![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This essay aims at reconsidering the impact of Physiocratic ideas on the United States context during and after the American Revolution, which represented the first turning point concerning the democratic implications of political economy. In the confrontation in the 1790s between Jefferson’s Republicans and Hamilton’s Federalists the early scientific analysis of economics, grounded in the central role of agriculture formulated by Physiocracy, gave strong theoretical validation of the agrarian democracy ideology as an alternative to the British model and contributed to shaping the American identity. The article will investigate this opposition and the economic culture that provides theoretical foundations to two opposed political projects. The reasons and the forms of this impact will be explored through the confrontation between Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures and George Logan’s series of pamphlets conceived as an orchestrated campaign against the Secretary of the Treasury. The study of Physiocracy beyond Europe and the Old Regime can offer new and divergent outlooks compared to recent studies aiming at questioning the relevance of Physiocratic theory in the Old Regime social and political context and its impact during the French Revolution.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 C. Larrère, L’invention de l’économie au XVIIIe siècle. Du droit naturel à la phyiocratie (Paris: PUF, 1992); Ph. Steiner, La ‘science nouvelle’ de l’économie politique (Paris: PUF, 1998); V. Riquetti de Mirabeau and F. Quesnay, Traité de la monarchie, éd. G. Longhitano (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999). ‘Fisiocrazia e proprietà terriera’, ed. M. Albertone, Studi settecenteschi, no. 24, 2004; M. Sonenscher, Before the Deluge: Public Debt, Inequality, and the Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007); Ch. Théré and L. Charles, ‘The Writing Workshop of François Quesnay and the Making of Physiocracy’, History of Political Economy 40, no. 1 (2008): 1–42; A. Mergey, L’Etat des Physiocrates: Autorité et Décentralisation (Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille, 2010); Ch. Théré, L. Charles, ‘From Versailles to Paris: The Creative Communities of the Physiocratic Movement’, History of Political Economy 43, no.1 (2011): 25–58; M. Kwass, ‘Consumption and the World of Ideas: Consumer Revolution and the Moral Economy of the Marquis de Mirabeau’, Eighteenth Century Studies XXXVII, no. 2 (2004): 187–213; F. Quastana, La pensée politique de Mirabeau, 1771–1789: 'républicanisme classique' et régénération de la monarchie ( Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires d'Aix-Marseille, 2007); L. Vardi, The Physiocrats and the World of the Enlightenment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Th. Carvahlo La physiocratie sur les planches: combat d’idées et conquête des esprits dans le théâtre européen du XVIIIe siècle, in L’État en scènes. Théâtres, opéras, salles de spectacle du XVIe au XIXe siècle. Aspects historiques, politiques et juridiques, éd. R. Carvais and C. Glineur (Paris: Lextenso, 2018), 347–58; Id., Guillaume-François Le Trosne: réformer l’administration à l’aune de la physiocratie, in Les grandes figures de la décentralisation (Boulonge-Billancourt: Berger-Levrault, 2019), 529–37; P. Røge, Economistes and the Reinvention of Empire: France in the Americas and Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).
2 Cf. R. Whatmore, Republicanism and the French Revolution: An Intellectual History of Jean-Baptiste Say’s Political Economy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); I. Hont, Jealousy of Trade, International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005); P. Cheney, Revolutionary Commerce. Globalization and the French Monarchy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010); A. Skornicki, L’économiste, la cour et la patrie: l’économie politique dans la France des Lumières (Paris: CNRS, 2011); C. Carnino, Lusso e benessere nell’Italia del Settecento (Milano: Franco Angeli, 2014), Ead., From Luxury to Consumption in Eighteenth Century Europe: The Importance of Italian Thought in History and Historiography «History of European Ideas» 40 no. 2 (2014): 218–24.
3 St. Kaplan, Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV. 2nd ed. Foreword by S. Reinard (London: Anthem Press 2015 (1st ed. 1976)); Id, The Stakes of Regulation: Perspectives on ‘Bread, Politics and Political Economy Forty Years Later’ (London: Anthem Press, 2015).
4 Raisonner sur les blés: essais sur les Lumières économiques, éd. St. Kaplan, Paris, Fayard, 2017 and the similar English edition, The Economic Turn. Recasting Political Economy in Enlightenment Europe, ed. St. Kaplan et S. Reinert (London: Anthem Press, 2019).
5 Physiocracy, Antiphysiocracy and Pfeiffer, ed. J. Backhaus (New York: Springer Verlag, 2011); M. Dal Pont le Grand, G. Faccarello, A. Orain, ‘Antiphysiocratic Perspectives in eighteenth-century France’, Special issue The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought XXII, no. 3 (June 2015); Les voies de la richesse? La physiocratie en question (1760–1850) (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2017).
6 Cf. P.-H. Goutte, Économie et transition: l’œuvre de Du Pont de Nemours sous le révolution française, in Idées économiques sous la Révolution 1789–1794, éd. Jean-Michel Servet (Lyon: Presses Universitaires, 1989), 145–233.
7 L. Charles and Ch. Théré’s works are contributing to modify this monolithic image.
8 Parts 5 and 6 are more widely investigated in my book, National Identity and the Agrarian Republic. The Transatlantic Commerce of Ideas Between America and France (1750–1830) (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014).
9 F. Venturi, Settecento riformatore, 5 vols. (Torino: Einaudi, 1969–1990), English translation of vols. III and IV, R.B. Litchfield, The End of the Old Regime in Europe, 3 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1989–1991); J. Robertson, The Case for the Enlightenment Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
10 A. Pagden, Lords of the World. Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500–c. 1800 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), D. Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); S. Reinert, Translating Empire: Emulation and the Origins of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011); R. Whatmore, Against War and Empire: Geneva, Britain and France in the Eighteenth-Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).
11 J.-F. Spitz, Le moment républicain en France (Paris: Gallimard, 2005). Cf. M.P. Zuckert, Natural Rights and the New Republicanism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
12 Ph. Steiner, ‘Wealth and Power: Quesnay’s Political Economy of the Agricultural Kingdom’, Journal of History of Economic Thought XXIV, no. 1 (2002): 91–109.
13 M. Bessone, À l’origine de la république américaine: un double projet: Thomas Jefferson et Alexander Hamilton (Paris: Houdiard, 2007).
14 Cf. H. Songho, The Rise and Fall of the American System: Nationalism and the Development of the American Economy, 1790–1837 (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2009).
15 Cf. J. Appleby, Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790’s (New York: New York University press, 1984).
16 Cf. D.R. McCoy, The Elusive Republic. Political Economy in Jeffersonian America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980).
17 Cf. R. Buel, In Irons: Britain’s Naval Supremacy and the American Revolutionary Economy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).
18 Cf. J.L. Larson, Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of Popular Government in the Early United States (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2001).
19 Cf. Th. McCraw, The founders and finance: how Hamilton, Gallatin and other immigrants forged a new economy (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014).
20 V.L. Parrington Main Currents in American Thought: An Interpretation of American Literature from the Beginnings to 1920, 3 vols. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927–1930), I, 293. Besides the Machiavellian Moment. Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (1975), cf. J. Pocock’s review of Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government by G. Stourzh (Stanford: Stanford University press, 1970), ‘Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History III, no. 1 (Summer 1972): 128–34; cf. also, L. Banning, The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978); L. Kaplan, Alexander Hamilton: ambivalent Anglophile (Wilmington Del:, SR books, 2002).
21 F. McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: a biography (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979).
22 V.G. Setser, The Commercial Reciprocity Policy of the United States 1774–1829 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1937).
23 M.M. Edling, ‘Alexander Hamilton's Fiscal Reform: Transforming the Structure of Taxation in the Early Republic’, William and Mary Quarterly LXI, no. 4 (October 2004), 713–44; R. Sylla, Alexander Hamilton on Finance, Credit and Debt (New York: Columbia University Press, 2019).
24 J.E. Cooke, ‘Tench Coxe, Alexander Hamilton, and the Encouragement of American Manufactures’, The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series XXXII, no. 3 (July 1975): 369–92.
25 D. Winch labels Hamilton as neo-mercantilist and post-smithian (D. Winch, Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)), 162). L. Hacker doesn’t range Hamilton among narrow protectionists, as he preferred bounties to tariffs (L.M. Hacker, Alexander Hamilton in the American Tradition (New York, Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, 1957)), 178–81). W.A Williams challenged Hamilton’s mercantilism and his commitment in manufacturing even on the ground that the report on manufactured was submitted to the Congress two years after the House of Representative request and after the reports on public credit and the national Bank, that has been read as a sign of his little interest in manufactures (W.A. Williams, ‘The Age of Mercantilism: An Interpretation of the American Political Economy, 1763 to 1828’, The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d s., XV, no. 4 (October 1958), 419–37). J. Crowley emphasizing the eighteenth century liberal revision of mercantilism highlights how Hamilton combined his economic nationalism and protective policy with a world commercial system dominated by open trade relations among nations (J. Crowley, The Privileges of Independence: Neomercantilism and the America Revolution (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1993)).
26 Cf. J.R. Nelson, ‘Alexander Hamilton and American Manufacturing: A Reexamination’, The Journal of American History LXV, no. 4 (March 1979): 971–95.
27 Hamilton to Duer, 20 April 1791, in id., Papers ed. H.C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), VIII, 300.
28 Merrill P. Peterson considers the Report ‘the manifesto of American industrialism’ (M.P. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970)). The work is aimed at revisiting the dichotomy between Jefferson and Hamilton over manufactures considering the evolution of Jefferson’s ideas during his presidencies. Among the readings of the Report on Manufactures as a plan of the development of American manufacturing cf.: B. Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1957–1962); J.C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox (New York: Harper,1959); F. McDonald, Alexander Hamilton: A Biography (New York: Norton, 1979). For a different interpretation, placing Hamilton among the supporters of financial interest cf. J.R. Nelson, ‘Alexander Hamilton and American Manufacturing’ cit.
29 Cf. L. Banning, Political Economy and the Creation of the Federal Republic, in ed. D.T. Konig, Devising Liberty. Preserving and Creating Freedom in the New American Republic (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995), 11–49.
30 On the role of public creditors in supporting the adoption of the Constitution, well represented by Hamilton, cf. C. Beard, Economic Origins of Jeffersonian democracy (New York: MacMillan, 1915), 5.
31 Cf. M. Sonenscher, Before the Deluge cit.
32 The Federalist, no. 30.
33 A. Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, in Id., The Papers ed. H.C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), vol. I, 93–4 (hereafter ROM).
34 Ibid., 165.
35 Ibid., 94.
36 In a letter to Benjamin Austin he wrote in 1816 to justify his acceptance for an increase in American manufactures during the difficult aftermath of the War of 1812, Jefferson restated the firm conviction
‘that to the labor of the husbandman a vast addition is made by the spontaneous energies of the earth on which it is employed: for one grain of wheat committed to the earth, she renders twenty, thirty, and even fifty fold, whereas to the labor of the manufacturer nothing is added’. (Jefferson to Benjamin Austin, Monticello, 9 January 1816, in Th. Jefferson, The Writings ed. Merrill Peterson (New York: Library of America, 1984), 1370)
37 A. Hamilton, The Papers cit., vol. X, Report on Manufactures, 230.
38 St. Pincus, 1688. The First Modern Revolution (New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 2009), Id., ‘Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Centuries’, William and Mary Quarterly (January 2012): 3–34.
39 The Federalist no. 11.
40 On the influence of Rousseau’s general will on Hamilton, cf. C.M. Kenyon, ‘Alexander Hamilton: Rousseau of the Right’, Political Science Quarterly LXXIII, no. 2 (June 1958), 161–78.
41 ROM, 240 (cf. A. Smith, Wealth of Nations, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations ed. R.H. Campbell and A.S. Skinner, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 2 vols. I, 361–2).
42 ROM, 230.
43 ROM, 231.
44 ROM, 266.
45 ROM, 239, 249–50.
46 ROM, 236 (cf. A. Smith, Wealth of Nations, II, 194). On the debt owed by the Report to Smith, cf. D. Winch, Riches and Poverty cit., 162. Cf. also, E.G. Bourne, ‘Alexander Hamilton and Adam Smith’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics VIII (April 1894): 328–44.
47 ROM, 231.
48 For a detailed analysis of all the references in the Report taken from Smith’s Wealth of Nations, cf. the editor’s notes to ROM.
49 ROM, 236–7 (cf. A. Smith, Wealth of Nations, II, 179–82).
50 ROM, 236–8.
51 ROM, 239 (cf. A. Smith, Wealth of Nations, I, 342).
52 ROM, 235–6.
53 ROM, 245.
54 ROM, 249.
55 The Hamilton tariff proposal was implemented by the Congress in May 1792 (D.A. Irwin, ‘The aftermath of Hamilton’s ‘Report on Manufactures’, The Journal of Economic History LXIV, no.3 (September 2004): 800–21). The article challenges the accepted opinion that the report failed to inspire the Congress policy.
56 A. Hamilton, The Continentalist, no. VI, 4 July 1782, in Id., The Papers cit., III, 101.
57 The Federalist no. 12.
58 ROM, cf. the note of the editor, 231–2.
59 M. Federici, The Political Philosophy of Alexander Hamilton (Baltimore: J. Hopkins University Press, 2012).
60 Cf. Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty cit, 162.
61 A. Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, in Id., The Papers cit., I, 142.
62 Cf. J. Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 5 vols. (New York: The Viking Press, 1946–59), I, 243. On Hamilton’s debt to Steuart cf. F. McDonald, Novus ordo seclorum: the intellectual origins of the constitution (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985), 119–28, 135–42.
63 J.C. Miller, Alexander Hamilton cit., 46–51; G. Stourzh, Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1970), 70–5.
64 Hamilton to Robert Morris, 30 April 1781, in Id, The Papers, cit. II, 608. Cf. D. Hume, Of the Balance of Trade, in Id., Political Discourses (Edinburgh: R. Fleming, 1752). Some days earlier he had asked Timothy Pickering to send him the 1752 edition of Hume’s Political Discourses and Postlethwayt’s Universal Dictionary, London, 1751 (Hamilton to T. Pickering, 20 April 1781, in Id., The Papers cit., II, 595).
65 D. Hume, Political Discourses cit., 11–12.
66 ROM, 241–2. Cf. D. Hume, Political Discourses cit., 20, 25–6 and also J. Steuart, Principles of Political Economy (London: Millar, 1767), I, 88, 136.
67 A. Hamilton, Remarks on an Act for Raising Certain Yearly Taxes Within this State, New York, February 17, 1787, in Id. The Papers cit., IV, 95.
68 J. Necker, A Treatise on the Administration of the Finances of France. Tr. from the original French edition, 1784, by Thomas Mortimer, 3 vols. (London, Logographic Press, 1785).
69 For a detailed analysis of Hamilton’s indebtedness to Necker, cf. D.F. Swanson, A.P. Trout, ‘Alexander Hamilton, “the Celebrated Mr. Neckar”, and Public Credit’, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. s. XLII, no. 3 (July 1990): 422–30.
70 The Introduction Note to the ROM claims that Hamilton was closer to Necker than to Smith. On Necker’s influence on the third draft of the Report, which was late deleted, cf. ROM, 9.
71 ROM, 231–2 (J. Necker, Oeuvres, 4 vols., Lausanne, J.-P. Heubach et Compagnie, 1786, vol. III, 204); ROM 240; (J. Necker, Oeuvres cit., vol., IV, 99, 102–3); ROM 243 (J. Necker, Oeuvres cit., vol. IV, 82).
72 Jefferson to Filippo Mazzei, Monticello, 24 April 1796, in Th. Jefferson, The Writings, ed. A.A. Lipscomb and A. Ellery Bergh, 20 vols. (Washington: T. Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903), vol. IX, 335–6.
73 Jefferson to William Duane, Monticello, 28 March 1811, in Writings ed. Bergh, vol. XIII, 29; to Mazzei, Monticello, 24 April 1796, vol. IX, 336. Among the immense literature on Jefferson, cf. D. Malone, Jefferson and his Time, 6 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1948–81); P. Onuf, The Mind of Thomas Jefferson (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007).
74 Cf. R.E. Ellis, ‘The Political Economy of Thomas Jefferson’. In Thomas Jefferson. The Man, His World, His Influence, ed. Lally Weymouth (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), 81–95; McCoy, The Elusive Republic; C. Matson, P. Onuf, A Union of Interests: political and economic thought in Revolutionary America (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990). Opposed for constitutional reasons to the first Bank of the United States in 1791, Jefferson, during his presidency and under the guidance of Albert Gallatin, who became his Secretary of the Treasury in 1801, was induced to appreciate the services that the bank could offer to the financial operations of the government.
75 ‘This exactly marks the difference between Colo. Hamilton’s views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid tomorrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the legislature’. (Jefferson to Washington, Monticello, 9 September 1792, in Jefferson, The Papers, vol. XXIV, 355).
76 Jefferson to John Norvell, Washington, 14 June 1807, in Jefferson, Writings ed. M.D. Peterson, 1176–77. Cf. Cr. Walton, ‘Hume and Jefferson on the uses of history’. In Philosophy and the Civilizing Arts: Essays presented to Herbert W. Schneider, ed. Cr. Walton and John P. Anton (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1974), 103–25; D.L. Wilson, ‘Jefferson vs. Hume’, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. s. XLVI, no. 1 (January 1989): 49–70.
77 Jefferson to John W. Eppes, Monticello, 24 June 1813, in Th. Jefferson, The Writings, ed. P.L. Ford, 10 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1893–1899), vol. IX, 394; Monticello, 6 November 1813, in Th. Jefferson The Writings ed. Bergh, vol. XIII, 409, 431. The whole of this long letter contains observations on John Law and on the criticisms he had made of Smith and it represents a precise approach, through which Jefferson puts forwards his ideas on the theory of prices.
78 Cf. J.J. Spengler, ‘The Political Economy of Jefferson, Madison, and Adams’. In American Studies in Honour of William Kenneth Boyd, ed. D.K. Jackson (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1940), 2–59; Ch. A. Miller, Jefferson and Nature: An Interpretation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988).
79 Th. Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bill for Establishing a National Bank, in Jefferson, The Writings ed. Bergh, vol. XIX, 276.
80 Jefferson summarized his position in the idea ‘the earth belongs to the living’ he formulated in his famous letter to Jefferson to James Madison (Paris, 6 September 1789, in Jefferson, The Papers, vol. XV, 392–7). Jefferson related this idea to the theoretical legitimisation of the principle of constitutional revision, encouraged by his proximity to the Physiocratic circles, from his personal physician Richard Gem to Condorcet. I illustrated this point in my contribution, Thomas Jefferson and French Economic Thought: A Mutual Exchange of Ideas, in Rethinking the Atlantic World. Europe and America in the Age of Democratic Revolutions, ed. M. Albertone, A. De Francesco (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 133–6.
81 Jefferson to David Williams, Washington, 14 November 1803, in Th. Jefferson, The Writings ed. Bergh, vol. IX, 429.
82 Jefferson to T. Diggers, 19 June 1788, in Th. Jefferson, The Papers, ed. J.P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950-), XIII, 260–1.
83 Th. Jefferson, Memoranda of Conversations with the President (1 March 1792), in Id., The Papers, cit., XXIII, 187.
84 Th. Jefferson, Note of Agenda to Reduce the Government to True Principles [ca.11 July 1792], in Ibid., XXIV, 215.
85 Jefferson to Washington, 9 September 1792, in Ibid., 353.
86 Jefferson to William St. Smith, Paris, 2d August 1788, in Ibid., XIII, 458. On Physiocracy, decentralisation and representative government, see M. Albertone, La Physiocratie et les fondements économiques de la représentation, in ed. M. Albertone, M. Troper, La Représentation Politique. Anthologie (Paris: Classiques Garnier, in press).
87 Jefferson to William St. Smith, Paris, 2 August 1788, in T. Jefferson, The Papers, vol. XIII, 458. Jefferson was aware of the French pre-revolutionary debates for the creation of provincial assemblies; speaking of the Minister of Calonne he wrote in his autobiography: ‘The establishment of the Provincial Assemblies was, in itself, a fundamental improvement. They would be of the choice of the people, one-third renewed every year, in those provinces where there are no States, that is to say, over about three-fourths of the kingdom. They would be partly an Executive themselves, and partly an Executive Council to the Intendant’. (Id., Autobiography, in The Life and Selected Writings Autobiography, ed. A. Koch and W. Peden (New York, Random House, 1993), 69).
88 Jefferson to John Adams, Paris, 30 August 1787, in Jefferson, The Papers vol. XII, 67. The same interest for provincial assemblies was expressed by Gouverneur Morris in a letter to John Jay of 1 July 1789: ‘The provincial assemblies or Administrations, in other words the popular executive of the Provinces, which Turgot had imagined as a Means of moderating the royal legislative of the Court, is now insisted on as a counter Security against the Monarch when they shall have established a democratic legislative’. (Gouverneur Morris, A Diary, 130).
89 Henry N. Smith defined Logan as a ‘dogmatic Physiocrat’ and Chester H. Eisinger also recognised the presence of Physiocracy in his ideas, albeit alongside a stronger influence from Locke; Joseph Dorfman, despite underlining the particular national circumstances, called him the ‘Physiocratic spokesman for commerce’ (cf. H.N. Smith, Virgin Land. The American West as Symbol and Myth (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), 277; Ch. H. Eisinger, ‘The Influence of Natural Rights and Physiocratic Doctrine on American Agrarian Thought during the Revolutionary Period’, Agricultural History, XXI (1947): 16; J. Dorfman, The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 5 vols. (New York: The Viking Press, 1946), vol. I, 295.
90 Cf. J.-F. Faure-Soulet, Économie politique et progrès au «siècle des Lumières» (Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1964).
91 G. Logan, Letters Addressed to the Yeomanry of the United States: Showing the Necessity of Confining the Public Revenue to a Fixed Proportion of Net Produce of Land; and the Bad Policy and Injustice of Every Species of Indirect Taxation and Commercial Regulations (Philadelphia: E. Oswald, 1791).
92 Cf. Fr. B. Tolles, George Logan of Philadelphia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1953).
93 G. Logan, Letters Addressed to the Yeomanry of the United States … by a Farmer (Philadelphia: E. Oswald, 1791), 32.
94 Ibid., 3.
95 Ibid., 4.
96 Ibid., 11.
97 Ibid., 15.
98 Ibid., 13–14.
99 Ibid., 8, 24.
100 Ibid., 16–18, 25–6.
101 Ibid., 33–4.
102 Ibid., 35–6.
103 As well as its publication as a pamphlet (Philadelphia: E. Oswald, 1792) and as a series of articles in Oswald’s Independent Gazetteer, the Five Letters appeared in the same year in Philippe Freneau’s National Gazette and Matthew Carey’s American Museum.
104 On Hamilton’s mistrust on the French revolution cf. Hamilton to W. Short, 3 January 1793, in Id., Papers cit., XXV, 14.
105 American Museum, vol. XII, 160–1.
106 Ibid., 161–2.
107 Ibid., 215.
108 Ibid., 167, cf. also 215.
109 Ibid., 215.
110 Ibid., 163.
111 G. Logan, Letters Addressed to the Yeomanry of the United States, Containing Some Observations on Funding and Bank Systems, Philadelphia, 1793, 8–9. Published as a pamphlet at the beginning of May, the Letters began to appear in the National Gazette on 31 January 1793. See above note 80.
112 G. Logan, Letters, 20–2.
113 Id., ‘At a meeting of the Germantown society for promoting domestic manufactures, on Monday the 13th of August 1792’, American Museum, vol. XII, part II, from July to December 1792, Appendix II, *22-*23. The intervention was also published in the National Gazette, 25 August 1792.
114 Hamilton to Rufus King, New York, 3 June 1802, in Id. The Papers cit., XXVI, 14–15.