“内部改进”与美国早期国家构建（1801-1833）

发布时间：2018-04-24 16:34

本文选题：“内部改进” + 国家构建　；参考：《南开大学》2010年博士论文

【摘要】：“内部改进”(internal improvement,美国早期时人称呼交通建设的用语)是美国早期政治和经济生活中一件引人注目的大事。在1801-1833年间,美国历届总统和国会围绕全国“内部改进”体系产生了持久而激烈的争论。本文试图从国家构建的角度对有关争论以及联邦政府的“内部改进”政策进行考察和分析。本文认为,围绕全国“内部改进”体系的激烈争论与美国早期的国家构建问题有着密切的关联,在很大程度上反映了当时的政治精英关于如何构建国家的重大分歧。争论各方绝大多数赞成联邦政府主持建设全国“内部改进”体系,因为他们认识到,这是巩固美利坚联盟国家的重要手段。但是,在宪法没有明确授予联邦政府进行“内部改进”的权力的情况下,联邦政府能否进行“内部改进”?这一问题成为各方争论的核心问题。不可否认,在很多情况下,争论各方会出于地方主义的考虑而支持或反对全国“内部改进”体系,进而对上述问题做出肯定或否定的回答。但是,从各位美国总统和国会议员的言论中,可以看出,他们对宪法授予联邦政府的权力范围、对宪法的解释和联邦制的理解、以及联邦政府的权力能否扩大、以什么方式扩大等问题的关注是压倒性的、真诚的,这些问题是争论各方产生分歧的焦点。对这些问题的关注表明争论各方具有不同的国家理念和主张,对于如何构建美利坚国家意见纷呈。可以说,关于国家构建的重大分歧是引起各方争论不休、并对联邦政府的“内部改进”政策产生重要影响的关键因素。本文分别对1812年战争前联邦政府“内部改进”政策的延滞、战后麦迪逊总统对《红利法案》的否决、门罗总统执政期间联邦政府关于“内部改进”的大辩论、以及小亚当斯和杰克逊总统执政时期联邦政府“内部改进”政策的起伏等进行考察和分析,进而揭示美国早期政治精英关于如何构建国家的重大分歧。综观1801-1833年间联邦政府围绕全国“内部改进”体系的激烈争论,可以看出,在这一时期,面对联邦政府能否在“内部改进”事宜上扩大其权力这一问题,总统和国会议员意见纷呈。归纳起来,争论各方大致有三种构建国家的思路：一、主张“宽泛解释”,认为联邦政府根据宪法享有广泛的管理关乎“共同防务和公共福利”事务的权力,主张建立一个权力相对集中的联邦制国家；二、主张通过宪法修正案的方式授予联邦政府必要的权力,有限度地扩大联邦制国家的权力,同时,反对“宽泛解释”,以防止联邦政府藉此逐渐集中权力并发展成为一个集权国家；三、主张“严格解释”,认为联邦政府只享有宪法中明确列举的少数有限的权力,反对联邦政府以任何方式扩大权力,主张建立权力受到严格限制的联邦/邦联国家。在1801-1833年间联邦政府围绕“内部改进”的激烈争论中,三种构建国家的思路相互碰撞、竞争和博弈,并对联邦政府的“内部改进”政策产生重要影响。从1801-1833年间联邦政府围绕全国“内部改进”体系的激烈争论以及相关政策中,可以管窥美国早期国家构建的复杂而曲折的进程。
[Abstract]:"Internal improvement" (internal improvement) is an important event in the early political and economic life of the United States. During the 1801-1833 years, the president and Congress of the United States had a long and intense debate around the national "internal improvement" system. This article tried to build from the state. This paper examines and analyzes the debates and the federal government's internal improvement policy.
This paper holds that the fierce debate around the national "internal improvement" system is closely related to the problem of the early state construction in the United States. To a great extent, it reflects the major differences of the political elite at that time on how to build the country. The overwhelming majority of the arguments in the dispute agree with the federal government to host the national "internal improvement" system. For them, it is an important means to consolidate the United States of the United States. But, when the Constitution does not explicitly grant the power of "internal improvement" to the federal government, can the federal government make an "internal improvement"? This issue has become the core of the debate. In many cases, there is no denying that the parties will be out of debate. To support or oppose the national "internal improvement" system in the context of localism, and to make positive or negative answers to the above questions. However, from the comments of the president and the congressman of the United States, they can see that they have the power of the constitution to the federal government, the interpretation of the Constitution and the understanding of the federalism, and the federal administration. The concerns of the enlargement and the expansion of the government are overwhelming and sincere. These issues are the focus of the disagreement between the parties. The big difference is a key factor that has caused controversy and has an important impact on the federal government's "internal improvement" policy.
This paper delaying the "internal improvement" policy of the federal government before the 1812 war, President Madison's rejection of the bonus bill after the war, the federal government's debate on "internal improvement" during President Monroe's administration, and the undulation of the "internal improvement" policy of the United States government during the period of President Adams and Jackson's administration. In this period, the president can see whether the federal government can expand its power in the "internal improvement" on the issue of whether the federal government can expand its power on "internal improvement" in the 1801-1833 years. And the opinions of the members of the national conference are in a large number. It is concluded that there are roughly three kinds of ideas to build the country. First, it advocates "broad interpretation," that the federal government enjoys the power to manage the affairs of "common defense and public welfare" in accordance with the constitution, and advocates the establishment of a relatively centralized federal state; and two. The amendment of the Constitution grants the federal government the power necessary to extend the power of the federal state to a limited extent, while opposing the "broad interpretation" to prevent the federal government from gradually focusing on power and developing into a centralized state; three, advocating a "strict explanation" that the federal government has only a clear list of the constitution. A few limited powers, opposing the federal government in any way to expand power, advocating the establishment of a federal / Confederation of Confederacy with strict power. In the 1801-1833 years of the federal government's fierce debate around "internal improvement", the three ideas of building countries collided, competition and game, and the "internal improvement" of the federal government. The policy has an important impact.
From the intense debate over the federal government 's "internal improvement" system over the past 1801-1833 years and related policies, we can see the complex and tortuous process of the early state of the United States.

【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：K712

【参考文献】