at least did use the word "nullification" in his draft. This is not the version that was adopted by Kentucky however and this fact that J had originally used that word wasn't widely known until almost the 1830s. There is a good discussion of these issues in The Last of The Fathers by Drew McCoy (pp.139-148).
Regardless of whether the resolutions as published supported nullification or merely requested the other States to examine what was happening and to band together to resist the national government, certain things are obvious about the Resolutions and those who adhered to them.
They championed a strict construction reading of the Constitution. They believed that the national government had certain specific and limited powers and that all other powers remained with the states. They resisted any attempt to justify new powers to the national government on the basis of anything other than constitutional amendment. They resisted any attempt to use "the necessary and proper clause", the "general welfare" clause and they resisted the idea of the superior jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court over the states court (it is an irony of our history that the most effect nationalist by far on our early political stage was a Virginian, John Marshall). These constitutional principles led them to their resistance to standing armies (inevitably used to increase the patronage and sway of the national government and to crush the liberties of the people (although, considering George II current reign of stupidity, perhaps we should change that thought from the armed services to intelligence agencies)), to a national bank, to direct taxes and tariffs, and to any sort of national attempt at improvements to roads, canals, and waterways.
The theorist of the movement was John Taylor of Caroline and its prophet was Randolph of Roanoke. Risjord is superb at balancing the play of political/constitutional theory and of local economic interest in the political careers of all his protaganists. Time after time he examines the way the Congress voted on various bank or improvement bills and notes the different motives that effected those votes. But he takes these people and their beliefs seriously. He never minimizes the sincerity of Randolph (although sometimes it is hard to know what that one was thinking), Macon, Van Buren or Gallantin.
For Risjord, the turning point in this history was the controversy surrounding the admission of Missouri to the union. This is the moment at which the nation as a whole began to address the issue of slavery and its spread to the new states of the union. The constitutional principles of The Old Republicans proved to be useful weapons against the efforts to admit Missouri as a non-slave state (I am not really sure how many states at that time, we could seriously call 'free'). New southerners on the national scene flocked to the states rights theories of The Old Republicans. There is irony in this as well as many of the older men were never really comfortable with Calhoun's doctrine of nullification nor with the actions of South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis. However, they felt equally if not more strongly opposed to Jackson's Force Bill (by the way, for an in-depth discussion of this crisis go directly to Richard Ellis' The Union at Risk).
All in all, this is truly an essential study in early American history. One of the later characters in Risjord's story is Amos Kendall, a lieutenant of Jackson, whose slogan was "The World is goverened too much" (p.271). In that slogan we have the vital essence of The Old Republican world-view. Risjord offers a superb witness to the birth of that philosophy and the way it effected the early history of this country. This book is considered the standard history of its subject for good reason. Read, learn, ponder and enjoy.
|
 |
|
|
|