Imperial Perspectives (Part V)

by Jim Miles

2005

Democracy is more than having a vote. The limits set on American democracy were made in order to prevent a repeat of the colonies’ own rebellion against Britain as they controlled their own ‘factions’ and ‘wicked projects’. Part V of Imperial Perspectives examines these issues and leads into the Indian Wars via the war of 1812.

V. The Limits of Democracy

At the base of the non-democratic structures in U.S. elections is the electoral college, its purposes and shady origins apparently working to keep the masses from voting for the wrong candidate or revolting by vote for some radical minority party which could then become dominant over the two established parties. At the inception of the ‘United States’ there was a general sentiment that “political parties were mischievous if not downright evil” but those that condemned the parties publicly began building them privately. [1] These views probably derived from their own recent revolution and the excesses of the French revolution, as the French supported them against the British.

Federalist Arguments

James Madison, in arguing for “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”, [2] argues that the public view should pass through the “medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country” and be “least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” The latter ‘considerations’ could be interpreted as minority opinions, progressive rather than conservative, that the establishment did not want to acknowledge, however Madison phrases it differently, as a wealthy landowner would, that it would render decisions “superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice” as if all opposing views were wrong. Alexander Hamilton supported this view in his paper “The Mode of Electing the President” [3] saying that a “small number of persons…will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” Interesting views from statesmen from a newly revolutionary state, supported by French ideals of ‘liberte, egalite, et fraternite’.

The overall purpose of Madison’s concern was not for a true messy democratic Union, but for some method of controlling the dividing forces of society in favor of the wealthy elite. Again in Federalist Paper #10 he says that the problems arise from “from the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who had and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.” By having a large republic, with voting taking place only through limited representation, he was trying to avoid, “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project….” Clearly the purpose was to maintain the existing elitist structure, and apart from paper money, the ‘wicked and improper’ projects that represent a more egalitarian society have been held out of the Union since its beginning. From this, rules were established that limited the voting rights of the Union.

Voting Restrictions

Voters of the original union were free adult males, with many states exempted for slaves, and no women were allowed to vote. Every state but New York and Virginia also had requirements for electors to be protestant, a strong contra-indication to freedom of worship and religion. The black vote returns the argument back to James Madison, a slave owner who helped develop the idea of five slaves equaling three free people, thus giving power not to the slaves, but to the slave’s owners. This affected the election of 1800 in which John Adams, who owned no slaves, lost to Thomas Jefferson, who at the time owned about two hundred slaves. By the five/three rule, Jefferson received enough votes to defeat Adams. Madison had some quite open views about popular participation saying, “The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention and esteem.” However his practices and objectives do not fit with that statement but could be viewed as an early form of spin doctoring. [4]

The Electoral College as it now operates was established in 1845. Its original purpose, following upon the above presentations, “was to have the most knowledgeable and informed individuals…cast their votes for the president assuming that they voted solely on the basis of merit.” Further it “enhances the stability of the nation by promoting a two party system – protects the presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interest of minorities.” [5]

These statements pose large problems for a true democracy. To assume that votes will be cast on merit is just that, an assumption, and merits can be argued backwards and forwards according to the premises underlying one’s political beliefs. As well, knowledgeable and informed electors can still carry enormous biases, especially as the system has now devolved so that the two main parties appoint their electors from established politicians and party members who are already well above the ignorant rabble. ‘Impassioned’ third parties may have genuinely good concerns, but to be absorbed as a minority by a major party neither enhances the minority view nor contributes to the major party other than to write a few platitudes acknowledging its existence.

Effectively the system reinforces the idea that those in power wish to stay in power and do so by establishing their own workable system that best suits their needs. Having gone through their own revolution, having knowledge of how British democracy had evolved through an ongoing series of revolts and demands from underneath, having seen how the idealism leading up to the French Revolution had ended up in anarchy and slaughter, the founders of the new nation guarded themselves against further insurrection or rebellion. The Electoral College works within the republic, but once again in James Madison’s words there is an advantage that “a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction.” [6] Certainly these words reflect that a pure democracy was not the fully intended outcome and that control of disruptive factions was an essential element of the new republic, the new empire. The long-term results showed up in the 2000 election of George Bush, and the Electoral College being described as an “anachronistic system…to prevent the direct election of the president and vice-president and to insulate the system from the allegedly unhealthy consequences of a process that had become normal in most other democracies.” [7]

Indian Territory

From its inception, the new American Empire acted out its beliefs, continuing the religious and political rhetoric that rationalized the expansion of the new nation through the homelands of the indigenous peoples of America. The British Proclamation of 1763 provided that “the several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds”. Further to that it detailed the manner in which private property on Indian lands was restricted, “whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians .. We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians.”

At independence, this Proclamation served the area to the west of the Appalachians, an area that the burgeoning population of the new republic was already looking forward to as their future. For the wealthy this ‘new’ land served as a means for releasing the pent up anger of their own poor, homeless and unemployed, and their desire for their own property as a means to acquire similar wealth. At the same time, the resource wealth of the area was a feature that could be extracted to help the rich become even richer as the colonists/settlers swept across the continent. The Proclamation was an obstacle, as were the British, to the westward push of American settlement and power.

The remaining antagonisms between the British and the new United States eventually resulted in war, the War of 1812 or the British-American War, which had three significant outcomes. First, the British Colonies that now comprise Eastern Canada had held their own, with the assistance of the native nations, against the newly independent states to the south. Secondly, the States, although many being reluctant to go to war in the first place, gained no real property, but solidified their mood of unity amongst themselves while at the same time recognizing that there remained a British presence on the North American continent.

The third outcome related to the indigenous population who were the real losers in the action. Without further guaranteed protection from the advance of the United States, with a large chunk of Spanish, then French territory ceded to the United States, the Louisiana Purchase, the Indians would never realize their status as a separate national entity within North America. Nor were they considered as participants in the new country, but were fully disenfranchised ‘others’. Their democratic dreams would never come to pass, crushed under the inexorable rush of deceitful intentions.

Notes

[1]  a government website discussing the electoral college.
[2] Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10, Friday, November 23, 1787.
[3] Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 68, Friday march 14, 1788.
[4] Paul Finkleman The Murky Pro-Slavery Origins of the Electoral College.
[5] a Californian website explaining the electoral college.
[6] Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 10
[7] Bellow, Walden. Dilemmas of Domination The Unmaking of the American Empire. Metropolitam Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2005. p. 204.

© Jim Miles. Used with permission.