that-starlit-wanderer

[that-starlit-wanderer]

This is also why in discussions about potentially abolishing the monarchy in Canada (or Alberta/Quebec separating and becoming a republic) the issue of First Nations treaties always comes up: the indigenous people signed treaties with the Crown, not with the Canadian government.

The argument that the British (and later the Americans and Canadians) seemed to settle on was that "the only legitimate way in which the colonists could have acquired [the lands they occupied] was through purchase or 'concession." That requires rejecting the res nullius principle incidentally, since you can't legally receive a "concession" of something from someone else unless that someone else already has ownership of it.

This formed the rationale behind most of the treaties (if you want to call them that) made with indigenous people in the Americas:

[that-starlit-wanderer]

The argument that the British (and later the Americans and Canadians) seemed to settle on was that "the only legitimate way in which the colonists could have acquired [the lands they occupied] was through purchase or 'concession." That requires rejecting the res nullius principle incidentally, since you can't legally receive a "concession" of something from someone else unless that someone else already has ownership of it.

This formed the rationale behind most of the treaties (if you want to call them that) made with indigenous people in the Americas:

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Well at least someone said it

[that-starlit-wanderer]

And indeed not much later:

This is why e.g. one of the early names for colonial Rhode Island was Providence Plantation

Very convenient that the Anglo-French use of res nullius to try to legally justify their colonization of the Americas also implies that the Spanish had no just claim to Mexico and Peru, since there they had conquered settled agricultural civilizations and had usurped the land from its rightful owners

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Very convenient that the Anglo-French use of res nullius to try to legally justify their colonization of the Americas also implies that the Spanish had no just claim to Mexico and Peru, since there they had conquered settled agricultural civilizations and had usurped the land from its rightful owners

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Britain and France retconning their reasons for sending expeditions to the Americas after the fact: "Well obviously we were never looking for gold, for you see unlike the Spanish we were simply far too wise for that."

Also, lol at Sir Walter "Donald Trump" Raleigh with his Large, Rich and Beautiful Empire

[that-starlit-wanderer]

People don't really talk in these terms anymore (or at least not in terms of "virtue"), but I feel like the second approach talked about here has always been really prominent in the US in particular, and is something I've seen other authors (particularly thinking of Bailyn and Wilentz, the two most recent US history authors I've read) talk about as part of the republican tradition.

E.g. Bailyn seemed to me to be trying to explain the "paranoid style" or what appears as conspiratorial thinking as an outgrowth of this deep republican concern with corruption in government. In particular in his book he talks about the fear of corrupt cabals in the British government that had already taken over in Britain and were now allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to deprive the American colonists of their liberties in the years leading up to 1776.

(And the whole issue of elite corruption and a "corrupting influence" on the country comes up again during the presidency of Andrew Jackson that I'm currently reading about)

Maybe I find the former approach as somewhat more materialist and so it just seems to make more sense to me as a lens through which to view this since you can probably at least attempt to quantify whether institutions are working well, but how can you decide whether a politician does or does not possess virtue in a way any more objective than "I know it when I see it"?. But I think someone who thinks in terms of the latter approach would see a country struggling in some way and just assert that it's because the people running the country are corrupt or lacking in virtue. Corruption and lack of virtue in your leaders leads directly to material decline.

I don't think I buy that but I can understand why it's hard to talk people out of that way of thinking.

[that-starlit-wanderer]

It makes sense in a way; not to put too much weight on a tagline from a 2000s superhero movie but if great power requires great responsibility then I think you can equally make a case that great responsibility will sooner or later demand great power.

[that-starlit-wanderer]

It certainly didn't help the opposition to Jackson that they were a coalition of disparate elements united mostly by their opposition to the president:

But finally, they all got together in one nice happy little bloc, and thus the Whig Party was born:

The parallels to contemporary disputes concerning separation of powers shouldn't be overstated (for one thing, today Congress is subservient to the president, not fighting him), but this points to something I've seen in other contexts as well.

Namely, the argument that a single person can, if they're "virtuous" or "wise," rule on behalf of and as the representative of the people, but a legislature will be more susceptible to corruption and tend to represent (or be composed of) the elites, the wealthy, the aristocrats, and the powerful.

(Since my own political views tend towards favoring a distribution of power and fear one-man rule, it's not surprising that I don't endorse this kind of characterization)

Wilentz has been broadly sympathetic to Andrew Jackson throughout this book so it's not surprising that he is here as well:

And in fairness, in most states the presidential electors were by this point (early 1830s) chosen by voters instead of appointed by state legislatures, unlike the Senate which would not be popularly elected for another 80 years or so

[that-starlit-wanderer]

The parallels to contemporary disputes concerning separation of powers shouldn't be overstated (for one thing, today Congress is subservient to the president, not fighting him), but this points to something I've seen in other contexts as well.

Namely, the argument that a single person can, if they're "virtuous" or "wise," rule on behalf of and as the representative of the people, but a legislature will be more susceptible to corruption and tend to represent (or be composed of) the elites, the wealthy, the aristocrats, and the powerful.

(Since my own political views tend towards favoring a distribution of power and fear one-man rule, it's not surprising that I don't endorse this kind of characterization)

Wilentz has been broadly sympathetic to Andrew Jackson throughout this book so it's not surprising that he is here as well:

And in fairness, in most states the presidential electors were by this point (early 1830s) chosen by voters instead of appointed by state legislatures, unlike the Senate which would not be popularly elected for another 80 years or so

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Some of the first statements (by Bartolus, an Italian jurist from the 14th century) of what you could kind of see as independent sovereignty (today we'd say "national sovereignty" but the "national" part is anachronistic here) in contrast to the notion that there is or ought to be a single all-powerful authority who governs the entire world (dominium mundi):

And the idea that that ultimate authority could ultimately reside in the people:

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Now here's an idea I haven't seen before! In order to be elected in our country it's mandatory that you not be a citizen. You can do whatever you want but you only get to be in power for six months, and before you can go back to your home country you have to justify everything you did; if we're not happy with you we'll throw you in prison or something

[that-starlit-wanderer]

On the subject of the "Bank War" of 1832, which played a key role in the presidential election of that year, this discusses Andrew Jackson's veto (and in particular the letter he published explaining that veto) of a bill that his National Republican opponents had successfully passed through Congress to re-charter the Bank of the United States, apparently with the belief that there would either be no veto (because it would be politically unpopular) or that there would be a veto and it it would be, well. Politically unpopular

The text doesn't go into this any further but apparently there was also a challenge to the power of the Supreme Court here (which had previously ruled that the Bank was constitutional). Now I'm not sure why this necessarily had to involve any kind of executive/judicial conflict; just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it's mandatory! But the way this is written definitely implies that there was a challenge there.

Next, the response of the anti-Jackson opposition:

They were comparing Jackson to both a despotic king (this is the source of the famous "King Andrew" political cartoon) and a Jacobin anarchist. However it seems that just claiming that your political opponent is a threat to democracy is sometimes not enough to convince people that they're wrong and you're right (imagine that).

And being perceived to be on the side of the elites instead of on the side of the people (two categories that it turns out are fluid, and very easy for skilled politicians to define and re-define in the minds of the electorate) is almost never a winning proposition:

(Biddle refers to Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank of the United States)

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Finally updated my currently reading post that had been out of date for months I think

[that-starlit-wanderer]

Interesting that the whole "I'm dividing the world between Spain and Portugal" papal bull that you'd think would not meet many objections in Spain was, in fact, met with at least some objections in Spain (or at least theological and philosophical objections). Not that this had any impact on the conquering-the-Americas thing, just, you know. Not using "because the Pope said we could" as justification.

Also I've heard something to this effect before, that Catholics around the time of the Reformation were Thomists and Protestants were at least in some sense Augustinians, or getting some sort of inspiration from Augustine. I have to admit I don't really know much about how you'd make that distinction, so I guess I need to learn some more about this...

[that-starlit-wanderer]

March 18 2003

Change a few words around and you could almost recycle this exact speech today

[that-starlit-wanderer]

February 5 2003