Thursday, January 31, 2013
Initial Thoughts on Woody Holton
In my reading of the introduction I believe Holton is arguing that there were two opposing viewpoints about the amount of government needed after the Revolution. The issue that seemed to stir the most debate regarding government regulation was regarding taxes and debt collection. For those like Madison a new government with the capability of taxing and enforcing debtors to settle their debts was needed. Also that the a National government was needed to buffer the control of the individual state assemblies. The opposition was ordinary men who were mostly farmers who felt that government was already to burdensome. What I found interesting was relating to the class discussion in our last class about ideas. Before the Revolution England felt it was perfectly justified in taxing and collecting on debts from the colonies. However, some of the people in the colonies, Especially Boston felt that the taxes and the power of the English government was to harsh. The colonies then rebelled against England because of these ideas. In this book, Holton is showing that this problem reoccurs. The people who agreed with Madison saw that a powerful National government capable of collecting taxes and debts was necessary and perfectly justified, while others thought government was already overstepping its boundaries. These ideas led some lime Shay and Matthews to rebel. It seems that the what we take from the history depends upon which perspective we look at it with. Just like we discussed in class, if we look at the Revolution from Wood's perspective it seems very radical, but if we see it from the perspective of Gary Nash it was disappointing. Ultimately I think that Holton is trying to show that the framing of the Constitution can seem very different depending on which perspective we view it from.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nick, I think you are very right in your early assessment. This is obviously a book mostly set up as being between Founding Fathers like Madison who felt that their needed to be a federal branch that forced more compliance in taxing and collecting debts, versus "Anti-Federalists" and those that were against the heavy taxes.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think it would be going too far to say that this was always the case. (Which is not what you are saying, I am just transitioning to my own thoughts.)
I thought it was interesting in the book how Holton points out the ambivalence of Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Adams who both thought that the state governments were not taxing enough and that there was not enough capital, but at the same time Jefferson was sympathetic to the Virginian farmers demanding lower taxes while at the same time Adams's wife Abigail did some heavy speculating, which was largely blamed for the colony's economic woes.
What the book does that I think is interesting is that I think it shows how crucial debates over the early American economy were in shaping the Constitution, and how these economic debates shaped Federalist and Anti-Federalist arguments that gave us both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I guess I just find it surprising how big of a role the economy played in forming the nation.
Good thoughts so far. Couple of points: Holton distinguishes the characters opposing a heavy burden of taxation in the 1780s from the antifederalists. Also, the opposition in the 1780s has a different agenda when it comes to settling the debt. Finally, there is the distinction between private and public bonds that he draws.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThese are helpful distinctions. What I am thinking about so far, like Nick S., is how different Holton's depictions of the framers are from Wood's. The problem in juxtaposing the two texts, though, seems grounded in the fact that the anti-Federalists are not represented in the rebellious farmers on whom Holton focuses (am I understanding this correctly?). Overall, I am intrigued by Holton's skepticism and his efforts to show the error of Madison's et al. (enlightened) perception of the rabble as just that: incapable of governance.
ReplyDelete