Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

loquitur · 04-06-2011, 10:51 AM

Will, what you're leaving out is that for Jefferson, corporations WERE special government-granted privileges. There weren't any off-the-shelf private corporations until much later in the 19th century. To get a corporation in Jefferson's time you needed to have an act of the legislature that specially created it, and until later, you couldn't create a corporation for strictly private purposes -- in fact, a number of early 19th century corporations even had eminent domain power because they were considered public-interest arms of the state. So when Jefferson warned about corporations, he was basically warning about what we might call today corporatism or cronyism: special favors to the well-connected, granted under the guise of acting in the public interest. The earliest group of business corporations in the US were banks, so of course there was a fair amount of suspicion. The first corporations of any kind were municipalities, dating back IIRC to royal charters in 17th century England. So when you use the word "corporation," it helps to know the historical context in which it was used. For instance, there is a reason that the NYC government's law department is called the "Corporation Counsel" -- it's a leftover from the day when the Corporation of the City of New York was created.

I took a course on corporate history in law school, and honestly I'm surprised I still remember this stuff. Current corporate form, in which corporations became explicitly a method of private business organization rather than at least nominally a delegation of public interest functions, arose in the (I think) 1830s or so (by which point Jefferson was dead). [I'll need to check that date] Off-the-shelf corporations were created by US state legislatures in the 19th century in order to deal with the demand for new corporations as the economy expanded -- that demand was threatening to swamp state legislatures' ability to get any other kind of work done.

As for the founders, you're right about John Adams (he generally distrusted populist sentiment and feared mob rule), but John Hancock was one of the behind-the-scenes instigators of the Tea Party. He owned wharves and had an importing business, remember - he stood to benefit from hamstringing the EIC.

The Jefferson quote about corporations demonstrates for me, at least, the perils of assuming that words meant the same thing in the same context when they were first used as they do today. They don't.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ----------

Oh, as for Lincoln - he was a railroad lawyer. Those railroads got rich by getting special favors from the government (these were legislatively created corporations that were granted rights of way and in many cases power of eminent domain), as did the canal companies before them. So yes, he knew damn well what he was talking about with corporations, because they basically were insiders using the system for their own benefit.

But if you read his thoughts about free labor and free enterprise, it's right out of the loquitur school of thinking. One of the reasons he despised slavery was that it was an affront to the human dignity that is afforded by work, because work and enterprise are means to self-improvement that is denied to a slave.

04-06-2011, 10:51 AM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Will, what you're leaving out is that for Jefferson, corporations WERE special government-granted privileges. There weren't any off-the-shelf private corporations until much later in the 19th century. To get a corporation in Jefferson's time you needed to have an act of the legislature that specially created it, and until later, you couldn't create a corporation for strictly private purposes -- in fact, a number of early 19th century corporations even had eminent domain power because they were considered public-interest arms of the state. So when Jefferson warned about corporations, he was basically warning about what we might call today corporatism or cronyism: special favors to the well-connected, granted under the guise of acting in the public interest. The earliest group of business corporations in the US were banks, so of course there was a fair amount of suspicion. The first corporations of any kind were municipalities, dating back IIRC to royal charters in 17th century England. So when you use the word "corporation," it helps to know the historical context in which it was used. For instance, there is a reason that the NYC government's law department is called the "Corporation Counsel" -- it's a leftover from the day when the Corporation of the City of New York was created. I took a course on corporate history in law school, and honestly I'm surprised I still remember this stuff. Current corporate form, in which corporations became explicitly a method of private business organization rather than at least nominally a delegation of public interest functions, arose in the (I think) 1830s or so (by which point Jefferson was dead). [I'll need to check that date] Off-the-shelf corporations were created by US state legislatures in the 19th century in order to deal with the demand for new corporations as the economy expanded -- that demand was threatening to swamp state legislatures' ability to get any other kind of work done. As for the founders, you're right about John Adams (he generally distrusted populist sentiment and feared mob rule), but John Hancock was one of the behind-the-scenes instigators of the Tea Party. He owned wharves and had an importing business, remember - he stood to benefit from hamstringing the EIC. The Jefferson quote about corporations demonstrates for me, at least, the perils of assuming that words meant the same thing in the same context when they were first used as they do today. They don't. ---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 PM ---------- Oh, as for Lincoln - he was a railroad lawyer. Those railroads got rich by getting special favors from the government (these were legislatively created corporations that were granted rights of way and in many cases power of eminent domain), as did the canal companies before them. So yes, he knew damn well what he was talking about with corporations, because they basically were insiders using the system for their own benefit. But if you read his thoughts about free labor and free enterprise, it's right out of the loquitur school of thinking. One of the reasons he despised slavery was that it was an affront to the human dignity that is afforded by work, because work and enterprise are means to self-improvement that is denied to a slave.