Following the American Revolution, it was by no means
certain that the United States would survive as a single country. It was only by virtue of a series of
compromises that the United States became a viable nation. The glue that brought it all together was
Alexander Hamilton’s offer to assume the war debts of the states in exchange
for the establishment of a single currency.
The states that had already paid their debts thought it unfair. Why should those who had been profligate get
a bailout?
Sound familiar?
·
The election of 1800 is regarded by historians
as the first “contested” election. The
incumbent, John Adams, represented the federalist view that embraced a strong
central government. Adams’ opponent was
Thomas Jefferson who favored states rights and thought a strong central
government was anathema to our founding principles. The once great friends hurled epithets at one
another. Pamphleteers aroused the voting
public with slogans and insults. In the
end, Jefferson prevailed following a tie in the Electoral College with the
House of Representatives deciding the final outcome.
Sound familiar?
By 1819, the US suffered its first financial crisis. To make matters worse, corruption was abundant. Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, the
great orator, received fees for services rendered to the Second Bank of the
United States. The country’s richest
man, John Jacob Astor, paid a retainer to Thomas Hart Benton, Senator from
Missouri, to push through laws that benefited him financially; and, President
Monroe himself received loans from wealthy patrons that were never repaid. Andrew Jackson, who had no experience of
Washington, DC, campaigned to “turn the rascals out”.
Sound familiar?
Jackson himself was very controversial in his day. He was accused of behaving like “a Bonaparte”
for having attacked the Spanish territory of Florida without Congressional
approval, a clear violation of the Constitution. His fiercest critic was Henry Clay who said
of him, “I cannot believe that killing 2500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies
for the various, difficult and complicated duties” of President. Jackson was thought a rube – too inarticulate
and poorly educated to be President.
Sound familiar?
Following the Civil War, it was the railroads that made the
western US a viable part of a national economy.
But, not before a stock scam contributed to the Panic of 1873. Securities fraud by the Northern Pacific
Railroad brought down Wall St. firm, Jay Cooke & Co., the preeminent
investment bank of its day.
Sound familiar?
Before the 1930’s, the Panic of 1873 was called the Great
Depression because it lasted so long and brought down not only the economy of
the United States but also that of Europe.
It was left to President Rutherford B. Hayes to put in place reforms
that turned things around. He tied US
currency to gold and silver thereby tightening the money supply, increasing
interest rates and attracting investors anew.
Hayes’ election was controversial. A Republican, he lost both the popular vote
and the Electoral College. But, 20
electoral votes were in dispute and Congress appointed a commission to decide
the outcome. Congress was controlled by
Republicans and they decided in his favor.
Sound familiar?
Many have pointed out that this election is the most
divisive in our history. Do they
remember what happened after the election of 1860?
But, divisive might be the word of the year. “Cruz Wins Divisive GOP Runoff” was the
headline in July 31’s USA Today. British
newspaper, The Guardian, ran a headline Sunday, “In Paul Ryan, Romney Makes a
Risky and Divisive Choice”. In May, the
New York Times ran an article titled "How Did Wisconsin Become the Most Political Divisive Place in America" The
Huffington Post featured a blog by author Warren Adler titled "The Most Divisive Political Campaign in History".
Mr. Adler has written 32 novels including “War of the Roses”. If you’ve read it or seen the movie starring
Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, you know that Mr. Adler knows what
divisive means.
If this year’s election is the most divisive in our history,
it will be because we want it that way.
We, as consumers, choose to watch the Sunday morning talk shows and
cable news nightly opinion shows and embrace the divisive phrase of the moment. We pass on derogatory emails about the
candidates, some meant to be jocular others not so much. We post our one sided views on our Facebook
pages, read political blogs and editorials argue vehemently while hiding behind
pseudonyms.
Why? Perhaps, it’s because
the candidates haven’t given us anything new to consider. All they have to talk about is what’s wrong with
the other guy.
So, what do we do?
Rutherford B. Hayes isn’t around anymore. So, you have to ask:
WHO WILL LEAD?
