Bottomed on Corruption

Okay, apparently, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins believes that the Founding Fathers would oppose overturning the Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 Citizens United ruling - the one that effectively makes bribery protected "speech." Alexander Hamilton and John Jay probably yes.

Alexander Hamilton actually advocated corruption. But I imagine most of the others would probably applaud the recent Senate vote that moved the proposed constitutional Amendment forward. For example, it would not be recklessly speculative to suggest that Thomas Jefferson would be on the opposite side of the issue from Hamilton. As I wrote in my book:

Of course, I am not arguing that the founders all agreed. There were reactionaries as well as radicals. For example, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay felt wealth should run the country and they had no problem saying so. In fact, Hamilton had actually advocated corruption as a desirable mechanism toward that end. He was an admirer of the British Parliament in which votes and government posts were then openly bought and sold. It kept the rich in control because only they could afford to buy legislation. Hamilton said, "Purge that constitution of its corruption, and give to its popular branch equality of representation, and it would become an impractical government: as it stands at present, with all its supposed defects, it is the most perfect government that ever existed." This prompted Thomas Jefferson to claim, "Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but for a monarchy bottomed on corruption." If Hamilton were alive today, he would no doubt join the GOP in opposing campaign finance reform."

Mind you, this is the same Tony Perks who thinks that trying to overturn the Citizens United ruling amounts to Christian persecution. It was not Thomas Jefferson, but I seem to recall that somebody famously drove the money changers out of the Temple of Jerusalem with a whip in hand.

I am pretty sure it was not Tony Perkins either.

This Island Earth

Okay, conservatives. Let me spell it out for you: We are all on the Island. You like to think you are the Skipper, but you are actually a strange, hateful amalgamation of Gilligan and Mr. Howell who inexplicably loathes the Professor and has anger management issues in general.

The point being is you keep fucking things up for the rest of us.

On Cowboys and Aliens

It is a tricky thing to pull off a historic atrocity analogy. You have to be very careful with them and you are probably better off just not trying. And, as I have written so many times before, conservatives compulsively rush in where historians fear to tread. So I don't want to mimic their mistakes.

It is, therefore, with great trepidation that I follow conservatives into this treacherous territory. But, I have two analogies which I think might help explain the situation in Palestine to my fellow Americans.

Let's start with this familiar story. Europeans arrive in a promised land with superior firepower and inform the brown inhabitants that God gave them this land. This may involve giving Native Americans small pox blankets or planting landmines in Palestinian olive orchards.

From the very beginning, there are atrocities on both sides. In America, scalping was practiced by Natives and Europeans alike. In Palestine, the practice was bombing. Many Israeli politicians were at one time terrorists themselves who had targeted civilians as well as military targets during the British Mandate. As with early America, atrocities continued on both sides long after nationhood was achieved. We had elected Andrew Jackson president and the Israelis had elected Ariel Sharon prime minister. Israel's apologists claim that Palestinians never wanted to share the holy land. Well, Irgun and the Lehi did not either. Hard right Zionists insist they must actualize a “Greater Israel" consisting of all the territory that biblical Israel had conquered. For Ingrun, this included Jordan. The “Manifest Destiny" parallel should be obvious.

In any self-perpetuating cycle of violence, both sides express outrage that is simultaneously heartfelt and ridiculously hypocritical. Such is the inherent nature of all ongoing feuds. But the lopsidedness of the conflict makes the outrage of the strongest party even more absurd.

In both early America and modern Israel, you had/have three main groups - natives, settlers, and the army. The army is supposed to keep the peace between the natives and the settlers; but since the army is made of the same ethnicity and nationality as the settlers, there is zero even handedness. If a settler kills a native, he gets a slap on the wrist - if that. If a native kills a settler, it triggers a punitive strike on the entire native community. This tacit incentive system gets exactly the sort of results you might expect.

In both cases, the natives are restricted to the most barren land and their sources of sustenance systematically squeezed. The strongest side rarely bargains in good faith. Needless to say, this exacerbates resentment and cynicism on the weaker side. Human beings being human beings, the stronger party becomes a bully. The infamous Zimbardo prison experiment illustrates how quickly this can take place.

I am not trying to romanticize anyone. If the situation were reversed, their roles would be too. Nor am I denying that underdogs often get romanticized. Anyone with an elementary sense of fairness is apt to to romanticize an underdog unless their sympathy is already locked-in for the other side for some other reason - often for having been the underdog on some previous occasion. Victims becoming bullies is a pretty familiar trajectory in human history. I would not be the first observer to remark that colonists who came to our shores fleeing religious persecution in England had no problem being persecutors themselves. Benjamin Franklin beat me to it in his June 3rd, 1772 Letter to the London Packet:

If we look back into history for the character of present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practised it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England, blamed persecution in the Roman church, but practised it against the Puritans: these found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.(1)

And as V.G. Kiernan wrote of the Dutch winning their independence from the Spanish Hapsburgs: “It did not escape comment that the Dutch were no sooner gaining their freedom at home than they were depriving other people of theirs, an inconsistency repeated by several European nations later on."(2)

But, sympathy or bias aside, it is a tautology worth examining that the side with the most power has the most power. That side has the most control of the situation and can best end the cycle of violence. It has the brunt of the responsibility for escalating or de-escalating things. Likewise, a policeman probably does not need to empty his pistol's clip into an unarmed black teen with his hands up.

Moreover, the “pox on both houses" opinion ignores the fact that one side are the invaders and the other is the resistance. I don't endorse nail bombs any more than I endorse scalping, but it is moronic to be shocked or get morally indignant when the natives strike back with whatever paltry resources they have. That is just going to happen as naturally as gravity. It is a tragedy the same way tornadoes, volcanoes, or earthquakes are - except instead of cold fronts hitting warm ones or tectonic plates grinding together, it is people. The only difference is that people can do something about it. But the people who can do the most about it are, by definition, those with the most firepower.

America and Israel are both young countries that share the same original sin.

Okay, this native analogy is probably not very original. But I have another analogy, if you prefer:

Imagine an interstellar invasion of Earth. Realistically, how would we react in that situation?

Would we distinguish between civilian and military when they begin bringing their families over? Of course not. We would do our utmost to convince them that Earth is not a safe place for them to raise a family.

And if their military technology were so advanced that any assault against them was a de facto suicide mission, how long would it be before some of us just started strapping bombs to ourselves in recognition of that grim reality? Probably less than fifty years.

And religion has a way of inserting itself into life and death situations. Religious difference would certainly piggyback on to the conflict. Obviously, all differences would be instantly highlighted, but once again the fear of death would magnify religion even more. Warring nations are quick to claim that God is on their side. Even when both sides share the same religion, they may still call it a “crusade."

But when the religions are different, things get uglier. The crusade rhetoric becomes more likely, if not inevitable as George W. Bush unthinkingly illustrated. The distinction between “patriot" and “martyr" would blur for most people - most probably immediately. And the alien invaders would no doubt call us crazed, fanatical “animals" as a result. Again, the dynamic would be as natural as gravity.

Perhaps at this point some conservative will call me a human race-traitor for my dim view of humanity. On the contrary, like that great citizen of the world Thomas Paine, my loyalty to humanity is solid. I share his original humanist patriotism. It is the opposite of narrow, tribal nationalism. And what Paine had to say on the origin of property is relevant to the issue of nationalism too:

It is deductible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the stories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing, as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may credited in probable things, were owners of land. Their property consisted, as is always enumerated, in flocks and herds, they traveled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also show that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property. There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.(3)

__________

1) Benjamin Franklin, The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. by Leonard W. Labaree et al. (New Haven: Yale University Press), 1959, 19:163-68.

2) V.G. Kiernan, The Lords of Human Kind: European Attitudes to Other Cultures in the Imperial Age (Boston and Toronto: Little Brown and Company, 1969), 11.

3) Thomas Paine, The Life and Major Writings of Thomas Paine: includes Common Sense, The American Crisis, Rights of Man, The Age of Reason and Agrarian Justice, ed. Phillip Sheldon Foner (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1993), 611.

White is the New Black

As the tragedy in Ferguson continues to unfold, it touches on so many issues - racial profiling, society's devaluation of black lives, the militarization of policing, freedom of the press, etc. One is conservative media's coverage and framing of events.

In my book, I have devoted an entire chapter to the right's routine Orwellian inversion of history. As I wrote before, this was one among very many things that kept me postponing my book's completion. Almost every other day, some new example of that reactionary reflex would occur and I felt I had to retroactively shoehorn it into my manuscript. Each new quote felt more stupefying than the last, but eventually I realized that I had to stop somewhere and I consoled myself with the fact that this ongoing phenomenon was keeping my book fresh and relevant even as my examples age. Now, my only worry is sounding like a broken record.

Well, this one takes the cake - at least, until tomorrow. According to regular Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham, the protestors demanding to know the name of the cop who shot an unarmed black teenager are a "lynch mob." But she had previously called the armed militia members who had a stand off with federal authorities at the Cliven Bundy ranch "Freedom Riders."

Roll that one around in your head for a moment. I will wait.

Granted, the two statements were made well apart - she was not contrasting the protestors with the militia members. And I suppose it is possible that she was just unthinkingly using whatever hyperbolic comparison popped into her head without thinking too hard about the labels' origins. But conservatives do this so routinely now that I am disinclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Twisting history is their strategy.

Whatever your politics, you should acknowledge this as an embarrassing absurdity. No liberal opinion maker could say something that stupid and remain gainfully employed. He or she would hemorrhage viewers. Not so for conservatives. They may become totally radioactive to advertisers, but Glenn Beck is now making even more money since he has left Fox. They know how to monetize controversy. It is a Pavlovian vicious cycle between pundit and audience: This is what the rank and file likes to hear, and the Elephant Echo Chamber happily delivers regularly.

I am certainly not the first person to notice any of this. But I have spotted a larger pattern that I think merits discussing. This is how conservatives think - at least enough of them to swing the GOP toward the lunatic fringes. Denial and projection are not just something they do occasionally: It is their dominant reflex in explaining events. In my book, I take pains to say that we all can project or say stupid things. But no other group rewards and turbo boosts it like conservatives do.

Why? Because it is inherent in the conservative mindset. These are people who are hostile to liberty and equality who are living in a country that is founded on pursuing these ideals. These are the people who have always postponed our democratic promise and done their utmost to make our ideals a hollow joke. Yes, liberals can certainly disappoint, either out of thoughtlessness or cowardliness, but only conservatives have made such subversion an organizing principle. 

And yet, conservatives are all about conformity, obedience, and belonging, so they cannot acknowledge their history of sabotage. Just as the GOP's Southern Strategy denies racism while relying on racist dog whistles, conservatism covertly milks this un-American animus while challenging others' patriotism. Indeed, the first is a facet of the second. Race is a volatile topic the world over, but America's identity has a stake in equality that makes American racists feel extra defensive. Their authenticity as Americans always feels under assault.

 
Conservatives have always attempted to co-opt the founders. They denied the founders' deism and secular open mindedness. But now, their rewrites reach into recent history - into events that are in the living memory of millions. Case in point: the Civil Rights Movement. You simply cannot make a lynching analogy any more awkward than Laura Ingraham has - at least not without making the exact same one as Bill O'Reilly had. But whether deliberate or unthinking, it is still completely in sync with her audience's ass-backwards worldview.

After all, a poll taken last year found that nearly a third - 29% - of Louisiana Republicans think that President Barack Obama bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Of course, this titanic natural disaster occurred on President George W. Bush's watch. (Almost half - 44% - were unsure of who was at fault.) But what is most stunning is that it happened in their own state only seven years before the poll was taken and yet so many of them still got it wrong! If conservatives can forget or rewrite that in their minds, anything is possible.

UPDATE: David Horowitz has just joined the "lynch mob" metaphor bandwagon.

SECOND UPDATE: Ben Stein now too.

An Analogous Absurdity

I have neglected this blog for too long. I have a few embryonic posts on important topics that I will post soon, but I just had to address this little bit of geeky ephemera.

Apparently, some homophobic fan boy recently objected to a lesbian scene in a Star Trek novel. He wrote a letter, and the writer gave a great response. My first three reactions to the incident were: 1) Imagine that fan boy's reaction if the characters were gay males. 2) Dude, where have you been? Lesbians on Star Trek are old news. The Deep Space 9 episode “Rejoined” aired in 1995. Catch up. And 3) It's fucking STAR TREK. If you have a problem with any form of tolerance you are in the wrong fandom.

Watch Starship Troopers instead.

I call this an analogous absurdity because the homophobe’s response looks a whole lot like conservative "patriotism." One of the many points I hammer home in my book is that America is supposed to stand for liberty, equality, and democracy and that conservatives chronically oppose those things. These three big ideals cover a lot of ground, and the ripple effects cause conservatives to oppose America’s every ethos – from our status of a multicultural nation of immigrants to the very concept of progress itself. As I wrote before in this blog, William F. Buckley Jr. declared in the National Review’s 1955 mission statement that his magazine “stands athwart history shouting Stop!” By contrast, Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

In that respect, Star Trek – and every inherently secular humanistic message contained in it – is an extension of America. Both are animated by a vision of an advanced, scientific-thinking society that is both tolerant and egalitarian, and yet nevertheless values individuals' right to live as they like. As Thomas Jefferson explained, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” But theocrats cannot grasp this. They think "God's law" trumps all else. Jefferson thought otherwise. "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Legislating Leviticus is inherently un-American. 

This vision was committed to our coinage. As Benjamin Franklin had inscribed on our nation's first penny "Mind Your Business." On the opposite side of the coin are the words "We Are One" surrounded by thirteen interlocking rings to represent the thirteen original colonies. This later became our nation's motto E Pluribus Unum - "One From Many." In time, this got tied to our generous multicultural identity - the one outlined in the poem on the Statue of Liberty that reads: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me."

In my book, I argue that the interdependent ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy form a tripod with each leg supporting the other two and thus the structure as a whole. I further argue that empathy and generosity are the glue that holds all the pieces together. Of course, the conservative temperament cuts against all of these things. It stands athwart history and America's liberal traditions shouting self-contradictory nonsense. Just as there are Trekkers who do not get Star Trek, there are Americans who do not get America. And for the same basic reasons.

Disappointment Redux

In the introduction to my book, I said something to the effect of my being the "Richard Dawkins of American History." I would like to retract that analogy now because his ass-haberdashery has gotten worse.

It is not that I object to his abrasiveness - quite the opposite: I embrace abrasiveness. After all, I am both a cartoonist and a fan of satire. Mark Twain had called laughter humanity's greatest weapon:

 Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution—these can lift at a colossal humbug—push it a little—weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.

But I distinguish between assholish tone and assholish content. The former is often both entertaining and necessary for the reason I gave above.  Although, I suppose I should not be surprised by the high correlation between the two. Likewise, Bill Maher has been disappointing more and more - from his whining about his taxes to his misogynistic analogy on Israel's recent invasion of Gaza. Full disclosure: I also praise Maher in my book when contrasting his libertarianism with Penn Jillette's.

Indeed, I had asked a friend about Dawkins' ass-haberdashery earlier when there were less egregious quotes out there. After some discussion, I decided to leave it in. I took a conscious risk and it was a bad call.

My exact words were:

If I convert a conservative, that is a bonus but I am not banking on it. I am somewhat brusque and I expect they will react to my evidence the same way Creationists react to dinosaur bones. So, I suppose it is my intention to be the Richard Dawkins of American history by bluntly presenting long-established facts: The founders were mostly Deists – deal with it. The Civil War was fought over slavery – deal with it. This is not a “reach across the aisle” sort of book. Both the title and thesis effectively prevent that. 

Plus, Richard Dawkins disses art and history? You can well imagine what I think of that. Yeah, fuck that guy. Cartoon History of the Universe creator Larry Gonnick should go medieval on his ass. As Matt Groening had once put it, "It is unwise to annoy cartoonists."

EDIT: The Dawkins bit has been dropped.

Evolving Opinion on Palestine

Many have taken note of Jon Stewart's evenhanded coverage on Israel's current incursion into Gaza.

This can be seen in Dean Obeidallah's Daily Beast piece “How Jon Stewart Made It Okay to Care About Palestinian Suffering" and David Weigel's piece in Slate “When You’ve Lost Jon Stewart, You’ve Lost Middle America." Stewart definitely deserves great credit, but I want to point to another factor that nobody I know of has mentioned yet: Recent experience.

For eight years, anyone who opposed George W. Bush and the Iraq War was accused of hating America or not supporting the troops. President Barack Obama is now midway through his second term, but the memory is still very fresh. Hyperbole like that does not fade quickly. G.W. Bush said, “You are either with us or you are with the enemy." Eventually, that either/or rhetoric wore out and lost traction with the American public. I think that same dynamic is starting to happen on Americans' thinking about Palestine. For decades, Jews who criticized Israel where called “self-hating" and Gentiles who did were called anti-Semitic - a situation that Jon Stewart illustrated in a brilliant segment.

Stateside, these absurd accusations allowed conservative institutions like the National Review to harbor Holocaust deniers as long as the publication itself remained hawkishly pro-Israel. Likewise, right wing Evangelicals unconditionally support all of Israel's actions - not out of any great love or respect for the Jewish people but because they believe the existence of Israel is a precondition for Jesus' return, at which time they expect all Jews to convert to Christianity.

A great many Israelis see their current government basically the same way anti-war Americans saw G.W. Bush and the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are even conscientious objectors in the Israeli Defense Forces who refuse to take part. These Israelis obviously do not desire their own deaths any more than the U.S. peace movement supported Al Qaeda. They do, however, see their government's actions as excessive, immoral, and counterproductive. My guess is that Americans are finally seeing these parallels.

Not conservative voters, of course. A 2012 poll found that 63% of Republicans still think that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded Iraq in 2003, so I am not holding my breath for those with a hard-on for the Apocalypse. But the rest of the electorate is recognizing the right's appetite for bellicose fabrications, false dichotomies, motivated reasoning, and perpetual rage-think.

Granted, we Americans collectively went a little crazy after 9-11. Anger leads to the dark side, and like Yoda said to Luke, progressives had to say, “The cave! Remember your failure at the cave!" We still do.

Of course, I am not saying we should frame the argument as a spiritual failing. Instead, we should make the more straightforward argument that anger makes you stupid. Or, as Ben Franklin put it in Poor Richard's Almanac, “Take this remark from Richard poor and lame, Whate'er's begun in anger ends in shame."

Angry stupidity seems to be finally falling out of fashion. At least now it is a bit easier to call it out.

Native Land

Speaking of leftist patriots, do you want to watch a B&W WPA movie about America made by unapologetic reds like Paul Robeson?* A movie that, like Linus in A Charlie Brown Christmas, breaks it all down and explains what America is truly all about?

Of course you do! Because it kicks the living shit out of the phony patriotism of unhinged charlatans like Glenn Beck. (Although I would not put it past Beck to try to co-opt this along with all the other New Deal iconography he has shamelessly strip-mined.) It was filmed in 1942 and titled Native Land. 

Parts of the narrative are politically problematic. Native Americans would have a valid critique, which makes the tile a little ironic. And it is admittedly pretty preachy. But on the whole it nails it. 

It boasts brilliant cinematography by the legendary photographer Paul Strand and an orchestral score by composer Marc Blitzstein - that dude who Hank Azaria had played in Cradle Will Rock. 

Watch it. It starts out all ponderous and cheesy, but stick with it. Hell, embrace it.


______________

* I am not, nor ever have been, a member of the Communist Party. Although, I am a Wobbly.

A Fortuitous Fourth

This past Fourth of July holiday weekend saw a couple of great posts by other people that align quite nicely with my previous post and my book as a whole.

A friend of mine reposted a great 2010 Steve Rendall article entitled, "The Right's Library of Fake Quotes: Putting Words in Dead People’s Mouths." I have been a fan of FAIR for many years, but somehow I had missed this particular piece. I cited many of their articles in my book, including these two which I ritually post every Martin Luther King Day.

Richard Riis posted one called "Independence Day Special: Thirteen Facts About America Conservatives Would Like You to Forget." Item one reminds me of that song in the musical 1776 that Richard Nixon got dropped from the 1972 movie version. In it, the opponents of independence sing their praises of conservatism - "To the right, ever to the right - never to the left." It was put back in for the DVD release. Here is the audio.

And finally, speaking of things I had missed, Bill Moyers & Co. had posted an excerpt of historian Jill Lepore's great 2010 book The Whites of Their Eyes: The Tea Party’s Revolution and the Battle Over American History. She notes, among other things, that during the 1976 Bicentennial Celebration, it was the left that was claiming the rhetoric of the American Revolution and they had formed a "TEA Party" before - except that their acronym stood for "Tax Equity for Americans" rather than "Taxed Enough Already." They protested against tax loopholes for the rich.

I have just started her book and I am kicking myself for not finding it sooner. I read almost a third of it in one sitting and I am a slow reader who likes to take lots of notes. Forget my book - buy her's!

Just kidding. Buy mine too. Since you are already there and everything.

That Quote is Totally Legit

WARNING: NERD ALERT - All Others Kindly Skip

It is no newsflash that the Internet is awash with bogus quotes. People especially enjoy putting words in the founding fathers' mouths. The left is nowhere near as guilty of this postmortem oral surgery as the right is. (This is probably because most leftists like change and do not think we should live the same way we did two centuries ago.) But there is also no denying that they do it too from time to time.

Therefore, I have made a point to trace all quotes back to their primary sources whenever possible. For you non-history majors, "primary sources" means official published collections of the historic figure's papers. When I quote secondary sources, i.e. the words of historians rather than historic figures, it is because the historian's opinion or presentation is my focus. But then I cite the historic figure's quote elsewhere.

For example, in the introduction to my book, I quoted social historian Stephanie Coontz quoting James Madison. In that instance, I cited to her book. But I when I later explore that Madison quote even further, I cite to Madison's papers. In the first instance, my point was to show that academics are already familiar with this material even if popular culture is not. In the second instance, my focus is on Madison's thought.

Quote sourcing can be fascinating detective work. Scott Campbell's attempt to track down an elusive Justice Louis D. Brandeis quote that Ralph Nader was fond of shows how ambiguous things can be. So this post is sort of the historical equivalent of a "behind the scenes peek" DVD extra.

You saw the nerd alert at the top, right?

In the course of writing my book, I ran across many quotes that I could not verify and therefore could not use. They might be consistent with other things that the figure has said elsewhere, but as the saying goes, "Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades."

This Thomas Jefferson quote in particular eluded verification for quite some time. I am happy to report that it is quite legitimate:

I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s [sic.] birth the aristocracy of our monied [sic.] corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

- Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Paul Leicester Ford (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1899), 10:69.

Rather than toil for no profit, I will be lazy and just cut and paste my end note:

I was initially skeptical about this quote when I ran across it because corporations had not yet gained the great power that they wield today. Banks were the exception, so Jefferson was probably talking about banks (and he blasted banks a lot). But he usually just said “banks” rather than “corporations” so the quote seemed fairly fishy. Moreover, I had already seen several uncited variants that frustrated my every effort to verify them. One person, thinking he or she could improve on Jefferson’s prose, had apparently replaced the word “birth” with “infancy,” further complicating my search. Often such tweaks made the language seem dubiously modern. Jefferson was famously fond of rambling at length and the variants I had seen were suspiciously pithy. If a quote is short and to the point, it is probably not one of Mr. Jefferson’s. I had also seen numerous Frankenstein variants – quotes stitched together with parts of other quotes. Some elusive variants turn out to be legitimate because a historical figure had a favorite phrase that frequently reappears in their works. Today, we call them “buzz words.” Although a variant may be consistent with other verified quotes, consistency is insufficient by itself. Each quote must be individually verified in a published collection of historical papers and this quote finally fits the bill. For example, except for the use of the word “corporations,” this quote is quite similar to the quote I used immediately previous to it: Both speak of a moneyed aristocracy trying to subvert the government. But until I found a source, I could not use this quote no matter how similar it sounded to the previous one. This is an anal-retentive business.

So, if you are going to use this quote, please provide the full citation and do not correct the grammar or tweak the text in any way.

And send people here. I would appreciate the traffic.