On Patriots’ Day
By D.J. McGuire | Tuesday, April 19th, 2011 | Catch-All
Two hundred and thrity-six years ago today (April 19), the first shots were fired in the War for American Independence (not that independence was the goal at the time; that would come a year later), when farmers, merchants, laborers, and others from rural Massachusetts engaged with British regulars in a fight to preserve the freedom earned through a century and a half of colonial hardship and war.
Note the word, “preserve.” We tend to forget this about the American Revolution, but it began as, essentially, an effort to conserve the colonists’ rights as Englishmen from encroachment by London (most of the colonists were descended from those who left England before it merged with Scotland in 1707). We also tend to forget that the mother country was as divided over the War as we were. Although support to repress the rebellion was probably more widespread in Britain than support for its success here, the one-third Loyalist contingent among Americans was likely matched (if not surpassed) by the resistance to Lord North’s military efforts in Britain (especially once France and Spain joined our side and turned it into a largest world war in history up to that time).
More to the point today, I sometimes wonder what the average 18th-century fellow would have thought of the massive debts, spending, and taxation we have allowed our own government to accumulate. Contrary to what some would think, just about every government action, subsidy, and “entitlement” of today was not new or unheardof in the 18th century, although the scale was much smaller, and usually relegated to local governments. Indeed, the heavy restrictions on Federal power that came down with the 1789 Constitution had little bearing on state power (Connecticut had an established religion until the early 1800s).
So . . . something like California would be just another painful example of profligate second-level government. That said, I’m fairly sure the massive size of Washington would come as quite a shock (even to Alexander Hamilton, who most likely would have considered the entitlements and transfers as complete wastes of resources and entrepreneurial talent).
It is a testament to how far we’ve come when some of the leading spokesmen for liberty and against government encroachment in the Anglosphere can proudly call themselves Tories in the UK, while the current politics of Massachusetts reminds us that “how far we’ve come” also depends on the direction in which one is going.
How closely have we hewn to the principles that led to Lexington and Concord? Where have we strayed the most? How can we return to the 18th century model while avoiding the 18th century pitfalls?
The more I think about it, the more I’d rather hear your answers than give my own.
Cross-posted to right-wing liberal
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "On Patriots’ Day"
Isn’t that the problem with liberty and democracy – you empower the people to make decisions, rather than one party following a misguided revisionist view of history.
You should ask Michelle Bachmann how close we’re to Lexington and Concord. From what I’ve hear, she New Hampshire like the back of her hand.
But I’m pretty sure the debts, spending, and taxation would be the last thing on their minds. My money is that they’d be much more impressed with the wealth and material goods we’re produced.
*she knows
One of the great misconceptions of early American history was that the Founders wanted to establish an egalitarian democracy. Not so. What they sought was the removal of the oppressive monarchy and its supporting aristocracy and to replace it with an enlightened and benevolent oliarchy. The first six presidential administrations were terrified of the dangers of mob rule, including Jefferson who tended to be more democratic than his Federalist contemporaries but was nonetheless hardly a populist. When Andrew Jackson was finally elected in 1828, the old line eastern politicians thought that the republic would come to an end. John Quincy Adams, his predecessor, refused to even attend Jackson’s Inauguration or receive him at the White House.
One of the greatest controversies of the Jackson Administration, other than the removal of the Indian tribes to the west, was a movement to repeal the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A prominent group of Presbyterian ministers pressed Jackson to make Christianity the official religion, allowing only church-going Christians to vote, hold office, or even to give testimony in court. How does that compare with the evangelical movement of today? The greatest crisis of Jackson’s Administration was the Nullification Act passed by South Carolina which directly challenged Federal supremacy. Sound familiar?
I write this because it is useful to put things in a historical context when contemplating our present condition as a nation. Have we strayed from the original design of our republic? Most assuredly. However, the world is not the same as it was in 1789. The Tea Party Movement should consider this: we can’t turn the clock back to the 18th Century, but why would we want to?
There is an old saying in the Army: “The Army ain’t like it used to be, and it probably never was.” We Americans are truly an exceptional people. And that exceptionalism includes an uncanny ability to view our own history out of context.
Benevolent oligarchy, HisRoc? I agree that they feared mob rule as well they should. However, isn’t that what our Constiitution/Bill of Rights is for? So, the lynch mob can’t take a vote an hang all Republicans or any other group? Because we are all created equal under the law and endowed with Natural Rights? Natural Rights being something that you couldn’t remove without due process and showing that someone committed a crime against another’s rights?
DJ, re: “… wonder what the average 18th-century fellow would have thought of the massive debts, spending, and taxation we have allowed our own government to accumulate.”
My guess ~ after a quick audit Mr. 18thC would next appraise We the People, shake his head, and judge the American experiment failed because the framers omitted one important safeguard.
While our Founding Fathers insured government was accountable and responsive to its citizens, they failed to protect and safeguard the Republic from the People.
Forgot the second half of your question, “How can we return to the 18th century model while avoiding the 18th century pitfalls?” All answers and solutions lie within this one 20th century inaugural address. Excerpts:
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich….
… So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us…
…Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce…
…And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation”—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
Britt,
“Mob rule” doesn’t refer to lynch mob-like lawlessness. In the political sense, it refers to the tyranny of a majority that is largely unguided by fundamental principles and goals that drive towards a common purpose. It is characterized by rapidly shifting demands and priorities. It is a state in which instant gratification of needs and wants obviate long term gains.
The Bills of Rights was originally intended to protect the citizens from abuses of the central (Federal) government. The 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights protections to the citizens from their own state government.
The Founders clearly wanted to concentrate political power among a group of elite, wealthy, and educated leaders of society. That is the classic definition of an oligarchy.
I always like reading DJ’s articles, they’re very well presented. The Tea Party does not wish to:
1. Go back to Hi-Speed Rail, 2. a centralized planner, 3.no concept of going back to Mao’s Great Leap Forward ending in poverty and famine or Johnson’s Great Society that has been at war with poverty for 50 years, talk about an expensive war and 4. go back to log cabins, outhouses and wells are not the end result of the Tea Party. Look at the Green Movement.
The other day, I listen to a YouTube video of Milton Friedman on the Phil Donohue show. They were talking about the EXACT same issues in 1979 as they are today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TCe4U&feature=related
Every argument that Milton Friedman brings up exactly where the Tea Party wishes to engage, 1) Fiscal responsibility, 2) free market Principles and 3) limited government. It’s the people’s choice.
It appears they had the EXACT same argument 30 years later. This is entirely INSANE…doing the same thing expecting different results. This is what the Tea Party movement is about.
HisRoc,
Sometimes, I reread my posts and wonder what I’d just written. Part of my previous post was intended toward your comments but I’m working on presenting my argument better. I still have about a year to get better. Hopefully, we can make it that long.
Pure Democracy is evil, no matter how you spin it. Our society is almost there, evident with the Supreme Court judge election in Wisconsin. The unions almost voted themselves free reign of tax payer money thru benefits.
For our founders to support a true Oligarchy they would need a concentration of powers and that is clearly not the case. A system set up of distributed powers with checks and balances. The 14th Amendment was because of Reconstruction and to protect from the slavery issue, not to concentrate power to an elite few sitting in Washington. Heck, they had that in England. Besides, our Founder’s were part timers.
Our Federal Government was setup to resolve disputes between states, not to provide a concentrated power to an elite few. I do agree with leader of their society but our Congressional leaders nowdays are clearly not that. They reside in Washington with no recollection of what their constituents are going through. Only through the polls, focus groups and special interests groups.
Would you consider yourself to be in the “elite, wealthy, and educated” group, a retired Colonial, a Master’s degree (or PhD) and rubbing elbows with Governor Sanford? Is this the basis of your stance of the Tea Party?
John,
I am flattered that you have been reading my posts and taking note of me. There is little in your comment that I disagree with.
The Founders did not view their system of government as an oligarchy. That is an interpretation that we can make looking back on their positions. As Voltaire wrote, “history is a bag of tricks that the living play on the dead.” But when you pragmatically look at the system of government that they devised, it is clear that they were not interested in a pure democracy. Of all the institutions of the 1789 Constitution, only one was representative of the population at large–the House of Representatives. The President was to be elected by the states through the Electoral College. The Senate was to be elected by the state legislatures. And the Judiciary was to be appointed by the President and the Senate, neither one of which was directly representative of the population. Further, when you consider the suffrage requirements of the late 18th Century, it is a stretch to say that even the House of Representatives was popularly elected. Their constituents were largely limited to white male landowners.
BTW, I am a retired Colonel as well as a retired Colonial and I apologize if I have represented myself as “rubbing elbows” with Mark Sanford. He and I were at a social banquet together but I doubt if he could pick me out in a line-up. As to education, I have a masters degree. My wife has the doctorate. The basis for my stance on the Tea Party is my dismay with their contemporaneous misreading of the Constitution and misrepresentation of American social and political history.
Leave your response