Seminar notes: republican states

Republican architecture

All official buildings sort of look alike

they all have cupolas and pillars

Republican architectural history …

cf. Akropolis or Paestum in southern Italy
taken over by the Romans — Palatine in Rome — Senate, Capitol, and many others
in Washington DC you can still see very similar buildings around The Mall

Or, republican city-planning

you take care of yourself — no father, no paternalism
you need somewhere where you can gather to discuss — and make common decisions
an agora, a city-square
this is provided by all republics
piazza — the small “village greens” of New England towns

What they have in common

you go into the various institutions located around the square
a library, school, church, mosque

You learn things here …

and then you go out to the city-square and share what you have learned
equality, freedom, community — directly obvious from the town map!
whether it actually worked that way is a slightly different question
this is rhetoric of the republic

The republican tradition

today: focus on the “republican idea”

This week — the continuation of the tradition of the polis

the republican idea – res publica — the “common thing”
original i classical Greece of city-states like Athens

The monarchies of northern Europe

but there were republics too

Today a lot of “republics”

Republic of Turkey — People’s Republic of China — la republique francaise
what they have in common — no kings — Sweden, for example, is not a republic
but then again that might be the least interesting fact about them

J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment

from Athens to Northern Italy to England — ending up in the United States
an ideology more than actual similarities — a way of thinking

“Liberty of the Republic” (Skinner)

The most important value in our common life is freedom

Hobbes

power on the part of an agent to do something
having the power to make that choice
no interference with your exercise of that power

But what is “interference”

there is a physical act — prevention
or you are made to act in a certain way — compulsion

But, if I coerce your will,

highwayman — “money or your life” — you are free to pick one or the other
no consideration of the range of options
you are put under an illegal threat

John Locke

we have to look at coercion

Berlin, Two Concepts of Liberty

Negative and positive liberty

non-interference with your powers — prevention or coercion

19th century liberal philosophy — Hegel, Philosophy of Right — the English think that freedom is a negative freedom

but freedom requires you to use the freedom — what do you want this absence of coercion for
liberals — you should able to use if for whatever purpose you want

Hegel: theory of the state —

use your freedom for the realization of the most human qualities
freedom is pursuing those purposes
freedom is a pattern of behavior

This leaves the question of what human purposes are — right back to Aristotle — zoon politikon

greatest freedom depends on you taking part in a civil association
Hannah Arendt, Human Condition, “What is Freedom” — Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self
freedom is politics

But also: internal development of liberalism …

Herzen, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill
interference can also be internal — you can undermine your own freedom

How could this be so?

reason and passion — actions can align itself with either — liberty is acting in accordance with reason
license is to be “a slave to a passion”

Mores of society are so strong — you cannot resist them — they become a “second nature”

you are limiting your own freedom
fear of the crowd, conventional thinking

Freud

unconscious — free yourself from yourself
the self has liberated the self from the self

The Republican definition of freedom

Skinner has a very Roman conception here — this is why Aristotle does not fit in

all of this is wrong! you just haven’t understood freedom!

Freedom doesn’t have anything to do with action —

freedom is a matter of a status — your status — a free man or a slave?
am I a free person?

Tacitus, Livy

rule of the early Roman kings to rule of the consuls — from kingship to the republic
move from servitude to freedom

What does it mean to be a slave?

suppose there was a slave who had a nice master? — uncoerced slave
slave is a person who is subject to the arbitrary will of another person
whether something bad happens or not is irrelevant

But they are all muddle up — republicans are not Hegelians

liberals and republicans always think in terms of negative freedom

Pocock — he thinks that republicans are Hegelians — this is a complete mistake

nothing of this in Machiavelli or Guicciardini

Instead

but you must participate in the state — you must recognize your own will in the law — not someone else’s will
you must find yourself in the law — then you are free although you are a citizen

You give the law to yourself — you recognize your own will in the law — thus you are not subject to someone else

But difference republicanism and liberalism

the essence is about your status — actions are secondary
absence of dependence — much broader and more comprehensive

Republican Rome

Actually more important than the Greek polis

the constant reference in the Renaissance

Founded in 753 BCE, according to tradition

make it just as old as Athens
Rome was a very small city
first with kings — tyrannus — but they were overthrown

Roman republic — 509 BCE

they want “freedom” — get rid of the kings
borrowing from the Greek models
until Augustus takes over in 27 BCE — the Roman empire

But it wasn’t really “the people” who wanted to get rid of the king

rather the aristocrats — big families with land
the plebes — had right to vote too, but votes were weighted

The republic worked best for a small elite

women did not have the right to vote
many slaves — many foreign-born — and they did not have the right to vote either

Roman constitution

very famous innovation
existed in Greece too
but this is an actual foundation of the state — very well organized

For example:

not one leader but two — could control each other
elected for a year — after which they became ordinary citizens again
other administrators too were elected for a year

“Monarchia mixta”

Roman attempt to build Aristotle’s three forms of government into the same institutional structure

monarchy, aristocracy, democracy

Prevent

too much power in the hands of one group
tyranny of the majority

They would keep a check on each other

they had to be united in order to make decisions

Military expansion

eventually undermines the republic
generals — like Cesar — don’t want to follow the rules
they too should only have been a general for a year

Italian Renaissance

absence of politics for some 1,500 years

Republicanism is very much around — 1200s, the idea of self-governance, the commune

14th century — rise of signiori all over Italy — Florence and Venice survive as republics

Make themselves independent

both of Rome
and the Holy Roman Empire
play the one against the other

“Renaissance” as “rebirth” — return to classical models

political thought is one example
small city-states in northern Italy
make themselves independent both of the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy
but many were also run by condottieri

They are reading the classical Roman texts — Machiavelli

Cicero and Titus Livius

Picking up from the Romans

the right to live free — a status as a free man — not be dependent on others

Fear of corruption

a state of dependence — if you are dependent on someone else you are corrupt
cf. the Greek understanding of freedom — freedom from animal needs etc

Problem of how you can make decisions together

you must find yourself in the politics that is being made
the law must be the law that you willed

Discussing why Rome fell

What is the nature of republican government?

what can we do to prevent the same thing happening to us?

Machiavelli on the obligation to fight for one’s republic

disgusted with the previous system of mercenaries
“I love my own city more than I love my own soul”
not surprisingly perhaps, it took a long time for Italy to unite

The republics soon deteriorated

in the end Florence too — the Medici family
Venice remains a republic but is taken over by rich merchant families
again, republics are often quite elitist

The Medici take-over

Born 1469, Cosimo de Medici, the republic was a sham

1480, Lorenzo dominated all

1490s — the French kings start to meddle — the Medici have to leave

need for new civil servants
Machiavelli gets a post and has a career

Machiavelli in exile — vita contemplativa — return of the Medici — he is tortured

dress up and talk to the ancients — writes in Italian
first public library — the Medici library

The timeline

Early 15th Century: The Medici family rose to prominence in Florence, initially through banking and commerce. Cosimo de’ Medici (1389–1464) played a key role in establishing the family’s power.
1469-1492: Lorenzo de’ Medici, known as “Lorenzo the Magnificent,” led Florence. His reign is often considered the height of the Medici family’s power and a golden age for Florence in terms of art and culture.
1494: The Medici family was expelled from Florence following the invasion of King Charles VIII of France and the rise of the Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola, who led a republican government.
1469-1527: Lifespan of Niccolò Machiavelli. He was born in Florence and witnessed the city’s turbulent politics, including the rise and fall of different regimes.
1498-1512: Machiavelli served as a diplomat and senior official in the Florentine Republic during the period after the Medici’s expulsion. He was deeply involved in the complex political situation of Italy, engaging with various foreign powers and states.
1512: The Medici family returned to power in Florence with the help of Spanish troops. Machiavelli lost his position in the government and was subsequently arrested and tortured, although later released.
1513: After his release, Machiavelli retreated to his estate and wrote “The Prince.” The book is believed to be an attempt to gain favor with the Medici rulers by offering guidance on how a ruler should acquire and maintain political power. It was dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de’ Medici, a member of the ruling Medici family.
1527: The Medici were again driven out of Florence following the sack of Rome and the resurgence of republican sentiments in the city. However, this happened after Machiavelli’s death, and he did not live to see this final expulsion of the Medici.
Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was written in the context of the Medici’s return to power in Florence. It reflects Machiavelli’s observations and thoughts on political power, drawn from his experiences during the tumultuous times when Florence oscillated between republicanism and Medici rule.

The Prince and the Medici: While “The Prince” is often interpreted as a guide for autocratic rule, it’s essential to understand it in the context of Machiavelli’s life and the political instability of his times. His primary objective might have been to offer a realistic assessment of gaining and holding power, influenced by the Medici’s own experiences in Florence.

The Prince, 1513

It’s a job application — giving his most priced possession — he was falsely implicated in an anti-Medici plot

princes should be seeking their glory

Mantenere lo stato — but argues against the virtues

glory does not come to the virtuous — not rational to be moral
he was exceptional in actually writing it down
you would always serve your family, your group, not general political ideal

Terribly turbulent times — only strongmen tactics work

political virtue — vir is man, you have to be a
Cicero — contrasts vir, manly, as opposed to beastly methods
not thuggery though, you had to have glory as well as power
stupid to pardon people too much — it rather looks like weakness

“The end justifies the means”

Henry VIII using it as a way to break with Rome
manual for tyrants

Demonization of Machiavelli

on the index of censored books
taught as arcana imperii

Some quotes:

On Being Loved and Feared:

“Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because … men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

On the Use of Cruelty:

“Nevertheless, a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.”

On Fortune and Ability:

“I compare fortune to one of those violent rivers which, when they are enraged, flood the plains, tear down trees and buildings, bear away the soil from one place, and lay it down in another. Everyone flees before them, everyone yields to their onslaught, unable to withstand them. And yet, although they are such powerful forces, when they are quiet, men can make provisions against them by building dykes and embankments so that when they rise again, either they are directed into a channel or their fury is not so wild and dangerous. So it is with fortune…”

On Changing Fortune:

“And as she varies her favors she changes their minds, and to whom she was liberal, now she imposes penury. Hence it is necessary for a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it according to necessity.”

The Discourses

1514-1419, writing it, based on Livy
this is all about republican freedom
he would have thought of this as his main work

How Rome overturned its kings and established a republic

about the republic succeeded — only liberty provides glory

Some quotes:

On the Strength of the Republic:

“The chief foundations of all states, new as well as old or composite, are good laws and good arms; and as there cannot be good laws where the state is not well armed, it follows that where they are well armed they have good laws.”

On the Role of Conflict in a Republic:

“The desires of a free populace are rarely harmful to freedom, for they arise either from oppression or from the suspicion that they are about to be oppressed… And it should be realized that the populace, although it may be ignorant, is capable of grasping the truth and yielding to it when presented by a trustworthy man… So, if such outbursts of popular displeasure occur frequently in a republic, they should not be regarded as a flaw, for they are in fact one of the means by which it keeps itself free.”

On Fortune and Virtue:

“I conclude, therefore, that fortune varying and men remaining fixed in their ways, they are prosperous so long as fortune and their methods agree, and as soon as they disagree, they fail. I certainly believe that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman, and if you want to keep her down you have to slap and thrust her down. And one sees that she lets herself be won more by the impetuous than by those who go coldly about it. And therefore, like a woman, she is always the friend of the young, because they are less cautious, more violent, and command fortune with more audacity.”

On Adapting to Change:

“And truly it is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed; but when they cannot, and wish to do it anyway, here lie the error and the blame.”

On the Need for Reform:

“For it is the nature of men to be bound by the benefits they confer as much as by those they receive. Therefore, if a city is to be well governed by a prince or by a republic, it must be from time to time renewed in its institutions; and this renewal must be the work of its original founder.”

England as a republic

Today England is of course a monarchy

but Charles II beheaded in 1649 —
and the country a republic for 10 years — run by Oliver Cromwell
but the publican tradition has been very strong — influencing both France and the United States

Tudor kings:

not that different from other despotic kings

The Puritans

opposition to the king — on religious grounds

The Glorious Revolution, 1688

“the King in Parliament”

William of Orange is invited to become king

starts a war with France
he is forced to go to parliament to ask for money

Comes back as a constitutional monarch

“the sovereign in parliament”
the parliament is actually sovereign
the monarch rules on the parliament’s terms

Bill of Rights (1689):

This crucial document, passed by Parliament, laid out certain rights and clarified legal principles. It established that the monarch could not suspend or create laws, impose taxes, or maintain an army without Parliament’s consent. This effectively placed significant limits on the powers of the monarchy and affirmed the authority of Parliament.

Act of Settlement (1701):

This act further restricted the powers of the monarchy by setting rules for succession and further asserting the supremacy of Parliament in determining the line of succession to the throne.

Constitutional Monarchy:

The Glorious Revolution established a constitutional monarchy in England. This meant that while the monarch remained the head of state, the monarch’s powers were constrained by law and by the need to work with Parliament, particularly with regards to legislation, taxation, and foreign policy.

Parliamentary Sovereignty

Over time, the concept of parliamentary sovereignty emerged more distinctly. This principle asserts that Parliament is the supreme legal authority, capable of creating or ending any law. The courts cannot overrule its legislation, and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change.

Two European patterns

all the wars make some kings weaker — where they have to ask parliament for taxes (England, Sweden)
make some kings stronger — where they can find independent sources of income (France, most of Europe)
absolutism

English parliament

This was above all the place for the nobility — the land-owners — the social elite — came with William the Conqueror

strange place for a republic you might think — but it fits
the republican idea of freedom

They are ruling themselves — in parliament

they are free citizens since they have no entanglements
their land makes them free
they can provide for themselves
no corruption

They were able to look to what’s best for the community as a whole

parliament was their agora — whether they gathered to make decisions
very similar kinds of people — strong sense of cultural community — conformism
an exclusive membership club — cf. the cultural unity of Athens etc

State financing

the king need money — import Dutch financial institutions
reinvesting all the fabulous profits from the Asian trade
Bank of England
stock markets

Opens up another way for the king to finance himself and his wars

standing army — this is the beginning of despotism
funded state debt

Stock jobbers and investors

not free — always dependent on the price of money — which varied from one day to the next
besides they were foreigners, Jews, marginal people
all with more loyalty to their money than to their country

The main political divide

parliament vs the City of London
parliament very skeptical of the wheelings and dealing of the City

The United States as a republic

this political tradition exported to the United States

A question of status

1776, the United States of America — “declaration of independence” — independence from dependentia

They were taxed but they had no right to impose it

We are subject to an alien power — we are slaves

The English: nothing bad will happen, you can trust us — “I’m not worrying of what you are doing, I worry about the status you give us”

English apologists — “if there is no interference, there is freedom”
US response — the life of the slave, you are endlessly self-censoring yourself
abject bowing and scraping — never know what will happen — always scared of the person who has a will over you

Three social groups

The plantation owners think of themselves as very Athenian

they even have slaves
they are the free men who can run the new republic

New England family farmers

inspired by the ideals of the English revolution — often Puritans
they are self-sufficient — grow their own food
the American republic can guarantee their freedom

Inhabitants of the few cities that exist — Boston, New York, Baltimore och Philadelphia

they are merchants — associate with the city-dwellers of Athens
hope to make money once the Brits leave
also republican, but of a different kind

At the same time it should be obvious how different these groups actually are

all Americans agreed that they did not want a European-style monarchical state
maximum “freedom” — no state involvement
there are “states” but no “state”

Declaration of Independence (1776):

Opening Statement:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Statement of Human Rights:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Purpose of Government:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Right of the People:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

United States Constitution (1789)

Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article I, Section 1 – Legislative Powers:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article II, Section 1 – The Executive Branch:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows…”

Article III, Section 1 – Judicial Powers:

“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, and Petition:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Economic policies (Sandel)

Not just a matter of maximizing wealth, or the distribution of wealth

in the early republic: what kind of economics is most conducive to self-government?
the civic consequences of economic policy

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1787

against large-scale manufacturing
it is the agrarian way of life which makes citizens virtuous
“better to let workshops remain in Europe” — and import the products

Cf. the republican ideal of independence

also a fear of mass society
fear of cities

George Mason

large commercial cities would undermine the civic virtue that republican government requires

John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters”
luxury, wealth and power can undermine virtue

If liberty requires virtue — and if virtue always risks being undermined —

then the republic has to form virtue
strengthen the attachment to the common good

Existing state constitutions

state legislatures — often corrupt, bad decision-making
parochial and small-minded

Civic virtue and the constitution

either inculcate virtue — save Americans from the private pursuit of happiness
or design the constitution so that virtue was not necessary —

Hamilton, assume the worst about people and design the constitution in accordance

examples of Greece and Rome have no relevance for America
better with checks and balances

but they all continued to believe

the virtuous should govern — aim to public good, beyond private good
government has a role in cultivating citizens of a certain kind

Interesting reading in the age of Trump …

“The point of the system of representation they invented was to identify such people and to place them in positions of power and trust. The aim was to design a system that would, in Madison’s words, “extract from the mass of the society the purest and noblest characters which it contains,” people “whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments [would] render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice.”

The point of government was not to give people what they want, but to do the right thing

Federalists vs. Anti-federalists

“Federalists” — James Madison, Alexander Hamilton och John Jay. — TheFederalist Papers, 1788 — ideas for a constitution

Build the kinds of political institutions that could survive even if people are not virtuous

people are short-sighted and self-interested
we need strong central institutions
we need a bank

Anti-federalists — Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and James Monroe

they considered the Federalists too European, too ready to make concessions to absolutist power
there is no way to separate strong institutions and a strong state
the Federalist were too city-based — too interested in industrial production
real freedom could only be found in the countryside
real Americans lived in the countryside

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was a pivotal figure in American history, known for his role as a Founding Father and the third President of the United States. Born into a wealthy family in Shadwell, Virginia, he inherited a vast estate, which included the Monticello plantation. Jefferson was well-educated, attending the College of William & Mary, and later practiced law.

Jefferson’s political career began in the Virginia House of Burgesses and he soon emerged as a leader in the movement for American independence. He is most celebrated for drafting the Declaration of Independence in 1776, which articulated the colonies’ reasons for breaking away from British rule and championed individual rights and freedoms.

As a political leader, Jefferson advocated for a decentralized agrarian republic and was a proponent of states’ rights and individual liberties. He opposed strong centralized government and the federalist policies of his contemporaries like Alexander Hamilton.

Jefferson served as the Vice President under John Adams before being elected as the third President of the United States in 1801. His presidency is notably marked by the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which dramatically expanded U.S. territory, and the Lewis and Clark expedition, which he commissioned to explore these new lands.

Apart from his political career, Jefferson had a vast array of interests and talents. He was an architect, inventor, writer, and philosopher. He founded the University of Virginia and was a voracious collector of books, which formed the foundation of the Library of Congress.

However, Jefferson’s legacy is also marked by contradictions, most notably his ownership of slaves despite his professed belief in human liberty. He fathered children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, a relationship that has been the subject of considerable historical debate and study.

Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. His contributions to the founding principles of the United States and his influence on American political thought remain central to discussions of American history and democracy.

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) was a founding father of the United States, known for his influential role in shaping the early framework of the nation’s government. Born out of wedlock in Charlestown, Nevis, in the British West Indies, Hamilton experienced a challenging early life, including the death of his father and abandonment by his mother, who later died when he was just a boy. Despite these hardships, he demonstrated exceptional intelligence and ambition from a young age.

Hamilton’s talents earned him a place at King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York. His studies were interrupted by the American Revolutionary War, during which he joined a New York volunteer militia and was quickly promoted. His skills and bravery caught the attention of General George Washington, who made him his aide-de-camp.

After the war, Hamilton’s influence grew as he became a key architect of the U.S. Constitution. He was a leading author of the Federalist Papers, a series of essays advocating for the ratification of the Constitution. Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a robust financial system was instrumental in laying the foundation for modern U.S. fiscal policy.

In 1789, President Washington appointed Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury. In this role, he established the national bank, formulated policies to pay off the national debt, and laid the groundwork for American capitalism.

Hamilton’s career, however, was marked by intense political rivalries, most notably with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These disputes helped give rise to America’s first political parties. His personal life was also tumultuous, including a publicized affair that damaged his reputation.

Hamilton’s life ended tragically in a duel with Aaron Burr, then Vice President of the United States, in 1804. Despite his early death, Hamilton’s legacy as a financial visionary, a key framer of the Constitution, and an influential voice in the formation of the U.S. government remains significant in American history.

Hamilton’s treasury system

Fear that he was recreating a British system

give the king access to his own financing
start his own wars

A funded national debt

this would also be a source of income to a new rentier class — very troubling
give a class of investors as stake in it

Real wealth comes from land

“national debt attaches many citizens to the government who, by their numbers, wealth, and influence, contribute more perhaps to its preservation than a body of soldiers”

Cf. the traditional republican fear of corruption

corruption — dependence
create great disparities of wealth

Republican political economy

Hamilton and the Federalists advocated a manufacturing base for virtue
Louisiana Purchase as a way to preserve the agricultural lifestyle

Domestic manufacture

Jefferson against, advocated agriculture and self-sufficiency

worried about the creation of a property-less working class

Hamilton in favor, save themselves from imports

Britain continued to have power over them — economic power
Report on Manufactures, 1791
but the virtue argument was still invoked — independence and frugality

Jefferson eventually more positive

there was land that the workers could retreat to if they wanted

Factory life and republican ideals

started with “factory girls” — not with men who lived this way

Jackson

condemned all kinds of government
post office, national bank

But the rationale was that the government would favor the rich

against banking, against debt
against paper money — against silver — too easy access
spirit of speculation

The National Bank

The existing national bank was not extended

there is no central bank throughout the 19th century
they did not want to give the federal government access to resources

They were afraid of city-life and the kinds of people who would make money on Wall Street

“free banking era” during the 19th century
Federal Reserve only in 1913

Second amendment to the US constitution

The right to carry guns

But not a matter of private defense

instead defense against the government

The same old English argument against a standing army

they were afraid of too much power in hands of the president

Later developments

Democratic Party — Jefferson’s party in the rural south
Republican Party — Hamilton’s party in New York etc.
Lincoln was a Republican

Immigrants in the cities

often vote Democrat
the party of “the little guy”

No Republicans in the South

the members of the Ku Klux Klan were Democrats

The Great Realignment

in the 1960s and 70s
now very few Democrats in the South