This review by California State San Bernardino historian, Richard Samuelson, in the latest Claremont Review of Books is an awesome review. It is not that I agree with Professor Samuelson's criticism of the two books he is reviewing, for I think his gripe with the two books is that they were not about the separation of powers doctrine as much as the aristocratic vs. democratic tensions within the Constitution. But the topic of the books was the latter, not the former. I know Professor Samuelson is being more subtle in his language, but its effect is what he is ultimately concluding. Professor Samuelson, however, is a superior mind and I highly recommend reading every word of his review.
What struck me as I read the review was that I completely missed the release of the two books under discussion, but when I went to Amazon.com, my God! they were expensive. And frankly, I lack the extra money to purchase them considering other family priorities. Oh well. For those interested and who have a bit of cash to spend, the two books are: Richard Alan Ryerson's "John Adam's Republic: The One, The Few, and The Many" (John Hopkins University Press, 2016) and Luke Mayville's "John Adams and the Fear of American Oligarchy" (Princeton University Press, 2016).*
I am so glad the two books have been written because they confirm my long-held view of Adams' political philosophy, and some of what I have said as to how it plays into his economic thought. Contrary to too many historians and political observers from his time down to ours, Adams stood for the creation of a government which elevated the rights of individual and regular people, and yet he stood for highly intelligent people to be leaders and to lead in a broad minded and fair manner. One sees it in his almost sole writing of the Massachusetts Constitution, the oldest continuing Constitution in the United States. What Adams recognized, however, was that aristocracy and elites in general are necessary evils for civilization to grow and thrive, but they needed regulation.
The historian Professor Samuelson is also to be commended for recognizing that Adams' desire for traditional, feudalistic sounding titles, the source of most of the criticism then and now of Adams from most historians and political writers, was at least partly inspired from Adams' reading of the then- and perhaps still radical French writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the subject. It is not enough to exonerate Adams for what was a tone-deaf idea (as James Grant recognized, too often, Adams' objective, and arguably eccentric, view of governing led Adams to be a "party of one." ). However, to judge Adams on the one idea of titles for president or other offices in the then-newly formed federal government is to misjudge the man and misrepresent his wide ranging and thoughtful ideas.
I am not, however, saying that John Adams would have been a Bernie Sanders supporter, though one is fairly confident he would have opposed the very idea of Donald Trump as president. The time we live in is, unfortunately, too much beyond John Adams' thinking in his own personal lifetime, which, though a long time--1732 to 1826--was not one in which I find much expansive thinking on his part in terms of political-economy once we hit the Madison administration. But one thing is certain: Adams was very wary of and quite hostile to the idea of open-ended corporate charters being granted by State governments, which wide-open grants began just as Adams reached his ninth decade. Unfortunately, again, Adams was only slightly aware of what Charles Sellers writes about in Sellers' master world, "The Market Revolution." Jefferson, however, was even more out of it, mouthing reactionary nostalgia about small farmers and preaching against city business, and almost oblivious about corporations. Still, as Henry Adams recognized, Jefferson in power governed more like an Adams and eventually Hamilton (for those of us without the time to wade through the two volume history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations, Garry Wills' book on Henry Adams' work is still a marvelous read). Hamilton had the best eyes toward the future, but he did not foresee how industry and factories would make at least one of his ideas far more cruel than anything else, i.e., when Hamilton spoke favorably about child labor. Hamilton, though brilliantly recognizing how to think in terms of economic development and nation-building based upon economic development, was thinking of something far more humane, and remembering how he felt that he could have better helped his mother had he been able to work even earlier than he did. And of course, let's quote Madison from Federalist Paper no. 10, where he is, however briefly, on Hamilton's side about the purpose of the federal government under the Constitution:
Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. (Bold in the language added)
Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. (Bold in the language added)
Again, maybe one day I will get hold of the two books, or at least the Ryerson book....:). But I am glad to have read the review from Professor Samuleson.
