Essay 11-B: Cyrus Mccormick and the Rise of Mechanical Farming

, , , , , , , ,
Guest Essayist: James P. Pinkerton

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

We’ve all heard about the crisis of artificial intelligence and jobs—how AI is going to render millions unemployed. Yet we may not know about the employment crisis of American agriculture in the mid-19th century when mechanical harvesters sliced through the employment of farm laborers.

That wasn’t a crisis at all, it was progress! You see, working as a manual laborer on a farm, cutting crops with a scythe in the hot sun, was actually not such a good job.

So when mechanical reapers were mass-produced, beginning in the 1840s, the standard of living for Americans rose: Farming grew more efficient, and so farm workers migrated to towns and cities, where they found jobs in factories, even as they benefited from lower food prices.

In 1820, nearly 80 percent of American jobs were on the farm; by 1900, that percentage had fallen to 40 percent (today, it’s less than two percent). During those same eight decades, it is estimated that the real gross domestic product of the U.S. rose by more than 600 percent.

To be sure, there were problems with urbanization and industrialization, just as there are problems with any massive social trend. And during the 19th century, from 1861 to 1865, for other reasons, we suffered a bloody civil war.

Yet even so, the nation persevered, and prospered. For that we can thank the free enterprise system, which allowed innovators and entrepreneurs to develop labor-saving technologies.

And we can also thank the U.S. Constitution. Since 1789, our founding document has allowed for the sanctity of contracts, and the safety of private property, including intellectual property, as part of its overall frameworking of industrial and economic productivity.

The life of Cyrus McCormick (1809-1875) provides a snapshot into this virtuous process, which enabled a fellow from the backwoods to emerge as the leading agricultural innovator of the 19th century. Born in rural Raphine, Virginia to a family of modest farmers and tinkerers, McCormick resolved to do something about the low productivity of farm life.

That lifelong desire to solve problems—and, yes, to get rich—inspired him to start the McCormick Harvesting Company near home in 1837. Yet the search for better channels of production and distribution caused him to relocate, a decade later, to the swelling industrial hub of Chicago.

Right here we see the value of another aspect of the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 guarantees the free travel of persons and products across state lines.
McCormick flourished in the Windy City, and so did the country. In the words of historian William T. Hutchinson, “Of all the inventions during the first half of the nineteenth century which revolutionized agriculture, the reaper was probably the most important.” Hutchinson continued, “The reaper was not the only new agricultural machine which revolutionized the economy of the farm. Harvesting implements of all kinds were in use by the time of the Civil War, but it is slight exaggeration to assert that they all incorporated some of the principles which had made the McCormick reaper a success.”

After the founder’s death, his company merged with four smaller companies to become International Harvester; later, it became Navistar, and today, it is International Motors. Yet by any name, the company is still going strong, still producing goods, still providing jobs.

That’s the power of capitalism, of course, and yet it’s also the power of constitutionalism. The rule of law at home, and strength in the world, enables inventors such as McCormick—joined by regular workers in the millions—to pursue their dreams as their skills empower them. As the Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in Federalist #10, “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.” Yes, people are different, Madison is saying, but they can find the common ground of economic advancement. “The protection of these faculties,” Madison concludes, “is the first object of government.”

Such legal protection—benefiting inventors and farmers alike—has enabled American agricultural output to grow more than one hundred-fold.

We can look at that increase and see that the growth rate is almost Moore’s Law-like. Which reminds us: Our constitutional ship of state has steered us through all the storms of U.S. history—including the development of new technologies, from the mechanical to the chemical to the digital. Our history proves that we can preserve our democratic liberties, even as we change and prosper.

So today, when AI seems so daunting, we can take heart in our own history. We’ve seen difficulty, and opportunity, before. We can do this—so long as we stay true to the Constitution.

Jim Pinkerton was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and serves as a Senior Fellow in the Center for American Prosperity at the America First Policy Institute. He worked in the Domestic Policy Office at the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in their 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008, he served as a senior adviser to Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign.

From 1996–2016, Jim was a Contributor to the Fox News Channel. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Financial Times, and The Los Angeles Times.

Today, Jim writes regularly for Breitbart, The American Conservative, and The Daily Caller. He is married to our very own Elizabeth Pinkerton and is a graduate of Stanford University.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

/0 Comments/by

Essay 92: The Trade Of Seeking Official Positions In Certain Democratic Nations (Vol. 2 Pt. 3 Ch. 20)

, , , , , , , ,
Guest Essayist: James Pinkerton

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 604 (start at chapter 20 heading) – 606 (stop at chapter 21 heading) of this edition of Democracy in America.

If the government is small, ambitious people, seeking economic opportunity, will tend to go where the action is: to the private sector. They will, in a phrase, follow the money. However, if the government is big, ambitious people are more likely to seek out careers in the public sector.

This point is made in the second volume of Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America. As with so many of De Tocqueville’s insights, it’s common sense, informed by first-hand observation—he spent nearly a year traveling through the U.S. in 1831-32—and armored further in erudition. As he wrote, “In the United States as soon as a man has acquired some education and pecuniary resources, he either endeavors to get rich by commerce or industry, or he buys land in the bush and turns pioneer.” The author notes a distinctly American characteristic: “All that he asks of the State is not to be disturbed in his toil, and to be secure of his earnings.” In other words, Don’t tread on me.

However, Europe was different. As De Tocqueville wrote of the ambitious European, “The first thing that occurs to him is to get some public employment.” In Europe, public employment didn’t just mean an income, it also meant power and privilege, the ability to lord it over others while perhaps wheedling a special favor out of some crowned head.

De Tocqueville, himself a classical liberal, clearly preferred the American approach of small government, too poor to do favors for the connected. He contrasted “public employments [that] are few in number, ill-paid and precarious,” to “different lines of business [that] are numerous and lucrative.” That, the Frenchman said, was a key difference between small-government America and big-government Europe.

To De Tocqueville, the freedom to get into business for oneself was the key to equality as he defined it. That is, equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of result (sometimes today called “equity”).

Back in the 1830s, American government was small. The federal government’s share of economic output, what we now call GDP, was perhaps three percent. And the state’s regulatory footprint was small as well, to the point of non-existent. In most places, if you wanted to start farming, well, you just started farming. No permit needed.

By contrast, European governments were much larger, not just as a share of the economy, but as a share of the national mindset. Europe was, after all, the land of feudalism and centralized empire; by contrast, the U.S. was about republicanism and expansion on the western frontier—it was always even freer over the next hill.

De Tocqueville was ever loyal to France, and yet he wrote Democracy in America with an eye toward encouraging a new spirit of liberty in his homeland.

Meanwhile, today, the U.S. has a much larger government; the federal government’s share of the economy is more than seven times what it was in De Tocqueville’s era, around 23 percent of GDP (and state and local governments are much larger, too). Moreover, what’s called the “administrative state” has grown huge, too, in its ability to affect the economy, the workplace, the schools—even school bathrooms.

Has life for Americans improved amidst this government expansion? Is our Constitution stronger? These are matters for debate. But it does appear that America has become more like Europe. So now, plenty of Americans are able to make good careers for themselves as “activists” and “public-sector entrepreneurs.” That’s what Big Government buys you. (And of course, we must pause to distinguish the ambitious from those motivated by a spirit of public service; De Tocqueville wrote elsewhere about good patriots, and we all know plenty of good civic hearts today.)

To be sure, many Americans still flock to the private sector, even knowing that they must brave ever-increasing tax and regulatory burdens. Happily, our free economy is so strong that the rewards of private-sector entrepreneurship can be fantastic.

So we’re in a different place than we were in De Tocqueville’s time: We have a big public sector and a big private sector. What does this mean for today? What does it portend for the future? For answers, we might benefit from the visit of another sage foreigner to help give us insight and perspective.

Or, of course, we can look to our own traditions and history—starting with the U.S. Constitution.

James P. Pinkerton served as a domestic policy aide in the White Houses of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. He also worked in the 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 2008 presidential campaigns. From 1996 to 2016, he was a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

/0 Comments/by

Principle of Strong Defense Capability To Protect the United States Against the Danger and Severity of Treason

, , , , , , , ,
Guest Essayist: James P. Pinkerton

 

Essay Read By Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

 

The new movie Oppenheimer offers us a window into the past: Into a key moment in the evolution of our national defense—and along the way, the film underscores the importance of fending off treason.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution, steeped as they were in history, knew all about the danger a nation faced from betrayal. In particular, the Catilinarian Conspiracy of the ancient Roman Republic loomed large in their minds, such that in the 18th century, “Catiline” became synonymous with “traitor.” Yet that same knowledge of history told the Americans that oftentimes in the past, mere dissent, peaceful and legitimate, had been labeled as treachery, the easier to crush the dissenters. So Article Three, Section Three, of the Constitution carefully circumscribes the offense; it declares that treason “shall consist only in levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Explaining this narrowly constructed language in The Federalist Papers, the essays aimed at encouraging the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison wrote, “Artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions . . .  have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other.” That is, bad regimes were too easily tempted to label troublemakers as traitors. Seeking to reassure Americans that their rights and liberties would be protected, Madison pledged that the Constitution establishes “a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.” In other words, no overbroad definition of treason, and no collective punishment—no reigns of terror—for the acts of an individual.

The Constitution’s sense of moderation and due process informs the new movie about J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the laboratory at Los Alamos, N.M., which developed the atomic bomb during World War Two. Oppenheimer was a scientific genius blessed with, in addition, great skills of organization and leadership. And he was also at least something of a communist. Thus the paradox in the film: Oppenheimer was needed for national defense, and he was also a potential security threat.

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the atomic bomb has been vital to defending America and protecting American lives. During World War Two, there was reason to believe that Nazi Germany was building an atomic weapon, and we had to have the bomb before Hitler. And even after that satanic regime was crushed, the other enemy, Japan, was still fighting, still killing Americans; the Okinawa campaign of April-June 1945 led to the death of some 12,500 GIs, as well as more than 110,000 Japanese. Yet despite these terrible defeats, Japan showed no inclination to give up its hopeless fight—until the U.S. used atomic bombs in August 1945. The carnage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki notwithstanding, Japan’s surrender saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and many millions of Japanese lives. To illustrate the depths of the challenge the U.S. faced, in 1946, Karl Compton, president the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reported on his conversation with a Japanese military officer who suggested that were it not for the intervening surrender, every Japanese would have died combating Americans. “We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated,” the officer told Compton. The population of Japan at the time was 77 million.

So Oppenheimer was a hero of our national defense, just as Americans were heroes for mobilizing the resources needed to build the bomb. The Manhattan Project employed a total of 610,000 Americans. And some of those Americans were traitors, spies for the Soviet Union. Only after World War Two, with the onset of the Cold War against the Soviets, did we discover the espionage of such figures as Klaus Fuchs, David Greenglass, and Ted Hall. All had worked at Los Alamos under Oppenheimer.  Fuchs and Greenglass were tried, convicted, and imprisoned—but in both cases, for less than a decade (Fuchs served his time in Britain). As for Hall, he was stripped of his security clearance, but allowed to continue his career as a physicist.

This pattern of treachery, of course, reflected on Oppenheimer himself. In 1954, after a quasi-judicial proceeding lasting two months—complete with witnesses to be examined and cross-examined by lawyers—Oppenheimer was stripped of his security clearance. Yet even so, he was free to live his life; he wrote a book, lectured widely, toured the world (although not the USSR or any other communist country), and even received an award from President Lyndon Johnson in 1963. He died in 1967.

So we can see: The Constitution’s carefully crafted words about treason—and the overall tone of restraint applied to the charge—prevented any of these convicts and suspects from drastic punishments.  (Other spies of that era were treated more harshly.)

The freedoms accorded to us by the Constitution have made us prosperous, of course, in no small part because liberty makes the U.S. a magnet for talent from around the world—four of the top Manhattan Project scientists were born in Hungary, and none of them were spies. Those strengths give us the capacity to build wonder-weapons such as the atomic bomb. And yet that same freedom makes it harder for us to keep secret our secrets.

So this is our Republic: If we can keep it.

James P. Pinkerton worked in the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in their 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008, he served as a senior adviser to Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign. From 1996 to 2016, he was a Contributor to the Fox News Channel. A frequent contributor to Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and The American Conservative, he is a senior fellow at the America First Policy Institute. He is finishing a book on directional investment.

Click here for First Principles of the American Founding 90-Day Study Schedule.
Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.

/0 Comments/by