My Brother:
Re: DOES IT MATTER THAT WE ADHERE TO THE TRUTH WHEN
WE INVOKE HISTORY IN OUR POLITICAL ARGUMENTS?
You invoked "the founding fathers" in your political discussion with Dabum. When I challenged your historical accuracy, suggesting that these "fathers" were not nearly so concerned - as your "revolutionary" language suggested -about the state's "oppressive power" in areas such as "religion or other deeply important rights" - you became peevish:
"...I wonder whether you truly understand that complex process."
or sarcastic:
"...Or do you ...believe that our forefathers ...trusted
in the intrinsic goodness of those who would wield.. the awesome police power..?"
I was NOT questioning what conventional wisdom has EVOLVED to TODAY; I was only questioning whether your appropriation of the mantle (imprimatur) of the "founding fathers" in your polemic was historically accurate. Am I being pedantic? Does it matter, after all?
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AND THE FOUNDING OF A NATION
By the way, I was also upset by another of your implications, to wit, that the "fathers" were both united and original in their thinking. As in the genesis of many things, such as the first democracy, the truth is far more complex; and here, the July 4th myth and 8th grade textbooks are not much help.
CONTEXT IN HISTORY IS EVERYTHING
I will start with a quote from the famous historian and novelist, John Buchan. In speaking of an age a 100 years before (17th C., Cromwell & the English Civil War) he observed that
no age has been more deeply moved by ideas, BUT THESE
IDEAS ARE NOT TO BE HASTILY IDENTIFIED WITH MODERN
NOTIONS, which they may at first resemble, since they
derive from a mood and outlook far different from our
own.
THE FOUNDERS OF THE AMERICAN NATION WERE ANYTHING BUT "REVOLUTIONARY"
Jefferson, Franklin, Washinton and John Adams were all from the propertied elite: from their silver buckled shoes to their elaborate hairdos, they were the ultimate in upper-class respectability. That they were not "revolutionary" in the conventional sense, you have only to look to the fact that they all reacted with horror to French Revolutionary excess.
There may have been a few radicals around (e.g. Thomas Paine) but the fact remains that the American Revolution was a strictly middle-class affair.
THE FOUNDERS CONSIDERED THEMSELVES GOOD ENGLISHMEN AND WERE OUTRAGED AT BEING DENIED WHAT THEY CONSIDERED THEIR GOD GIVEN "RIGHTS" AS ENGLISHMEN
There were underlying reasons for the Revolution - such as the fact that the colonists no longer needed the British after the "French and Indian Wars" 10 years before - but the rhetoric to justify the Revolution was all to the effect that their rights as Englishmen had been abridged: taxation without representation, representation in Parliament, etc.
As Kevin Phillips points out, these complaints of the colonists resonated with many of the elite back in England: most of the "Whig Party", including both Howes and Prime Minister Pitt. There existed a powerful segment in English society who saw them as aggrieved "Englishmen," and remembered the very similiar struggles their own fathers and grandfathers had had in supporting Parliament against Charles I.
Among the rights which were established by the English Civil War was he right to habeas corpus and jury trial. These rights were basic rights taken for granted by "Englishmen" and the "Founders", and were not much discussed by the latter.
THE PRECEDENT OF THE ENGLISH CIVIL WARS
It is no coincidence that the heartland of Parliament's resistance to Charles I in 1640 was in the Puritan area of East Anglia (SE England) and London while the powder keg of the American Revolution was in Puritan New England. Virtually all New England was populated by immigrants from East Anglia who named their new homes after their old: Boston, Norwich, Chelmsford, Dedham, Braintree etc. Economically, this was the area of small merchants and manufacturers. Charles I treated commerce in England the way the present day mafia treats construction and small business today: for whatever could be extorted from it. He dissolved Parliament for 11 years, but when in 1640 he needed revenue for a war, he had to call a new one and there was a revolt of the MIDDLE CLASS.
The Magna Charta was a revolt of the Dukes and Barons, asserting their "rights" against John. The English Civil War was a revolt of the aggrieved middle class against an arbitrary and capricious King. This has ALWAYS been the case with historical progress; it starts with the powerful and "trickles down" to others classes. (g)
VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE RHETORIC OF THE REVOLUTION CAME FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR
In 1774 when the British were shutting down Boston harbour in retaliation, Thomas Jefferson wrote that he and his allies in the Virginia Legislature rushed to find civil war histories "which we rummaged over for the revolutionary precedents and form of the Puritans of that day (and) we cooked up a resolution, somewhat modernizing their phrases.."
They also started using terms from the 1640's like "Association", "Committee" and"Convention." And they used John Locke's justification for the earlier revolt of Parliament, "Second Treatise on Government."
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS A REVOLT OF THE MIDDLE CLASS FOR THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT
This is best seen in the groups that did not support the revolution: native American Indians and blacks, both free and slave. They, quite reasonably, viewed George III's Ministers as far more "liberal" than the revolutionaries.
Also, The Quakers of Pennsylvannia, were antagonistic to the Puritans, and lukewarm at best in their attitude towards the revolution. The South also, dependent on England for the export of their tobacco, cotton, and sugar, were very divided in their support; which is why there was civil war there.
New York City and much of New jersey were occupied by the British throughout the war, with no serious disturbances. Only in Puritan New England was support for the revolution nearly unanimous.
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION WAS A CLOSE THING
Writing in 1783, Jefferson saw American unity "going downhill"; he feared civil war between the states after the revolution was won.
When the Constitutional Convention was called, it came close to failing over the issue of the power of the federal government. That it didn't is primarily due to the persistence and good will of Ben Franklin who never gave up. There were many compomises which he engineered. Only in retrospect did it become apparent that these compromises were "just right."
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AS APPLYING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ONLY, NOT THE STATES
This is simply a fact. The "Founders" in no way envisoned that these "Rights" created any restraint on the individual sovereign states.
IN THE NEW AMERICAN NATION OF 1785 THERE WAS NO CONCEPT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN THE MODERN SENSE
To most British colonists, Protestantism and liberty went hand-in-hand. In Maryland, the establishment church was the Catholic Church, but it was the exception. The very existence of the Catholic Church in that age was viewed with hostility; its growth was viewed as a positive threat to the rights and freedoms of Englishmen. The only freedom established by the English Civil War was the freedom to be a protestant.
It wasn't until 1823 - after a serious fight - that England enfranchised Catholics!! It wasn't until the 1830s that the Congregational (Puritan) Church was finally disestablished in New England.
It may or may not mean anything to you, my Brother, but that's the way it WAS.
Bruce
|
