Duty to One’s Country

On Killing Series

All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, 1928, Excerpts

While they continue to write and talk, we saw the wounded and dying. While they taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing, we already knew that death-throes are stronger. But for all that we were no mutineers, no deserters, no cowards – they were very free with all these expressions. We loved our country as much as they; we went courageously into every action; but also we distinguished the false from the true, we had suddenly learned to see. And we saw that there was nothing of their world left. We were all at once terribly alone; and alone we must see it through.

For us lads of eighteen, they ought to have been mediators and guides to the world of maturity, the world of work, of duty, of culture, of progress – to the future. We often made fun of them and played jokes on them, but in our hearts we trusted them. The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with a greater insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. We had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs. They surpassed us only in phrases and in cleverness. The first bombardment showed us our mistake, and under it the world as they had taught it to us broke in pieces.

I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another. I see that the keenest brains in the world invent weapons and words to make it more refined and enduring. And all men of my age, here and over there, throughout the whole world see these things; all my generation is experiencing these things with me. What would our fathers do if we suddenly stood up and came before them and proffered our account? What do they expect of us if a time ever comes when the war is over? Through the years our business has been killing; - it was our first calling in life. Our knowledge of life is limited to death. What will happen afterwards? And what shall come out of this?

Robert Morris - Revolution Financier

Constitution Series

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard, 1913, Edited Excerpts 

No man contributed more to the establishment of our Constitution than Robert Morris, “the Patriot Financier.” Robert Morris was a stupendous political force in Washington’s administration. Of all the members of the Convention, Robert Morris of Pennsylvania had the most widely diversified economic interests. He owned and directed ships trading with the East and West Indies, engaged in iron and manufacturing, bought and sold thousands of acres of land in all parts of the country, particularly in the west and south, and speculated in lots in Washington as soon as he learned of the establishment of the capital there. Had he been less ambitious he would have died worth millions instead of in poverty and debt, after having served a term in a debtor’s cell.

The Anti-Federalists by Jackson Main, 1961, Edited Excerpts

The Bank of North America was connected above all with the name of Robert Morris. As superintendent of finance he controlled the finances of Congress for three years during the Revolution; he conducted profitable mercantile ventures while holding that office, and he had a dominant influence in the Bank of North America.

Since the bank was the only one of its kind, it had a financial monopoly, which the directors employed to crush all oppositions and to dominate trade. It promoted the concentration of wealth into a few hands, thus fostering the growth of aristocracy and the control of government by the few, rather than by the many.

James Warren wrote to John Adams, “Morris is a King, and more than a King, He has the keys of the treasury at his command, appropriates money as he pleases, and everybody must look up to him for justice and for favor.”

Constitution Ratified

Constitution Series

The Anti-Federalists by Jackson Main, 1961, Edited Excerpts

1787-88: ratification by nine states. Since the Federalists were a minority in at least six and probably seven states, they ought surely to have been defeated. Yet they came from behind to win. Wealth and position supported the Constitution. Lower ranking army officers and men of lesser economic and social distinction tended to be Antifederal; doctors were to be found on both sides.

The Antifederalists asserted that the Constitution created a consolidated government, and if this were so, the members of the Philadelphia Convention had violated their instructions. The convention had acted illegally. If the Antifederalists had dominated the Philadelphia Convention, the government of the nation would have continued to be a confederation of sovereign states, and the democratic principle of local self-government would have been emphasized.

The pro-Constitution attitude of the newspapers was undoubtedly important. The number of papers which opposed ratification or even of those which presented both sides impartially was very few. This was natural, for the city people were overwhelmingly Federal, and the printers were influenced by local opinion as well as by their own convictions; moreover, it was profitable to agree with the purchasers and the advertisers.

The Federalist domination of news coverage permitted them not only to obtain more space for their own publications but to conceal or distort the facts. The objections of the Antifederalists were sometimes twisted so as to make them appear foolish; at other times it was denied that there was any opposition at all to the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers' Economic Interests

Constitution Series

Propertied men who dressed well in wigs and petticoats that had a substantial economic interest in the drafting of the constitution.

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard, 1913, Edited Excerpts

Having shown that economic motives were behind the movement for a reconstruction of the system, it is now necessary to inquire whether the members of the Convention which drafted the Constitution represented their own property affiliations. In other words, did the men who formulated the fundamental law of the land possess the kinds of property which immediately and directly increased in value by the results of their labors at Philadelphia? Did they have money at interest? Did they own public securities? Did they hold western lands for appreciation? Were they interested in shipping and manufacturing?

George Washington, of Virginia, was probably the richest man in the United States in his time. He possessed, in addition to his great estate on the Potomac, a large amount of fluid capital which he judiciously invested in western lands, from which he could reasonably expect a large appreciation with the establishment of stable government and the advance of the frontier. Washington was also a considerable money lender. If any one in the country had a just reason for being disgusted with the Confederation it was Washington. He had given the best years of life to the Revolutionary cause, and had refused all remuneration for his great services.

A survey of the economic interests of the members of the Convention presents certain conclusions:

A majority of the members were lawyers by profession.

Most of the members came from towns, on or near the coast.

Not one member represented the small farming or mechanic classes.

Public security interests were extensively represented in the Convention.

Investment in lands for speculation was represented by at least fourteen members.

Money loaned at interest was represented by at least twenty-four members.

Mercantile, manufacturing, and shipping lines were represented by at least eleven members.

Slave-holders were represented by at least fifteen members.

The overwhelming majority of the members were immediately, directly, and personally interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution. It cannot be said that the members of the Convention were “disinterested.” On the contrary, we are forced to accept the profoundly significant conclusion that they knew through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.

A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn, 1980 

When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.

Philadelphia Convention of 1787

Constitution Series

The Anti-Federalists by Jackson Main, 1961, Edited Excerpts

The Convention which assembled in Philadelphia in the late spring of 1787 contained only a handful of men who were opposed to a strong government and none who spoke out clearly for democracy. The struggle over the ratification of the Constitution was primarily a contest between the commercial and non-commercial elements in the population. This is the most significant fact, to which all else is elaboration, amplification, or exception.

The Federalists included the merchants and the other town dwellers, farmers depending on the major cities, and those who produced a surplus for export. The Federalists dominated the towns and the rich valleys, they included most of the public and private creditors, great landowners, lawyers and judges, manufacturers and ship-owners, high ranking civil and military officials, and college graduates. Almost all of the public securities were held by Federalists. Merchants, shipowners, bankers, manufactuurers, lawyers, and judges were Federalists by a very large majority, as were generals, naval captains, and members of the Cincinnati; most college men were Federalists, and most ministers.

The Antifederalists were primarily those who were not so concerned with the mercantile community and foreign markets. Antifederalists rank and file were men of moderate means, with little social prestige, farmers often in debt, obscure men for the most part. The Antifederalists had only moderate property, very few Antifederalists were well-to-do. In the Antifederal ranks at the convention were at least twenty-nine delegates who had actively participated in Shay’s Rebellion.

About half of all the delegates to the convention had seen some military service during the war, almost all of them as officers, but of the Antifederalists only one had held a rank higher than captain, whereas among the Federalists there were at least sixteen field officers. The ten members of the convention who belonged to the Society of Cincinnati were Federalists. The great majority of the merchants, large manufacturers, lawyers, judges, and those with extensive holdings in land voted for the Constitution.

Skewed Power Structure

Constitution Series

An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard, 1913, Edited Excerpts

The protection of property rights lay at the basis of the new system. There is in the Constitution no provision for property qualifications for voters or for elected officials and representatives; however, nearly all of the state constitutions then in force provided real or personal property qualifications for voters. Only one branch of new government, the House of Representatives, was required to be elected by popular vote.

The House of Representatives springs from the mass of the people whom the states may see fit to enfranchise. The Senate is elected by the legislatures of the states, which were, in 1787, almost uniformly based on property qualifications. The President is to be chosen by electors selected by the legislatures. The judiciary is to be chosen by the President and the Senate, both removed from direct popular control and holding for longer terms than the House.

The taxing power was afforded the revenues that were to discharge the public debt in full. Congress was given plenary power to raise and support military and naval force, for the defense of the country against foreign and domestic forces. These forces were to be at the disposal of the President in the execution of national laws; and to guard the states against renewed attempts of “desperate debtors” like Shays.

These were the great powers conferred on the new government: taxation, war, commercial control, and disposition of western lands. Through them public creditors may be paid in full, domestic peace maintained, advantages obtained in dealing with foreign nations, manufactures protected, and the development of the territories go forward in full swing. Contracts are to be safe, and whoever engages in a financial operation, public or private, may know that state legislatures cannot destroy overnight the rules by which the game is played.

Fear of Aristocracy

Constitution Series

The Anti-Federalists by Jackson Main, 1961, Edited Excerpts

The Antifederalists were well aware that there were many men that were skeptical of the common man’s judgment to have any faith in a democratic system. They preferred an aristocracy – that is, government by the better sort of people, meaning themselves. If the new government favored the well-to-do, as some Antifederalists maintained, this was hardly an objection to those who were of the “better sort” themselves. The well-to-do might dislike an aristocracy in theory, but in practice, rule by the educated, well-bred, wellborn few was appealing.

Antifederalists viewed a strong national government as a threat to liberty. The attempt to strengthen the central government was identical with the attempt to solidify upper class rule, and this they opposed. From this standpoint a vital part of the proposed structure of power to be erected by the Constitution was section eight of the first Article, which endowed Congress with the powers once held by the state. This section was studded with such ominous words as “taxes,” “general welfare,” “commerce,” “Armies,” “necessary and proper.” Of them all, it was the first which attracted the most attention.

French Minister to the United States, Louis Otto, observed that the people were aware that an increase of power in the central government would mean a “regular collection of taxes, a strict administration of justice, extraordinary duties on imports, and rigorous executions against debtors – in short, a marked preponderance of rich men and of large proprietors.”