Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:01:27.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

American Conservatism and the Democratic Tradition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Robert G. McCloskey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1873, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court filed a memorable dissenting opinion. His brethren had upheld a state-granted monopoly against the charge that it violated the new Fourteenth Amendment. The substance of that majority judgment has never been reversed, and it stands today as one of the great milestones in our constitutional law. But the dissent of Mr. Justice Field, though unproductive as to the specific constitutional doctrine he there espoused, is, from another viewpoint, even more noteworthy. For it marks — or we can conveniently take it as marking — the point in our intellectual history at which the democratic strain in the American tradition begins its subservience to political conservatism.

The choice of a date is indeed somewhat arbitrary. A profound change in the national consciousness does not occur overnight, and the revision of the American ideology diat Field's dissent proclaimed was not yet complete in 1873. But Field was a child of his times, and he spoke with the voice of the new generation. His rambling discourse, with its moral overtones, is evidence that a new era in American political thinking had dawned.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , January 1951 , pp. 3 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

2 “The radicals felt that liberty is inherent in the fact of human existence as such, not, merely, in the man who can purchase it with property. They sought, therefore, to build a state in which, because the common man was sovereign, its power would be utilized to realize certain moral principles inherent in the nature of the universe.” Laski, H. J., The Rise of European Liberalism (London, 1936).Google Scholar

3 Mims, Edwin, The Majority of the People (New York, 1941), pp. 213–221.Google Scholar

4 Becker, Carl, The Declaration of Independence (New York, 1948), p. 278.Google Scholar

5 Lippman, Walter, Men of Destiny (New York, 1928), pp. 49–55.Google Scholar

6 Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, “The Communist Manifesto,” in Burns, Emile, Handbook of Marxism (New York, 1935).Google Scholar

7 “… there were plenty of scientific bigots who would have liked to annihilate what they could not weigh. Certainly it is true that the general effect of science at first was to create impatience with the emotional life. Many proud possessors of the Spencerian mind devoted their glowing youth to a study of those bleak books which used to pass for scientific manuals. They regarded religion with scorn and art with condescension, and sometimes they nerved themselves up to admire beauty as one of the necessary weaknesses of an otherwise reasonable man. Truth for them was as neat as a checkerboard, and they made you feel like the man from Corinth who asked a Spartan ‘whether trees grew square in his country.’” Lippman, Walter, Drift and Mastery (New York, 1914), pp. 291–292.Google Scholar

8 Churchill, H. S., The City is the People (New York, 1945), p. 22.Google Scholar

9 Gabriel, R. H., The Course of American Democratic Thought (New York, 1940), p. 150.Google Scholar

10 Kipling, Rudyard, American Notes (New York, n. d.), p. 222.Google ScholarVan Wyck, Said Brooks: “Money and numbers governed all their thoughts, even and even especially, in the sphere of religion. For who could imagine a greater contrast than that between Moody and Beecher and the great religious leaders of the previous age, Theodore' Parker and Channing.” New England: Indian Summer (New York, 1940), p. 98.Google Scholar

11 “In some strange way the intoxication which accompanied the acquisition of wealth affected those who had not, as well as those who had. The psychology of business not only clouded the judgment of the entrepreneurs and financiers; it also threatened to become a national way of thinking … the acquisitive instinct was glorified until it was regarded as a beneficent deity, devoted to the greater good of the country and not unworthy of the worship it received.” Regier, C. C., The Era of the Muckrakers (Chapel Hill, 1932), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

12 , C. A. and Beard, M. R., The American Spirit (New York, 1942), p. 341 f.Google Scholar

13 Wells, H. G. quotes a magazine article by Saltus, Edgard, who preached a sermon on progress, drawing his inspiration from the Flatiron Building. “Evolution has not halted … it has achieved an unrecognized advance when it devised buildings such as this. … It will be demonstrable that, as buildings ascend, so do ideas. It is mental progress that skyscrapers engender.” The Future in America (New York, 1906), p. 31.Google Scholar

14 Nevins, Allen, The Emergence of Modern America (New York, 1927), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar

15 Godkin, Said E. L.: “… all being corrupt together, what is the use in our investigating each other?” Nation, May 22, 1873.Google Scholar And young Henry Adams viewing the gold scandal in 1869 said: “The worst scandals of the eighteenth century were relatively harmless by the side of this, which smirched executive, judiciary, banks, corporate systems, professions and people, all the great active forces of society, in one dirty cesspool of vulgar corruption.” The Education of Henry Adams (New York, Modern Library Ed.), p. 272.Google Scholar

16 As recent studies are showing, the pre-Sumpter attitude was not nearly so hostile to government intervention in economic life as has usually been assumed. See Hartz, Louis, Economic Policy and Democratic Thought (Cambridge, 1948), part IV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883).

18 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U. S. 601 (1895).

19 Swisher, C. B., Stephen J. Field (Washington, 1930), p. 247.Google Scholar

20 See Vebten, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class (Modern Library, 1934);Google Scholar and The Instinct of Workmanship (New York, 1946).Google Scholar

21 Parrington, V. L., Main Currents in American Thought (New York, 1930), vol. 3, p. 409.Google Scholar