RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

William Hogeland: "The Tea Party and Occupy activists would find George Washington there with a club, trying to lock them up."

George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. (photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art)
George Washington and his troops near Fort Cumberland, Maryland, before their march to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania. (photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art)

William Hogeland: How Big Finance Won the American Revolution

By David V. Johnson, Boston Review

11 December 12


avid Johnson: How did you come to write the book?

William Hogeland: It comes out of things I had bumped into in my first two books, Whiskey Rebellion and Declaration. I kept coming up against the fact that so many conflicts among Americans during the founding period seemed to be over matters of finance and economics that we're still fighting over today. I decided that this would be a good time, given the financial crisis and some of the debates of Election 2012 about public debt and private debt, regulation, and so forth, to bring those founding financial issues out very explicitly. So I focused on the founding as a series of conflicts among Americans over finance, if finance can be defined the way my extremely lengthy subtitle defines it: debt, speculation, foreclosures, crackdowns, protests, etc.

DJ: You begin the book with a quote from Edmund Randolph, General Washington's aide-de-camp and the country's first Attorney General, speaking to the Constitutional Convention: "Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our [state] constitutions." It should be no surprise to those well-read in American history that our founders were critics of democracy. But you argue that "democracy" in that context means something much more than what we commonly understand. What did Randolph mean by that statement?

WH: When we note, as you just did quite rightly, that the founding fathers were wary of the excesses of democracy, we take it to mean something that's only partially true - it's not a full description of what they feared. We think they worried that too much input from too many people might lead to a sort of general instability, possibly mob rule, and so forth. The part we tend to leave out, I think, is the financial and economic dimension. When Randolph was calling the convention to order and saying that what we need to do is form a national government, he was speaking in a specific context of economic and financial turmoil, and everyone else in the room would have known what he was talking about. He meant that the state governments were too weak in resisting the onslaught of democratic approaches to finance, in which the lending classes' investments would be devalued, laws would be passed by state legislatures to provide what the founders would have seen as excessive debt relief to ordinary people, and a host of other democratic financial policies that the elites of the time, for perfectly cogent reasons, felt would destabilize all good policy. Most people don't discuss Randolph's remarks at the constitutional convention, because those remarks are distressing to those who believe in democracy today and wish to connect democratic ideals to the founders.

DJ: Your book not only reconsiders famous figures such as Randolph, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington, but it also picks up figures that I was unfamiliar with - people we might call "anti-founders." One of them is Herman Husband, a North Carolina assemblyman who was involved in the 1760s North Carolina Regulator Movement - a populist uprising against wealthy, corrupt colonial officials - and the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania against federal taxes on distilleries. Why is he important, and why has he been forgotten?

WH: Husband is to me one of the most important and fascinating Americans of the period, but he did not ultimately endorse where the country was going. In the 1790s he became dead set against all the economic and financial policies of the Washington administration and came to great grief in opposing those policies during the Whiskey Rebellion. Husband ended up being imprisoned by George Washington, whom Husband had once admired immensely, and dying of pneumonia contracted while in prison. So his story is far from uplifting in any typical sense, and I think that's one reason that he and some of the other characters I discuss are less well-known.

Thomas Paine could never see that he and George Washington did not share the same goals.

Husband was committed to what they then called "regulation," and he meant something like what we mean today by the term, except it was a populist idea of regulation. The immense power of wealth would be "regulated" or restrained by ordinary people. And the rich would have to submit to a government that would actually be interested in equalizing wealth, income, and benefits. It seems like an anachronism to discuss such ideas prevailing in the 1760s and 70s, but actually Husband started working on them in the 50s and 60s. This is much of the burden of my book: you start really looking and you find that things that seem like New Deal ideas, or even socialistic and communist ideas, were alive and well in that period, to the great dismay of most of the famous founders. I think Husband is important because he represents many thousands of people we don't hear about who had completely different ideas about finance and economics than those embraced by the founders.

DJ: His journey, though, is similar to Thomas Paine's, whose story is well known. One thing your book suggests is that Husband's religious beliefs made him a difficult figure for modern progressives to embrace.

WH: One of the things that's tricky and little-known is that many of the egalitarian, populist democrats of the founding period came to their egalitarianism partly through fervent Christian millennial evangelicalism, which today is more frequently associated with the right wing. Husband is a great representative of the many people in the founding of America whose convictions about fairness and equality and democracy came out of religious experience. Paine is a little different in that way; but I agree that his career is like Husband's and I pair them in the book, in that their arcs are fairly tragic.

DJ: They both felt betrayed by Washington.

WH: For Paine it was very personal - he was close friends with Washington and felt completely betrayed. It just continues to amaze me that Paine, who was a profoundly intelligent person, could never see, until it was too late, that he and Washington did not share the same goals. Paine couldn't see it until he was jailed in France and felt abandoned by the U.S. government, which wouldn't even claim him as a citizen at that point. Husband never met Washington but admired him immensely also, as a hero of democracy and as someone who was going to change the world and restructure the basic terms of society. When Husband got his hands on the U.S. Constitution he had high hopes for it; he knew Washington had been involved in creating it, and he was very excited. But when he read it, he saw, to his horror, that it represented a top-down elitist government. And so he found himself at odds with Washington and ultimately on a short list for arrest that Washington and Hamilton had. He was picked up by Washington's own troops.

Nothing could have been more disappointing to Paine or Husband, each in his different way. And more importantly, nothing could be more disappointing to the many thousands of ordinary people throughout America they represented who had believed that the revolution would usher a total change in society - financial change, economic change, regulation of wealth, and so forth - and found to their dismay that this was not the case.

DJ: Some of my favorite parts of the book have to do with Robert Morris - the so-called "financier of the American Revolution" - and the creation of the national finance system. You discuss the many sorts of insider deals, conflicts of interests, scheming, and scamming that were involved. These portions of the book reminded me of the CNBC series American Greed: Scams, Scandals and Suckers. I was stunned and dismayed that today's problems of financial corruption, conflicts of interests, and insider deals were right there from the beginning.

WH: It's amazing to me that so many of these things that shock and dismay us today when they come to light - exotic, dubious financial instruments, close government connections to financial power, and so forth - were part of founding finance. Frequently people across the political spectrum think, if we could only get back to the basic values of the founding of the country, everything would be better. But the country came into creation largely via Robert Morris's efforts, which involved absolutely shameless mingling of personal and public wealth, personal and public goals, and so forth. It's very easy to put Morris down - people put him down at the time; a lot of people were revolted by everything Morris was doing in his own day. But, to me, the most interesting thing is that winning the revolutionary war and forming a nation required what Morris had to offer. Morris had a vision of American high finance, wealth concentration, and national power around the world based on a kind of financial-military-industrial complex, really. Ultimately what we can learn from founding fathers such as Morris has less to do with values we should be getting back to, but the degree to which the values we argue about today are based on the very same divisions prevailing when our nation was founded.

DJ: In the book you're often critical of appeals people make nowadays to the constitution and the founders in arguing for their favorite policy goals. You show they're politically charged and often naïve or just wrong. But are such appeals hopeless?

WH: That's a tricky issue. I ultimately think that we shouldn't be looking to the founding for principles that we can beat each other over the head with, because that is hopeless. Invoking the constitution has become a way to stop argument; you're trying to say, well, my point is constitutional and your point is unconstitutional. Then you don't have to make arguments about economics or policy or finance or about anything else, really, on its merits.

The founding fathers agreed: there's a popular democratic movement that we have to suppress.

But the hopelessness of that kind of argument does not suggest to me that there's no hope in ever looking at the constitution or founding history. Everyone will continue to argue about the constitution in the good sense that it needs interpretation and our policies have to be not unconstitutional, and therefore people will argue vociferously about what the constitution allows and does not allow. It's just that in our debates we're often just ascribing to the founders some sort of last word on everything, and I think we should look beyond that.

DJ: Chapter 6 is entitled "An Existential Interpretation of the Constitution," which plays on Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. What did you mean by that title?

WH: Partly I just meant to make a joke about Beard's title. But by "existential" I meant there are reasons the constitution came into existence that are routinely overlooked, again having to do with finance. Constitutional historians constantly talk about the differences among the people in the convention room - there was the Virginia Plan and the Connecticut Plan and the Jersey Plan - and the various ways they argued back and forth and ultimately worked it into the document we got. Nobody there thought it was perfect, but it was pretty good; that's the sort of usual description. My book looks instead at why they were there in the first place and what they fundamentally agreed on. It's my view that they fundamentally agreed on Randolph's opening remarks - there's a popular democratic movement that we have to suppress. And I look at certain sections of the constitution that are not very sexy having to do with finance: the prohibition of the states to make anything but silver or gold legal tender, the prohibition against the states to coin their own money, and so forth. On the one hand, it seems obvious that the states shouldn't have their own money, but that all came about in an economic context that I describe in the book, in which states' ability to print money and make paper currencies legal tender was devaluing the assets of the elite investing class. Those are the kinds of grittier, less appealing, more realpolitik elements in the document that I'm trying to bring out in that chapter.

DJ: Are there other salient examples from our founding documents that show this history of the founders' war against economic egalitarianism? I mean, obviously there were the property qualifications, but apart from the obvious?

WH: Well, it's interesting, the property qualification doesn't really appear in the U.S. constitution, and one of the biggest nationalists and pro-constitutionalists, James Wilson, became a radical elitist, in my view, for actually realizing that changing the property qualification might not be the key to shoring up the stability of the elites and the investing class. But since you raised the property qualification, I'd like to note something that we, again, often forget when we look at democracy and the founding period: there were, in most of the important states, qualifications that prevented people without sufficient property from voting. But the thing that always gets overlooked in that context is that property qualifications were even higher in most places for holding office, so that even if property qualifications were sometimes eased for voting, holding office usually required a greater amount of property. So we can see how all of these mechanisms would tend to privilege elites in government and connect government to wealth. Pennsylvania was radical in 1776 for introducing a constitution that removed property qualifications both for voting and for holding office. For the first time, really, in any meaningful way, you had the ability, at least - it was often still difficult - but the ability, at least for ordinary people, to have a serious voice in government. One of the biggest things the Pennsylvania radicals in government did was to take away Robert Morris's bank charter. They said it was an elite organization dedicated to enriching the rich and didn't do anything for the people. One of the very purposes of the federal constitutional convention was to suppress populist efforts like the one in Pennsylvania.

DJ: Crazy ideas like banks that help the people. Speaking of the banks, the Occupy and Tea Party movements, who both took issue with the bank bailouts, have made rhetorical reference to the founders and their supposed values. How might they think differently after reading your book?

WH: When Occupy and the Tea Party reference founding finance, they're just doing what everyone else does, too: everybody wants to ground their ideas in the basic values of the country, even if those ideas are diametrically opposed to what they advocate. When the Tea Party began, protesters wore three-corner hats and dressed up in 18th century garb. In the Occupy literature I've read, there are a number of references to the founding, and "We the People," and so forth. They, too, seem to be suggesting that if the founders were here today they would be out with Occupy in the street trying to change the relationship between high finance and government. And I think my research suggests precisely the reverse.

Now that doesn't mean there was nobody out in the street during the founding period trying to correct the relationship between high finance and government. There were people like Herman Husband, and thousands of people he represented, and the regulators and the militia privates, and so forth that I talk about in the book. But the famous founders themselves would not be the friends of Occupy. The question is whether there is something for those movements to get out of the founding period.

The Tea Party and Occupy activists would find George Washington there with a club, trying to lock them up.

What ultimately is the real lesson? Herman Husband makes a difficult hero, as does Thomas Paine. They were far from pragmatic; they were visionary. Paine was a hyper-rationalist but, in another way, he could be quite extreme in his fervency about really changing the fundamental bases of society. I think Occupy has roots in the earliest moments of the founding period and that's one of the things I want to bring out - but, if they followed those strands back to their origins, they would not find George Washington supporting them. Rather, they would find George Washington there with a club, trying to lock them up; they would be on Herman Husband's side. And then the question becomes: how much do you want to embrace Herman Husband? That's a question for everybody today. We've ignored Herman Husband partly because he's so difficult to embrace. But maybe if we could embrace some of that extreme, utopian vision in the most radically democratic elements of our founding - the very things George Washington was trying to shut down - we might have something to learn from them.

DJ: You have some harsh words in the book for those you call the "consensus historians" - people such as David McCullough and Ron Chernow who've written major best sellers on the founding fathers. What are the worst misconceptions we get from reading their works?

WH: In Chapter 5 I devote some space to positioning myself in full opposition to what I call the consensus approach to history; I'm pulling a lot of historians into it. One of the groups I take issue with are the popular biographers of the founding fathers genre that's been popular for the past 20 years now. I think they have a tendency to write these warts-and-all hagiographies. It's not cool to portray people as saints - it's neither believable nor credible - so there's a lot of "humanizing" of the founders. But even with all their human flaws included, these biographies frequently overlook or deny what the subjects actually did.

Many are perfectly well-written, well-researched, engaging books. But their failure to me is that they don't give us the people they're talking about. Hamilton made no bones about many of the things he did that Chernow tries to whitewash or whisk out of sight or otherwise decline to let us see clearly. I think that's a problem. Now I certainly don't intend to beat up on "popular history." I consider myself to be working, largely, in a pop vein: I'm not trying to write abstruse academic history. I'm not a credentialed academic historian, and I'm happy not to be, because I think not being one has allowed me to see things more clearly than I would otherwise. So I'm not criticizing popularity per se or accessibility per se. I spend much of that chapter actually criticizing academics historians, among the most credentialed and influential academic historians of our time - Gordon Wood, Richard Hofstadter, Edmond Morgan. I criticize them for influencing the pop historians to such a degree that the things that I want to talk about have been left out of the story, not just in the popular world but in the most influential parts of the academic world as well.

DJ: Right now, as we speak, everyone is counting down the days to the fiscal cliff. We're debating a "grand bargain" on the budget, whether we should cut entitlements, and whose taxes we should raise. What reverberations in your research do you see in today's debates on our finances?

WH: I've been very struck for some time by the way the debate shakes down in relation to the founding era of finance. Grover Norquist and his crew, people who self-define as "constitutional conservatives," are constantly invoking the constitution as if it were holy writ that taxes must be low or non-existent, that public debt must be low, that government must be small, and so forth. On the contrary, as the book shows quite clearly, the country came into existence very specifically to create a large and powerful government to fund a public debt via national, federal taxation. I've always been struck by the flat-out contradictions of the Grover-Norquist-types calling themselves constitutional conservatives when their positions are basically anti-federalist - the last gasp of anti-federalism.

In terms of how to move forward toward making some bargains, I think it would great if some of the founding father and constitutional rhetoric were left out of it. The historians I criticize most thoroughly in Founding Finance, the ones who have overlooked and marginalized the things I'm trying to talk about, the consensus I'm targeting - it's largely liberal. It's very hard for me to imagine anyone on the liberal side of politics getting realistic about founding values when it comes to money and economics, because the values of the famous founders are so much more elitist than it would be politically expedient to admit. Really any argument that gets into basic American values over finance and economics is bound to be contradicted by the real historical narrative. I would really prefer that they stop talking about history. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+9 # davidr 2012-12-12 01:42
Sound finance was imperative to the Founders, & one can be quite sure that it was not intended for the good of poor people. In the Founders’ Enlightenment political theory, life, liberty & property were held as equal objects of concern. Not having property, by implication, rendered someone one-third less important politically (owning slaves = 3/5 more important). Worse yet, as a social matter, someone without property, alive & at liberty, could be dangerous. We’re talking about you, Tom Paine.

So, we can agree. The American Revolution was not in the service of the poor. On the other hand, it was not waged against nor inimical to their interests. Without sound money & stout tariffs, for example, what industry could New England have independently sustained? What employment, what inventions, what counter-weight to slave labor? Without good international credit, would we not have become Jamaica writ large, a cash crop plantation society vulnerable to our own & to European depredations?

Declare independence, fight a war of independence, but lack financial independence & all’s for naught. As jaundiced a view as may be taken of the Founders & their bankers, it takes little imagination to see how much worse our ruling elites would have behaved & our institutions would have evolved in a disordered economy. In fact, we can see the ugly possibilities with our own eyes. The oldest among us can see them twice over.
+3 # coberly 2012-12-12 02:52
My heart has always been with Tom Paine, and Aaron Burr... who championed women's rights, Negro rights, and found a way around the property qualification to vote in New York...

my knowledge is limited of course by the poetry of history.

and i quite throughly despise the Republican "right" that wants to destroy Social Security and every other protection the workers have managed to achieve for themselves.

But I often wonder if "the left" is capable of governing at all.

And surely the left's unthinking hatred of "religion" is misguided. What might have been a reasonable reaction against the evil and stupidity done in the name of religion has become blind and arrogant... and loses elections while delivering the people up to a worship of money that makes them the spiritual twins of the "evil rich", except of course, that they only want what the rich have.
+7 # guyachs 2012-12-12 08:01
I don't hate religion but I've tried to reason with the evangelicals. You can't. They firmly believe they are speaking for God and, therefore, nothing they say or do is wrong. They won't compromise on anything. Go try to deal with them.
+5 # coberly 2012-12-12 10:06

i agree. you can't argue with fundamentalists . and i certainly don't agree with "the religious right." but that is not the same as "mindless hatred of religion."

for a lot of people, their religion is tied to what makes life worth living for them... their family, their sense of "the good" and maybe some hope that it all means something in the end.

you... we... have been suckered into hating them, just as some of them have been suckered into thinking "the religious right" is defending their values.
+2 # guyachs 2012-12-12 11:34
I truly don't hate them and believe in letting each person live his life as s/he wants. However I find that they frequently try to impose their values on me. I find them impossible to deal with.
0 # coberly 2012-12-12 16:56

all i am saying is be careful who you mean by "them."

treating all religious people alike, is a lot like saying "all blacks are alike." one might remember that Martin Luther King was a minister.
+1 # guyachs 2012-12-12 18:22
Don't worry, I don't treat them all alike. My wife was a chruch secretary and I have tremendous respect for her church community. It's the fundamentalist I have issues with.
0 # coberly 2012-12-12 19:29
thanks. me too.
+2 # RHytonen 2012-12-12 08:45
Quoting coberly:
But I often wonder if "the left" is capable of governing at all.

....the left's unthinking hatred of "religion"

... the spiritual twins of the "evil rich", except of course, that they only want what the rich have.

1,) Of COURSE it can't govern if the Right has redefined itself as preventing it at ANY cost. Unfortunately that eventually, as people THINK it over, defines The Right as something that must be eliminated altogether. So be it 0 THIS is not working for 99% of the country. That defines oppression.

2,) Church v state is decided long ago, We do NOT want a Theocracy. We FLED that in England.

3.) The "jealousy" talking point only works for those it's purportedly intended to criticize -those few ruled by greed.. Survival is not greed.
+3 # Glen 2012-12-12 14:03
coberly, it is not an unthinking hatred of religion on the part of most of the "left". It is resentment of the missionary attitude of "spreading the word" even if other folks don't want it. It is also the increasing political activities of the the religious in controlling personal behavior and the government.

There is agenda with those who profess a religion of convenience, and it has nothing to do with the teachings of their Jesus. It is power and that power is funded by some very wealthy types who even fund Israel for the end times. Of course, the Jews are not going to be "saved" according to those who fund Israel.

Sigh - Nothing has stayed the same and we must all deal with the reality of the so-called religious types on this planet.
+1 # coberly 2012-12-12 16:54

i don't know you and you may well keep separate in your mind the "religious right" which I take to mean the politicians who cloak their evil intent in the guise of religion... and the religion of honest people.

too often i meet people "on the left" whose hatred is of all religion including the quite decent people who would be on their side if they could stop scaring them into the arms of the right.
+4 # MidwestTom 2012-12-12 07:48
Consider for a moment the current battle over taxing people who make over $250,000 at a higher rate. This concept is being sold as a societal leveling attempt. People that make $250,000 per year will never make to the level of the very wealthy. In the US today the very wealthy, defined as those who control Congress, and thereby make sure that no las negatively effect them or their power, are untouchable, eople like the Koch brothers, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Morgans, the Mellons, and the Rockefellers. These are the hidden dictators of our society. No President or Congressman is brave enough to challenge their wealth or power. I think that we would all be stunned if we saw an honest accounting of what these families own and control. The $250,000 argument is simply a smoke screen for the masses to absorb, but not an attack on the truly wealthy.
+3 # RHytonen 2012-12-12 08:36
Quoting MidwestTom:
People that make $250,000 per year will never make to the level of the very wealthy. In the US today the very wealthy, defined as those who control Congress, and thereby make sure that no las negatively effect them or their power, are untouchable, people like the Koch brothers, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Morgans, the Mellons, and the Rockefellers. These are the hidden dictators of our society. No President or Congressman is brave enough to challenge their wealth or power. ..... The $250,000 argument is simply a smoke screen for the masses to absorb, but not an attack on the truly wealthy.

I agree. he proposed "taxing of the rich" is an insignificant token, not even one tenth of what SHOULD be the TMR - as the Eisenhower era's RESOUNDING success proved for all history by creating the middle class and a consumer economy, and which is resoundingly proven but the way inequality and wage stagnation have tracked the TMR's decline - and INVERSELY tracked the "national prosperity" of just a few.

If there is another factor to argue, it's not wars - we've had PLENTY- and it's quite probably simple escalation of immoral GREED by the rich- and our gullibility in allowing it to rule US, its natural victims by definition.

It DOES always come from someone else, so capitalism -based on INFINITE GROWTH- DOES fail.
+7 # guyachs 2012-12-12 07:59
I'd recommend reading Federalist # 10 where Madison speaks of factions and the failures of democracy and why a republlic was necessary to control the effect of factions.
Unfortunately we now have a faction more powerful than he could have envisoned and it is the corporation. He never foresaw a faction almost completely controlling all 3 branches. He also said the mainreason for factions was inequality.
He never foresaw a faction that has absolutely no loyalty to the country and no interest in the health of the country.
+6 # RHytonen 2012-12-12 08:22
I both agree violently with some of this, and the posts thus far; and disagree at least as violently with others - especially anout separation of church and state, bit he Financial element is far more important today (and I'm NOT referring to the Fictional Cliff.)

But one thing about these elements of the Founders is obvious TODAY

- it has not worked, and the direction of that is obvious as well. I think the writer overlooks Jefferson;s true feelings (seen in letters) about the power of "moneyed corporations," and I do belive the revolution itself was not sparked AMONG THE MAJORITY (without whom it would ALSO not only have failed but not even started;) by "taxation without representation, " but by England's enforecement of its "chartered" business interests (East India Tea)- what Mussolini later defined as Fascism, and what we again fought, and half a million of us died, to defeat in OTHER countries.

You cannot have a government that protects the interests of few against the many; and that government must always be richer and more powerful than the aggregate of that powerful few, or it cannot regulate their innate predation of the many, and against the individual even more helpless against their predation.
0 # coberly 2012-12-12 10:10
i certainly believe in separation of church and state. i do not want a theocracy.

the problem with the left is that sometimes they go blind and think that one word means the same as another.

"they must be eliminated.." is not the kind of language that wins you friends, or even allies.

"governing" involves compromises and leading people who have different values, or are just indifferent. there won't always be a Bastille to storm.
0 # coberly 2012-12-12 10:11

0 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-12-14 17:12
I've said for years that our Constitution, and our Congress, and even the courts were designed to protect one minority - the wealthy! That is why the Constitution says that there should be no standing army and it should be funded for only two years per occasion of need! They were afraid that not only they, the rich, would have to fund it, but that since it would mostly consist of the poor, the Army might come under the influence of a populist crusader, president or general, who would take from the wealthy by force and distribute it amongst the poor and themselves! The Constitution only calls for a standing navy because they would be off shore, much smaller in numbers, and available to protect the overseas interests of the wealthy!
0 # RHytonen 2012-12-15 08:43
I think once "The Founders" (where was 'Odo' from DS9 when we needed him?;) saw what fascism did in the '30's and 40's, they might have reconvened for a massive constitutional rewrite.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.