i would say the one thing that

really stood out in, the conversation in that first panel, maybe other than the outrageous calumny, the taller people are a mark of national flourishing was the that the children mccluskey in particular brought out that there's a distinction between how the economy is structured and, how people think about the economy and how they understand it in relation to their place, in their society and to the legitimacy of their society. a set of issues that we're really going to get in this conversation in this session. we're going to follow a similar format to the first. we'll hear each of our two panelists and then enter into a conversation here and then bring all of you that conversation. let me start by just telling you

a little bit about the two of them right next? to me here, clement fatovic is a professor of political international relations at. florida international university. he's a scholar in the sense of the of liberalism and constitute journalism, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. and particularly with an eye to the era of the american founding since some very work on the limits of executive power and emergency power, which i know has lot of fans here at aei, but most relevant to our discussion today he's explored the place of economic inequality in the life of the early american republic is the author of a book called america's founding and the struggle over economic inequality, published by kansas in 2015 and many and articles on these subjects. he has a ph.d. from cornell jay cost is our colleague here at aei he has a wonderfully a title. he's the nonresident fellow at

aei. it really speaks of our in so many ways jay and his work focuses really on political theory and political history. he's done a lot of work in the last years on what you might call civic republicanism. and we'll actually talk a little bit about what exactly that means because it has a lot to do with the subject taking up in this sessions among books may be the one most relevant to that subject is the price of greatness. alexander, james madison and the creation of american oligarchy, published by basic in 2018. jay has a ph.d. from the university of chicago. we'll hear from each of them and and then have a bit of a conversation about it. and we'll start with you, clint. please. and we thank you very much for that very kind introduction. and also thank you very much for inviting me to this very important project. i'm really thrilled to be here to address everyone. so the presentation going to

give today is entitled the american revolution and the pursuit of economic equality. what i'll do first is a few words about revolution the senses in which the revolution was understood at the time, and i'll spend most of my time about material conditions in the american colonies before, the revolution, and then i'll close out some comments about some of the ways that the revolutionaries tackled the of economic inequality. so in taking up this question, the revolution which has come up, we of take for granted that it's a revolution, but it's not obvious that that was a term that should have been used or could have been used. there are alternatives and terms that were actually used at the time more commonly were conflicts, struggle, resistance, crisis, war and even rebellion. the term revolution itself was seldom used during the first few years of the conflict. it wasn't even suggested as a framework by thomas paine common sense. it wasn't a term that appeared. the declaration of independence

again returning to thomas paine in, first of all, the issues of his american crisis series. the word doesn't appear it was used once by. john adams to his wife, abigail adams, a letter he wrote to her on july 3rd, 1776. but it was really a pamphlet debate that took place between the french, iberia now and thomas. and around 1782 that popularized use of the term. so iberia and i'll use term the revolution of america in title of his work to denounce what he describes as the upheavals taking place, and he described them as being unjustified by any sort of wrongs suffered by americans. paine, who rebutted reynolds, claims as and misinformed, adapted the term to describe the struggle for independence. now, of course, identify, saying the use of a term is one thing defining agreeing on its meaning is quite another so. without a doubt, the revolution was understood first and foremost as a political

revolution in the senses that was described earlier during the q&a and the previous session, in the sense that, you know, the americans sever their ties. great britain, then they shrugged off dependance an allegiance to a distant. but if it were only a political revolution involving a change in the form of government or objects of allegiance, then the word independence probably would have sufficed in opting for the term revolution. americans were indicating that something far more profound, something different, was transpiring. and what i'd like to suggest here is that the american revolution was also social revolution and upheaval in the social order at home. so again, taking up thomas paine's challenge in common sense to, quote, begin the world over again. americans didn't just seek to make themselves independent of great britain. they also set to remake their societies. when paine wrote his final entry in the american crisis series in 1783, he used the term now to describe the american struggle for independence as, quote the

greatest and complete us revolution the world ever knew gloriously and happily accomplished. by the time americans settled on the word or the term american to define the changes, taking, they not only renounced domination by elites in great britain, they had also begun to question the legitimacy of domination by elites at home, whether domination was political or social so. my central claim here today is that the american revolution grew out of an accelerated and also expanded trends toward equality that had been underway for decades. also inaugurated new ones, including trends towards economic equality at, least among white men. so again here i'm only going to focus on this particular dimension of the pursuit of equality. obviously it would take a long time before equality for women or blacks would be. but my point is that some of these struggles begin in this period. so contrary to those who have argued that the american revolution is fundamentally different from french revolution, because americans

have what the political theorist horner called social question. i suggest. the story of the american revolution also a transformation in the social, including attempts to weaken the links between class and power both the political. the social dimensions of the revolution were linked by concern over equality, including economic equality, which is which was seen especially in republican thought, as a precondition for the very possibility of political independence and the exercise of freedom. and what i like to suggest that the for independence was not the beginning of these concerns. and so what i'm going to do in the first part of this talk now is talk about some of the material conditions and economics that took place in the first half of the 18th century, because these really of set the stage for what happens in the revolution and. it's during this period that american colonists begin to have an experience of equality that allows them to think about

equality in other ways. and so what scholars described as the market revolution and socio economic developments that occurred during middle of the 18th century, how to transform matou effect on the political ideals, values of the colonists in the decades before the revolution were a period of great transition that alter the behavior as attitudes, values and thinking of individuals throughout the colonies, helping to chip at established notions of rank status, including the long standing and widely held notion that each person had an assigned place in the social order. this is not to that any, let alone all hierarchies repudiated across the board, but the profound economic changes that are taking in these decades had the effect unsettling and questioning traditional and roles, including associated with deference towards one supposed social betters. at the start of the century, consumer products, especially those imported from great britain here think about fashionable clothing worn by both men and women. fine household such as t service

sets were generally off limits to ordinary colonists. not only were these items generally prohibitively expensive to those the lower orders, but there were also customs and mores that discouraged colonists from these classes from even contemplating them, as possibilities. and again, if you think about tea sets at the time, say, looking at 1700 in the first few decades, almost no one owned these things except for those who were in the gentry by the time you get to the revolution, the sort change the market revolution that took place in the middle of the century. transform to consumer preferences and consumption patterns. and along with them transformed ideas about what was possible and desirable. so, of course, none of this is tonight the fact that capitalism of the 18th century british imperial world would allow a few to amass enormous fortunes off the backs of exploited laborers, whether free, indentured or slave. nor is it to deny the fact that those without means would

experience deep frustrations and disappointments. but the important point is that material changes were destabilizing social relations in ways that would contribute to a more complete reexamination of established hierarchies and systems of domination and subordination. once resistance to british policy finally got underway in the 1760s, the range of increasingly affordable consumer goods that was that were formerly available only those in the upper classes would be and sold to individuals of all classes, helping to instill a sense of consumer choice that made it possible for more and more colonists to imagine the possibility of freedom and equality. not only was there an absence of legal restrictions on buying and selling what may have initially been intended only for those in the upper classes, but retailers actually began advertising to consumers at the lower orders as the price of these items dropped. in fact, some shop owners often produced advertisements, newspapers boasting that they would treat everyone equally.

the effect was disentangle some of the threads that are traditionally connected status and class in the colonies and these changes in everyday economic life. ordinary from how they worked, how they consumed. demonstrated to colonists that social structures were fluid and adaptable, fixed and immutable. and on top of all this, as was discussed in the previous session, the availability of relatively cheap land increased rates of property ownership throughout the american colonies, mitigating some of the more extreme forms of inequality that existed in europe, and also creating opportunities for mobility and standards of living that were unmatched anywhere else in the world. and if you look at some of the books that americans and also some visitors, they would often these claims that these changes these conditions led to a complete absence of class distinctions in america. even though these claims are mistaken, they're still significant, if only because they show that class differences were already being viewed in a

negative light before the revolution. and now all of this, in a sense, the background and context in which the earliest forms of resistance to british policies took place. even though it was local elites, including wealthy merchants, landowners and professionals who led the way in challenging the imposition of british taxes, the specific forms of resistance they adopted and invited required widespread. in fact, of this was necessitated and facilitated by the market revolution, the breadth of that economic participation in turn made broader political participation. if resistance was to cede the boycott to organized both non importation and later non-cancer action agreements would not have succeeded without the support and participation every consumer, including women and poor men. in other those who had generally been excluded from formal in colonial politics by urging ordinary men and women alike to give up the use of tea

substitute, homespun clothing for imported fabrics and sacrifice other goods that have now become virtual necessities by the middle of the 18th century. the patriots essentially the household economy. and in calling on fellow to make resistance effective patriots contributed to the transformation subjects into citizens and associations and assemblies that sprang up throughout the colonies colonies. they created new political spaces for individuals had been left out of the formal channels of politics. the british empire. once poor men and women were called upon participate in the boycotts they found opportunities to engage in politics by signing a petition affixing their names to this resolution, subscribing to covenants and raising supplies for. the military. although women not elected to leadership positions, the committees of safety that cropped up in local communities, they were called upon oversee compliance with not interpretation agreements and to

testify against loyalists in official proceedings. and what's most significant about the democratization of politics inside and outside formal arenas in this is that many of those who had formerly been excluded now use their voices, call for greater equality. farmers, laborers and mechanics of all sorts clamored for a changes that would increase their participation in the political process ease their economic burdens and reduce the gap between the and the have nots. thanks to the republican ethos that was embraced by patriots of, all backgrounds, many elites also backed some of these egalitarian measures, meaning revolutionaries such as thomas jefferson and thomas paine. the lexicon grew for noah webster, abraham clerk who was the signing of the declaration of independence from new jersey and many others agree that some degree of economic equality was indispensable to the health of our republic. in addition to the remove or reduction of property qualifications for voting and holding office that brought many lower class white men into the political process.

the revolutionaries also adopted a variety of changes to inheritance law, tax policy and even military staffing that helped transform the social order, diminished the power of established. one of the most immediate and direct impacts economic inequality stemmed from the confiscate of loyalist property because the wealthiest individuals, many communities were loyalists. this includes people. joseph galloway of pennsylvania was one of the richest men in america at the time. the confiscation of their property actually had the effect of removing those skewed the distribution of wealth in ways that alarmed many republicans. although military imperatives and the need to raise revenue often drove measures, many revolutionaries, these confiscations on openly redistributed grounds that would reduce plutocratic concentrations of wealth in some places. these confiscations were restricted to the richest loyalists, sparing a more modest means, although things did not always work out as intended. one of the stated aims of these policies was to put up forfeited

property up to auction in the hopes that patriots of lower classes could acquire property and. therefore economic independence for the first time. another that aimed at reducing inequality by focusing on those the top was one that was very important to. jefferson and this is the abolition of entail and primogeniture that was also mentioned in the previous session. so even though there was some variation in terms of both of these policies, both forms existed in of the southern colonies. looking back on these policies much later, jefferson acknowledged the égalité and motivations behind the abolition of these practices in his home state of virginia. he said the repeal of the laws of antalya would prevent the accumulation and perpetuation of wealth in select families. the abolition of primogeniture and the equal partition of partition of inheritances. remove the feudal and unnatural distinctions which made one member of every family rich and all the rest poor.

substituting equal partition the best of all agrarian laws, something that was opposed there may of course, jefferson wanted to even further promising a plan to 50 acres of unused land to every free married man who resided in the commonwealth for at one year, explaining that the purpose, quote the more equal distribution of similar of claims were made even in state legislative assembly, such as north carolina. but the last policy measure i'll mention taxes. it should come as no surprise, perhaps, that radical such as jefferson and paine, supported a more progressive system of taxation, but they were joined even some of their more conservative counterparts. despite the fierce opposition to paper money policies that would contribute to the conservative backlash leading to the creation of constitution, support from work for progressive forms of taxation was expressed even by some of the most vocal conservatives. and here i include people like governor morris, robert morris, who was of course superintended

of finance during, the articles of confederation and, alexander hamilton. so, for instance, one of robert morris's justifications for proposing a land tax was its anticipated effect on reducing economic inequality, noting that the burdens of a land tax fall hardest on owners of large estates. morris argued that the tax would incentivize property owners to sell uncultivated lands, creating new for americans in the lower classes. he explained, quote, a tax would have the salutary operation of an agrarian law without, the inequity by which he meant of forced redistribution. it would relieve the indigent and aggrandize the state by bringing property into the hands of those who would use it for the benefit of society. and morris's protege, hamilton, similarly took a progressive when it came to taxation. both in the tax policies he promoted in new york and also the tax policies he promoted at the national level. you him calling for exemptions of the poor and the graduated of

taxation, and in particular taxes on luxury items would have been bought only by those at the very top. now, whether these and other examples, i think what these and other examples show is that the american revolution in closing was just a repudiation of hereditary elites in great britain, but that it was also a refusal to allow aristocracy at. thank you. this. thank you very much. you both for having me here today. thanks to professor proud of it for attending thank you also to the enterprise institute not just for inviting me here, but

for me and my scholarship over the last six years, if you can believe it's been six years already. i'm very honored to be here. i'm very honored to participate in a panel with such illustrious intellectuals. what i want to argue today is that the individuals participated meaningfully in. the founding period had an relationship with what we commonly understand as capitalism. i that's probably been a theme throughout much of the of the of talks today in the conversation today and i want to look at that in particular questions as you've all suggested civic republicanism while there were of capitalism that were common sensical to them, there were points of disagreement. and i think that these disagreements can help reveal tensions that continue to exist within the american body politic today, particularly between capitalism and civic republicanism, to begin, as i think we've established by now. but nevertheless, the americans

accepted virtually without question the essential condition of capitalism, which the private ownership of property the politics of the american generation and those who later formed the constitution, inherited many ideas from the british whig tradition, the british liberalism tradition, from the tumult of the 17th century. and they agreed, john locke, that not only was private a right, they viewed it as an essential right. the protection which which was at the very heart of civil society and the american revolution was in many respects an article nation of this lockean proposition in the declaration of independence, jefferson famously wrote, of course, protecting the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were the essential of government. but a couple just a little ways down south. george mason wrote in the preamble to the virginia declaration of rights that men enter into a state of society for the enjoyment of life and

liberty with the means, and if acquire, and possessing property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety and the bill of rights, as was discussed in the previous panel, has multiple protection for property rights, particularly in establishing the principle of due as a necessary condition, the seizure of property, but more broadly, the constitution was designed to create the political rules of the game to make it difficult for one faction to seize the property of another through the democratic process, which had historically been viewed as the pathway to mob rule and the destruction of private property. this is a major underlying theme in madison's federalist ten in federalist 51, the right to property is the essential component of modern, competitive capitalism. in that sense, the revolution, the constitution and the building of the political institutions of the united states. in the early 19th century, late 18th century, that era that we can commonly consider as the founding can be said to be

capitalistic. yet capitalism, as we understand it today, in 2024, entails a larger number of ancillary institutions and policies to function both and internationally. domestically, access to credit requires financial institutions to facilitate its provision and ultimate. as we've seen some central institution manage the flow of credit net works of trade, likewise necessitate expansive merchant class to facilitate capital exchanges. if economic diversification implies multiple opportunities for individuals, pursue their talents, internal competitive capitalism requires mutual commitment to free trade among nations so that capital may flow freely, both within borders and between them. it on many of these points. this that we can see disagreement within the founding and there are multiple points of interest here and it's been discussed alexander hamilton's

commitment to industrial protection cannot be really termed as capitalistic. but that's not what i want to focus on here. what i want to focus on is the critique of hamilton's of public finance that was offered by the jeffersonian republicans between 1790 and 1793. now, today we remember the jeffersonian republic as the democratic republicans, but that's not how they saw themselves. that's not the phrase that they used to to to refer to themselves. they understood themselves as republican is, which is a confusing word for us because we have a modern republican party. but nevertheless, i want to point that out, because it's going to point to their self-understanding which in turn will help us better understand the nature of their critique and. in fairness, the jeffersonian faction, a sprawling dynamic force in american politics, it encompasses broad array of ideological commitments, and it endured for more than a quarter century and evolved in many ways during that time and makes it a

tough group of men to pin down, but nevertheless, i want to make a few general points about of its members ideological commitments, at least in the early 1790s, the jefferson generally believe that ownership farmable land was the backbone. a prosperous republic led. ownership promoted a rough, although from perfect equality among the it encouraged personal habits like self-sufficiency, responsibility and civic. their vision for america was that of an aggressor and republic, which jefferson later termed empire of liberty, with north american continent populated by a sturdy class of yeoman farmers and jeffersons, the jeffersonians fundamental lee opposed alexander hamilton's efforts to use the public debt as the springboard to creating american version of the commercial revolution, similar to what had already been taking place in great britain, hamilton's plan included a a

system to pay off the national debt, to assume the debts of the state and above all, the chartering the bank. the united states. insofar as we take these as components of the sort of commercial revolution that is a necessary component of modern and i think we should then the jeffersonians have to be at least somewhat skeptical and useful once at that. i think even here in 2024 four they illuminate enduring tensions between the principles of a free market and those impulses side of a republic excuse me of equal citizens. the jeffersonians had. a narrative built on both philosophy, their understanding of history no less an eminence than aristotle believed that the ideal body politic was one probably to be dominated by the middle class, as it's most to avoid the twin disasters, democratic tyranny and oligarchy. and in america, in the late 18th century, if you were thinking a

middle class, you were really, for the most part, about yeoman farmers, at least a significant in the minds of the founders, the example of the roman republic, the classical history of the republic emphasized that yeoman farmers is its great strength. independent virtuous and willing to serve in the republic's legions during times of war. but after the roman conquest of greece, the position of the yeomanry began to decline after years away from their farms in service to the state farmers. according to the the classical account, forced to sell their land to the wealthy who imported greek slaves to work their fields. this growing faction of landless men were eventually consulted by the warlords of the late republic, like marius pompey and, eventually julius caesar by them pay either in plunder or land. these generals turned a large portion of roman society into their clients, and it was in way that caesar was eventually able

to overthrow the republic in many of the classical accounts rome provided historical evidence to the theory that economic independence was a prerequisite for political independence, a yeoman farmers who could take of themselves did not need any patron to take care of them in exchange political support they thus served as a bulwark against the selfish grandiose myth of the rich who are always looking to transform their wealth into power. on the other side, without means of self-support, will accept patronage, especially in times of economic hardship. this is how a republic a government ruled of and for the people as lincoln. it could be corrupted into an oligarchy government by, and for and of the wealthy. if the collapse of rome demonstrated to the jefferson how disparities in wealth could threaten the republic, the of great britain in the century

identified as a kind of modern threat to fight its wars against france without raising taxes to crippling levels and also without to keep parliament from intervening in foreign affairs. the british crown william the third, undertook a number of financial reforms that facilitated what became as the commercial revolution. william used revenue from a land as a permanent two fund to pay interest on the debt or as a permanent fund to pay interest on the debt, effectively making the debt permanent as well. he supported government lotteries and most lastingly he chartered the bank of england, a public private owned by private investors but able to loan money to the government. william's intention was to harness the nation's growing trade wealth for public purposes and. he was successful, william and his success queen and successfully checked the aspirations of borbon against both the netherlands and spain. while britain's commercial

revolution no doubt created the financial preconditions for its domination over the french, it also brought about substantial changes in british politics. the combination of growing trade plus government activity had created faction of men whose wealth was increasingly in government paper, a phrase that recurs in jeffersonian literature being in the public debt or stocks in publicly chartered corporations having grown wealthy from public policy, they were not inclined to on the sidelines under the assumption that the state would continue to bless them. instead, many of them migrated into parliament, forming a bloc of persia, purchasable votes for the crown to acquire the big losers in this scheme, at least according to this understand this jeffersonian understanding were the landed for starters, the debt was financed on the back of a land tax, meaning that it was the landowners effectively subsidizing the merchants in their the critique of the landed class was not

purely self-interested. however, they perceived that the had intervened in the capacity of the people to govern through parliament, and thus it challenged one of the fundamental premises of the glorious revolution itself. members of the house of commons elected by their constituents but following their own interests at the behest of royal patronage, were undermining self-government, creating what economists would today call a principal agent problem, elected to represent their communities. paper wealth had effect turned them into agents of crown, consisting not seen through these very various and historical narratives the republicans told themselves was the distribution of political often mimic the distribution of economic wealth, no less a red man than thomas, more an advisor to henry the eighth and ultimately a victim. henry, the eighth political theorist of the early modern era went so far as to envision his theoretical republic.

the being built upon the common ownership of property. the jeffersonian republicans did have to resort to such heavy handed ideas as state control of all private property. instead, they believe that the virgin territory of the west would support wave wave of aspiring generations of yeomen, and thus serve as an equalizing force for generations to come. and from this perspective, it was madness for the united to follow in the path of 18 century british britain, or perhaps not madness. but the jeffersonian suggested a deep seated preference for oligarchy or even a monarchy bottomed on corruption. as thomas jefferson famously remembered, alexander hamilton nefarious schemes. all right. today we will remember hamilton is the archetype of many of financial institutions. the original innovator of many of the financial institutions

that gave birth to the market revolution and the industrial revolution. but jefferson and madison would have derided him until last days as the great enemy of self-government. this reading of history and philosophy undergirds the jeffersonian republican opposition. all of hamilton's plans, all of his major economic proposals between 1790 and 1792, the republicans come back to these ideas again and again. but i want to focus on one of the most significant points of and it is here i think we can identify a durable durable tension and that's the bank of the united states chartered in 1791 the bank of the united states was modeled on the bank of england. it was privately owned corporation, chartered by the government, holding tax revenues available to lend the government money, but otherwise to engage in the principles of fractional reserve lending that had been developed by that point in history its chartering represents milestone in the

development of american. but the republican were disgusted by it. jefferson himself articulated some of the opinions against it. at one point arguing that quote banking are more dangerous than standing armies. and if you know jefferson's views about standing armies, you can appreciate just how much he hated banks. this was not an idea that he pulled out of whole cloth as a hopefully i've demonstrated now although it certainly seems antiquated to us today and it wasn't jefferson alone on the floor of the house of representatives, madison argued that, quote, in societies had a quote and extensive influence on public affairs in europe. they a powerful machine which have always been found competent to effect objects on principles in a great independent of the people. independent of the people that i think remains a salient point. the jeffersonian republicans, of course lost the economic argument and is sort of a

capstone to this the failure them to think through the consequences of hamiltonian economics. it has to be noted that it was no less republican eminence than madison himself, who signed into law the charter for the second bank of the united states. so while their economic is this not particularly modern, i would encourage us all to think about their political theory that remains underappreciated. the institutions necessary promote what we today think of as capital ism can and have promoted economic inequality insofar as they they can challenge the vision citizenship in a republic. and importantly, i'm not talking about inequality in and of itself. inequality of itself, because even as we dismiss marxist notions that capitalism impoverishes the masses for the benefit of the few, an idea that history has to decisively disproved, we can should

acknowledge the challenges that economic inequality poses to the republican character of the system wealth. can and does grow, which means that one man's increase in wealth does not necessitate another's decrease, but political power. the authority to guide, direct and is by its nature, finite. and it is unfortunate lately but indubitably the case today. the wealthy and well-connected have greater access to the halls of power than the average citizen in them to better understand what our very complicated government is, to make sure that their views are fully considered. likewise, the representatives of the people too often sacrifice the public interest for their own greed and to appreciate that, one may ask how many members of congress leave the legislature an order of magnitude more wealthy than when they arrived. none of this is coincidence, in

my opinion. the power, the political power of the businessmen and the economic wealth of the legislature. here are demonstrations. the theorem that wealth and power can be fungible. this is ultimately one reason why aristotle some 2600 years ago argued that the best societies are usually those dominated by a middle class where wealth is shared. roughly speaking, the republicans understood, the jeffersonians understood this they might not have and they certainly did not actually appreciate the economic genius of alexander hamilton and frankly, the united as a political community, not fully understand, grasp the full scope of hamilton his brilliance and his positive effect on the country. for almost 100 years after he died. nevertheless, the republicans did understand and why a commercially in later industrialized economy can can

challenge civic note notions of civic. these are lessons we should to heart today even as we remain committed to competitive capital and even if the anxieties about banking debt. from 1791 in 92 seem antiquated jefferson and madison may not have understood how money works. they certainly understood how works. and i think there warnings should be taken seriously. thank you very much. thank you both very much there's there's a lot there to wrestle with, i think i to start in a place where it seems to me that there's a tension between your two arguments that could be to push on a bit. there is a way clem in which you're arguing that the the market orientation, the growing market orientation of american life in the years before the

revolution contribue rooted to the democratic character of american life. and in general you're a kind of you're making a case that that counters a lot of the of academic conventional wisdom that says that capital ism was a democratic force or a democratizing force in the life of a of of colonies before independence. jay you're suggesting that the jeffersonians were ultimately right about the political of capitalism that those are somewhat counter to democratization or at least a challenge to it. i would love to hear you each respond to the other just a little about you think there is a tension there or not. so one thing i should clarify about the paper and what i did here was not to argue that capital ism, if that's exactly what we're talking about, is necessary or inevitably or wholly democratized housing, i

think it pulls in different directions or they suggest that there are ways in which it inimical to equality and to democracy, but at least in the way that it was involved, evolving and transform and unfolding in the 18th century. it did have these democratizing trends. it brought consumers into a new kind of marketplace. when goods became cheaper and became available that had been limited to people of a particular class. it's, as i mentioned, it started to unsettle and destabilize certain kinds of class relationships. you know, let's keep in mind that at time, you know, even like recreational habits, instance were restricted class where someone was seated in a church was also in ways defined by one's. and so there are ways in which the market started to shake things up in a way that made some the more democratic,

egalitarian developments in the revolution possible. so in a sense, what i'm arguing is that, you know, the revolution was as dr. mccloskey mentioned, right, about ideas, but it was also and i would argue that material changes helped develop certain kinds ideas and made certain kinds of ideas possible. yeah, i would say i'm not sure i would would argue that capitalism itself leads to political inequality necessary early. i would say that the issue is, the extent to which the government involved in structuring the the the organization of capital within within the country. so the design of the bank of united states, the first bank of the united states was and the general thrust of hamilton's early economic system was enormously to those who held government paper, particularly in the large cities and. and they were overrepresented in congress and jefferson in

madison, at least with respect. the question of the assumption of the state that the self-interested ness of the leader of the house members, particularly their investment in, the state debts, had made the difference in. the passage of that final bill, and i think on my back of the envelope calculations, i think they have a fair point there. that is a problem that's an underlying problem. when the government is involved in questions that can make people lot of money, that doesn't mean inevitability, though. and it's it's really ironic in my opinion is is that the first bank the united states was very well run and it facilitated to an enormous extent the jeffersonian of westward expansion. and one of the reasons that it was able to do that was because under the auspices, albert gallatin, who was himself one of the unsung heroes of the of the founding era, it a way for the

people in the south and west to access the necessary credit, acquire land, and eventually to set a west so these institutions can be well run. but, you know, again, another irony, it was the second bank of the united states that was notoriously corrupt in its early years and in fact, if john marshall hadn't saved it in mccullough v maryland, the very well might have just gotten rid it because of its reckless irresponsibility. and i think one of the lessons to take away from all this is it's not so much that these things are in inevitability. it is rather that when the government is building out policies that are designed for the entire political community in second order, the last long term benefits, one of the dangers is is that the details are often captured, manipulated by interests who have a unique access to power that. average citizens do not. i wonder, is there a difference

opinion here about the nature of a middle class republic where? the jeffersonians have a view that a middle class republic is agrarian they think of their opponents of hamilton in particular as advancing a non middle class republic and oligarchy. hamilton's thinks a middle class republican is commercial. yes, i that hamilton would have would have recognize this that the near run future of the united states was going to be predominantly agricultural. this is, i think, of the reasons why he is at pains in his report on which is the last of his. three great economic reports to sort of to the to to congress, which is, you know, dominate it by members from farming districts, the benefits to farmers, from industrial protection. but i think that his long term view is and he talks about this in federalist ten is sort of a kind of american commercial empire that the natural resources of resources of

america, when developed over time could, you know, come to rival of the european powers. the flip side, though, and what's interesting as well is that the republic ends, as their political coalition evolves, you know, one of the aspects of republican ism jeffersonian republicanism, i mean, is there is there is their belief that they're not party, which is very strange because they form the first party they thought of hamiltonian federalism as a faction, a self-interested faction that had wanted to destroy government. they were the representatives of the class of community and they took that seriously, such that by the time the jeffersonian getting to power, they have to take into account that interests of the merchant class and. the rising industrial classes is a one of the main reasons why jefferson, though he complained bitterly about banks, he allowed his hand to be stayed by albert gallatin at every turn along the way that the bank of the united

states survived, the presidency of thomas jefferson which think is an acknowledgment at least implicit acknowledgment that the economy like you could longer have a republic that was exclusively agrarian and in its policy emphasis claim you took story up to about this 1780s maybe or early 1780s. what if you continued into the period that the james talked about which is really in era of the early constitutional republic in the 1790s did did the kind of democratization of material conditions leading democratization of social ideas continue in the early republic. it's mixed story. so you have with the confiscation of oil as property and some of the other changes i mentioned greater economic equality. right. so you have shrinking of the gap between those the top at the

bottom in the eighties and the 1790s. it starts to expand. it starts to develop for a variety of reasons. some of that does have to do with government policy. some of it has to do with the way the economy is unfolding. but even at that, americans are still even after constitution is ratified, and some of those who pushed for the constitution, those who were considered the conservatives this point were also behind policies that would have minimized some of the inequalities. for instance, you know, when deciding what to do western land. there several different alternatives. they could have divided or sold land into plots of 640 acres under 60 acres. they often opted for the smaller acreage size to make land more available. as i mentioned, you know, some of the tax policies that were ultimately adopted. also some of them had

progressive graduated elements. and so my response is that essentially mixed. jay makes a lot of the concept of republicanism. and i want to ask if what you mean by it, because i just ask everybody what they mean by it, because it's very hard, know what to make of it. clem how does republic organism fit into the story that you tell and how do you think about what it meant to people in in the end of the 18th century? so i think the first thing to note is that republicanism like is where capitalism comes in many varieties and there are basically two major strands of republicanism. one i think is most closely associated, more aristocratic types. so cicero, francesco yardeni, james harrington and they agreed with the more or populist republicans that economic wealth often translated into political power where they differed though

what you do with that so the aristocratic types generally argued and john adams follows them closely you want to make sure that you have a one particular chamber reserved to those who are wealthy and a different chamber for the people. and you basically create political systems that are structured along class lines. the more egalitarian or populist, if you want to call them that, generally look for ways minimize some of those class differences. so so the the the gracchi and machiavelli even and i think this is the strand that jefferson to follow and when he talks the avoiding an agrarian law he's talking about avoiding some of the more heavy handed measures that you know americans at this time would have known from the reading of history. so the purchase of louisiana for him i think critical to maintaining republicanism in the united states at large it was

basically to off some of the commercial that he feared some of the financial developments and his thinking. i think was that if land if all those new land is acquired there will be you know new yeoman farmers families that can settle and they will be able to achieve some degree of economic independence putting off for an additional decades a few decades, maybe even centuries, the fate of europe, which he really was terrified of. yeah. jay, you seem to suggest, i think, more continuity between the the kind of cicero republican ism and jeffersonian is a missouri. well, without disagreeing with what clem has said here, i agree with the basic idea here that you can sort of distinguish what you know. i think maybe montesquieu would call an oligarchic republic. right. and but i think that's a slightly like when you combine two words to say like a democratic republic versus an

oligarchic. so what's the differences? i think in many respects at, least as far as the jeffersonians and i would say madison in particular believed that the insight to the roman republic could be could be could incorporated into the united states even the roman republic at its most democratic was still very oligarchic. and and because when you look at like say madison's federalist 51 i mean he is just borrowing very liberally from polybius in his description of how power can be checked and balance. so and and i think one of the differences between, the two of them or maybe a continuity, i should say, is that republics are design to make sure government to borrow lincoln's phrase government of the people by the people remain for the people. and the difference between an oligarchy and a democracy in this sense is how broadly are we

defining the people like? what is so in rome they're defined narrowly in the in the florentine republic, it's defined narrowly in the venetian republicans defined narrowly in the american republic. it's going to define citizenship much more broadly and increasingly broadly as that as as the constitution effect in the westward entry of in the west. but there's still this idea of managing factions within society so that the ultimate end product of public policy is the entire good of the community. jefferson and i think especially would look back on ancient republics and say there's a lot we use from these guys. it is then for them a tension between a commercial society and a republican society inherently necessarily. i would i would say that. when the bank is enacted, they are in a panic. they believe it is the collapse

of the republic and and they believe all sorts of things about the paper men. they don't do anything that all they do is spec plate. they just push paper around madison would rail about the coffee houses in in present day like wall street where the first congress was situated and and so there's a i think that a lot that can be chalked up to a misunderstanding on their part of banking which frankly of the early republican i think the only one who really understood banking on hamilton's level was gallatin who also was the one who said, we got to keep the bank, but when you when you think about it in terms of when they talk about paper moving, they get very it's seems very facile. but then when they start talking, you see madison transition in congress with jefferson about the of the paper men within congress. that's when their analysis gets

a lot sharper when we're talking raw power politics this something that i think madison in particular had a very astute grasp on. and it was something, by the way, that he picked up when he was in the the confederation congress then it wasn't so much holders of public debt. it was holders of dubious titles as to land in other states that were like clamoring to get these basically illegal titles declared legitimate after. the fact madison had a long experience with people like that. so i agree with everything you said. the only thing i would add is that one of the reasons that madison and jefferson and some of the other large planters in the south were so distressed, full of the man was that they were dependent on. yes, right. so one of the things that they really detested was this feeling of being dependent on someone else. and so over so, by the way, you know, also refused to ever borrow money for anyone because he didn't want to be indebted to

someone. and it was this feeling, you know, when the banker comes calling, you know, for the bill, write something that they wanted to avoid and i think is connected to the thing that jefferson feared about what we've been calling a commercial republic, which is the introduction of a system of wage labor, right his i think in his vision the yeoman farmer was someone who produced for themselves, but also sold their goods to market and did so without being without living under a boss. and i think that's what they were seeing in great britain and that's how they connected their own interests to how they imagined what they imagined to be the interests of workers in cities. i 100% agree. i think that it's important and it's not a coincidence that the republicans tended to disproportionately come from the south then later on the west and. i and i also think that they had a a too narrow of the divide

what what we might call political man, an economic band that that there was one that couldn't exist the other. and i think on that respect as well hamilton's vision of a commercial republic i think is in many respects vindicated. although i think hamilton i mean, i think one of the diversified republics. oh, absolutely absolutely. yeah, definitely the clem. i wonder how you think about how inequality as such was thought about by average at the end of the 18th century america was it on their mind that did it strike them as unjust that there were disparities of wealth or is that a modern set of worries that we impose on them? so we have the writings, the speeches, and then also the policies enacted by elites. and here i would include paine, who not a member of the same

class. exactly. and so they expressed concern. but in terms of the people we're talking about on, on the ground, occasionally you'd get statements by schoolteachers in philadelphia. occasionally you might have a diary entry by, you know, someone who worked on the dockyards in philadelphia. so there's some evidence that there was a concern about this. but at least in the work i've done, it's been focusing mainly on the the great, you know, founders. let's take some questions in the room. we can begin back here and for our audience online. we can take questions to thank you for this and in particular jay thank you for most bipartisan, deep, polarizing civil discourse vital center interpretation, the mutual contributions of the federalists and the jeffersonians to republicanism ever heard. i'm wondering therefore, if how

much credence you would give to the cynical charles beard take that there really were no serious ideological questions at stake there and that the federalist and the jeffersonians were just different kinds of powerful squabbling oligarchs with different economic interests to convince themselves and everybody that they were the true republicans. hmm. that's a good question. i pride myself. it's funny because would think that 100 and well, i guess 230 some odd years after the federalists divide had ended that you could get at least among academics, cool, dispassionate analysis where all republicans were all federal, you would at this point you could you could acknowledge and appreciate the unique of both. but it's hard to do so, even though think it's pretty clear that i'm a madison guy i am a

huge of alexander hamilton in his farsightedness i think with respect the beard hypothesis i mean i've never really i've never really bought into i think forrest macdonald had the better argument i also think one of the one of the challenges with that kind of that kind of early century kind of analysis is it doesn't take the people of the time as they are appreciate fully the nuanced differences. so like for instance if you were to go to james madison's montpelier in say 1787, for starters, it would not look like it today. it was much smaller, but then go to george mason's plantation on the potomac river. you would see a pretty notable economic difference between the two. and i think that from the perspective of that kind of emergent socialist kind of his story in in the early 20th century those kinds of

differences are i think they get lost in the haze. i would say because i mean have had to wrestle with charles beard. yeah so i think he's partly right. but i think you cannot ignore role of ideas. and, you know, every indication is that most of them took ideas very, very and i think the best piece of evidence this is that they thought their opponents took ideas seriously. and so here i would point to the way hamilton responded to burr. right. as an unprincipled rogue, someone who really didn't have didn't stand for anything. and he appreciated jefferson despite fact that he disagreed with his ideas vehemently, or at least as a man of. and so i think that and i think jefferson had some sort of grudging respect for hamilton. well, he did. i'm sorry to interrupt you, but as a matter of fact, go to marcelo today and you send it. face the doorway will see on one side, a bust of jefferson, on another side, a bust of hamilton, which was jefferson's

design as sort of the two great patent you these kind of competing systems of thought even in jefferson's house sorry to interrupt you. but i couldn't i couldn't help but mention this. monticello is, by the way, let's take another question back there. hi there. thank you so much for your papers. so i want to build a little bit more on this question about republicanism and specifically the relationship republicanism and, aristocracy. so a lot of historians such as robert o'connell, have argued that some of the leaders, the revolution came to support the independence because they felt locked out the british imperial aristocracy. they're going to argue that the concept of gentlemanly ness is very important to men like george washington, the society of cincinnati, because their kind of their conception of self government is very much related to their conception of aristocracy in their self-conception, as aristocrats

that a tension there, of course, because there were a lot critics of aristocracy, the independence movement, i think of radicals like thomas paine or conservatives, john adams who looked medal rich alan ryerson done good work sort of exploring their idea, his ideas about aristocracy. so i think out of this tension, have a sort of series of questions. first, did capitalism, commercial republicanism make people washington and the society of cincinnati irrelevant from the beginning of their political? was it sort of inevitable then that the federalist party would collapse, or was was it sort of already out of touch with the times and then related to that. tocqueville talks about the aristocratic sources, liberty. and i'm wondering does capitalism the market society commercial republicanism. to what extent should we interpret this as sort of inherently under mining those aristocratic sources of liberty?

thank you. sure. well, i think i mean, just with respect to the death of the federalist party, i want to suggest that the death of the federalist party was a relatively close run thing, that if you look at the election of 1800, that it wasn't you know, it wasn't a walk of home run by thomas jefferson that year. it a relatively close run and and i think that one of the reasons the federalist party went the way it did was was in large part because of their successful but unpopular negotiations one of the difficult situation the united states was in between great britain and that adams had success fully navigated the crisis. it just as washington had successfully made peace with great britain and jay's treaty, adams in 1800 turns around and makes peace the french in the convention of 1800 and they get

washed out office and jefferson gets to reap the benefits. i think that with respect with respect to the arrest cratic flavor of of revolutionary society feel like klem is probably qualified than i am to comment on that. but i will say that as a structural matter the americans were never able and never expected to derive within the law. the privileges that the aristocratic had within great britain in generally, within europe itself, the average socratic class was a holdover from medievalism. they were the descendants, the warrior class. they had all sorts of privileges within the law. and you know, george, the third never bothered to create, you know, a duke of baltimore right or a baron of norfolk. and so, you know, when the americans throw off the yoke of

the tyrant. george, the third there's no the is going to have to be economically based anyway number. and number two the hallmark of aristocracy in europe had been its ownership of land which was scarce and america land was plentiful. so that would have undermined as well. but i mean, with that being said, i definitely think that there was certainly and then during the french and indian war, especially a status anxiety that the americans felt when the british came over the british just have a way of making other people feel they're inferior and when they came over the americans certainly washington felt very much that way. i'll just add to what's already been said is that this question about whether or not say grievances over being locked out of the british aristocracy you know were fueling things. i mean if that's the case it doesn't really explain the timing of the resistance movement. but in terms of, you know, the larger question of aristocracy now is understood.

one thing that hasn't really come up in our discussion so far is the debate that jefferson and adams have really more of a conversation over the difference between a natural and an artificial aristotle or c and you know, this sort of speaks to the point i was making earlier about you know opposing aristocracy based on wealth. but know when jefferson recommends says he's in favor of or is supportive of can get behind a natural aristocracy. he doesn't hope that those have ability will rise to the top right the establishment of his university his support for public education his support for a free press are all factors that would contribute to allowing natural aristocrat to actually rise to the top and you know serve the public. it's a good point which should have been a question about something that. neither of you talked about with the same when our panel the whole question of national

secure and military organization militarism was a very important part of republicanism because. what it does is it sort of said there's transcendent duties that everybody has to, make sure that the whole is going to be protected. and if you start to look at the constitution it's a single most complicated provision turns out to be the militia clauses in. article one with divided authorities. and then all the other militia provisions that going in related to the army. and so there are all sorts of things like the republican cause of government that are designed to deal with what are you going to deal with if it turns out the states start to fight with one another and things of that sort. and i mean, it seems to me that all of us have been concentrating much on the sort of the entrepreneurial side, i think, of an accurate account, the way in which these guys actually about it, given the amount of time that they spent on these other issues, let's just add one observation almost of the enumerated powers that are article one. section eight are related to military. and why is it that none of us,

including myself i have talked about on other occasions, but it seems to me if you're trying to get a comprehensive picture of it, this form of of republicanism stresses duty, honor and collective activity. and it certainly is the absolute in real tension with how you with the commercial side. so i'm just curious where both of you think about that particular part of the puzzle which seems at this point to have been underappreciated by my learned on this side of the table. that's a great question. i would say that there there was and had been a long tradition within england of of standing armies which a really animating i think of article one not just the emphasis on the management of militia, but also the limits on money and appropriations that appropriations for the military have to be renewed every two years. one of the one of the things i think is really useful for

understanding this is is when one of his national gazette essays when madison is critiquing the hamilton economic economic system. he he argues that there's three bases for for the legitimacy of a government. we're not moral legitimacy but just a sort of every day why do you obey law. one of them is you've been bribed, of course, is his great accusation of hamilton is that he's bribing people. another is that you you consent freely because you believe that the laws are good. and then another one is is military establishments. you're under fear of the sword, which is a very old tradition within the in the english world, writes an intimate reason that james the second got the boot in 1689. but you know it shows up in another interesting way after john adams has when when the quasi war is breaking out the x, y and affair. adams is basically adams is like. well, we need to get the army. we need to get an army and we'll

make washington lieutenant general and hamilton works behind the scenes to get himself as washington's assistant. and jefferson and madison are beside themselves like. hamilton is building out an army which he's going to use for two purposes. they're convinced the. first is patronage because they always believed that hamilton was looking to reward his friends and then the other on'is army down into virginia. and there's this amazing series of letters that jefferson wrote, 1790 899, telling his fellow republicans, just be calm. don't give hamilton an excuse to march the army here, which sounds ridiculous in historical retrospect. but when you think about it in the framework of the historical sort of social imaginary that that these men would have had that makes a lot of sense because it had just been 100 years earlier that james second seemed to be doing exactly. you know, i mean, if you look at republican form of government called remember, it's not

directed to the courts as reluctant to the united states and their provisions. it would go to the president the stanford of the congress is of session. they only serve with the supreme uneasiness about the organization, the military stuff. the other part of the question to have it and i don't know what the answer is to the extent that this requires a kind of collective morality and duty service in terms of these centralizing tendencies or associated with the commercial. jason there's one more way in which hamilton seems to live in the future, he has an understanding of the army and the bank that is almost a 20th century, understanding. and he's listening to jefferson complain and just thinking, oh my god, yeah. i mean, if hamilton had not been killed by aaron burr in 1804 and had lived. to 1815, had lived the like the end of madison's presidency, 1817.

madison, home from from washington to montpelier, hamilton could stand on the doorstep of montpelier and said, i told you. so i told you. but of course, the flip side is that madison turned around and charters hamilton's bank and it behaves in all none of the ways that the first bank did but in all actually did but in all the ways madison feared from the from the 1790s, he could turn around to him and say, i told so what are you going to do? yeah, but let's let's take one final question and then our time will unfortunately be up. we can go up here in the front. let's get a microphone and see. you talked about the taxes, but you didn't mention taxes or estate taxes. was there any that those who had the most should pay most, either alive as property are dead, is estate taxes?

was that at all part of the evolving revolutionary ideas? yeah. so there were several things that took place. some of it had to do with. graduated rates on on landed property. but they also made an egalitarian move in how they assessed taxes, which is just as important. and this took place in several states after the revolution. instead, assessing taxes on acreage. they assess that based on value, which would have the of taxing who actually owned more wealth rather than you know, basically taxing everyone the same just based on the sheer number of acres. so there was a direct tax and the lawyers in the room maybe can, you know, speak this a little bit more. better than i can, but the the debate over the direct tax was

also related to this where, you know, hamilton or oliver walcott became treasury secretary under adams. mm hmm. he recommended a graduated rate on taxation on property taxes for specifically homes where below a certain value you were exempt and then higher as you went up, which is you know the closest we get your question about property how about a state. i'm not sure tom payton love the state taxes. yes, i did. yes. it is fitting that we end on taxes because the american began in taxes and it's april 15th. and so maybe this is the place to close. let's think our panel very much and both of our