Sup /his/, first time poster here, found something interesting you guys might enjoy. I just read some passages from a book titled "The People's Welfare: Law & Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America", by William J. Novak.
Basically, Novak argues that the modern perception of 19th century America as being totally laizze-faire is largely incorrect. While laizze-faire did show up in American political and legal thought, it didn't gain traction until the very late 19th century, like 1880s or so.
Before that, Novak argues, American political and legal thought molded society around a concept which Novak refers to as the Well-Regulated Society. The Well-Regulated Society was basically the total opposite of laizze-faire. Where laizze-faire called for a relatively inactive govt, almost a nightwatchmen state, and almost religious respect of individual rights, particularly property rights, the Well-Regulated Society called for local govts actively regulating the hell out of virtually every aspect of people's lives, from commerce to morality, all for the public good. Private interests were considered subservient to the public interest, and therefore could be regulated by the local govts accordingly. The ability of local govts to pretty much regulate anything in the name of the public good, in any way it saw fit, was referred to as the state police power. The courts upheld the legitimacy of this state police power numerous times.
By understanding the presence of the Well-Regulated Society in American legal thought, the emergence of laizze-faire in the late 19th century can thus be considered something of a backlash against some of the excesses of the Well-Regulated Society.
Novak gives a shit load of examples of local and municipal laws that seriously micromanaged people's lives to support his claims, as well as court cases upholding these local regs as perfectly legal. I can post them if you guys are interested.
>>385502
OP again.
The two places in which the Well-Regulated Society's regulations are most striking are commerce/property, and morality.
Commerce was seen as another space which could be regulated for the good of society. Local officials feared the evils of an unregulated market, such as profiteering, fraud, poor product quality, unsanitary conditions, etc. When it came to food and other essential goods, people thought the public's access to such things was simply too important to be trusted to a "free market".
Public morals was another space that the Well-Regulated Society held dominion over. Things like drinking, gambling, prostitution, sex for fun, interactions between people of different races, etc., were all regulated for the public benefit. This is where shit got ridiculous.
When it came to public morals, mob rule basically governed. When women were accused of prostitution or adultery, sufficient evidence for conviction could be as little as rumors, gossip, or the community's perception of the woman's character. Hard evidence of money changing hands, actual sex, or even the existence of a supposed client were all unnecessary.
People also weren't allowed to have fun in their own homes if the neighbors didn't approve. There was a case of a slaveowner in the South who had some friends over for music and dancing. His black slaves were there too, because of course they were, he fucking owned them. This slaveowner later got busted by the police for the insidious crime of having fun in the privacy of his own home in front of his own black slaves, who were his property at the time.
As you guys can see, the Well-Regulated Society was a far cry from the supposedly inactive govt which protected individual rights above all else.
>>385602
Anything we know about this Novak guy?
>>385621
He's a professor at Michigan Law. That's all I know about him.
>>385641
Idk what whiggery is, but the whole Well-Regulated Society is basically how Americans viewed republicanism prior to the rise of liberalism. They thought that if private interests were held above public interests, than we'd basically be backsliding to the dark ages when private lords and manors ruled society for their own advantage and everyone else was fucked. Also, the idea of "active govt = bad" literally didn't exist, as made evident by the fact that they used govt activity all the time to solve anything. That idea seems to have sprung up in response to some of the more crazy things that the Well-Regulated Society did, like busting that slaveowner for having fun in front of his slaves.
>>385641
>Sounds like pre-liberal whiggery.
The analysis?
How exactly?
It seems pretty spot-on actually.
But then again I dont know that much about 19th century US history, as I'm not american myself.
>>385502
>those fucking hats
>>385672
>Idk what whiggery is
Thompson, Whigs & Hunters.
Basically 3/4 of your revolutionaries were "Whigs" as opposed to Tories. Whiggery looks for a well regulated society where each of the orders can express itself fully within its ordering and natural place. As opposed to Torydom. Whiggery views "active government" as bad, within the proviso that "what gentlemen do to fuck over the commons and mobility" isn't actually government.
>>385674
The analysis sounds like an analysis of pre-civil war america as a whig state. Much like the whig party in the United Kingdom, and whiggery.
>>385674
There is a long tradition in this country of old ladies who stick their nose into your business and try to ruin your shit if they don't like it.
Exhibit A
http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/tarred-and-feathered
>>385698
>Whiggery views "active government" as bad, within the proviso that "what gentlemen do to fuck over the commons and mobility" isn't actually government.
That sounds like the opposite of the Well-Regulated Society, which viewed "active government" as good, so long as it was local self-government doing the activity. They seemed to oppose federal and state-level activity, but only because they saw local govt as just being the more logical vehicle for regulation.
>>385711
>what gentlemen do to fuck over the commons and mobility
Look into machinery and machine politics.
>>385721
>>385721
Machine politics, as I understand it, was a system in which political parties used a system of patronage to ensure the loyalty of voters, who often were mobilized to secure votes for a particular candidate in exchange for material concessions or benefits from that candidate once in office, like jobs on public works or whatever. Many people consider such tactics as corrupt, since voters vote for whoever meets their price, not who they think would actually be best for the job.
So how are you trying to fit machine politics into the Well-Regulated Society? Interestingly enough, I haven't found much about how Novak thought party machines fit into this schema.
