Reflections on the origins and meaning of America's Independence Day
By John Chuckman
Created Jul 8 2008 - 10:43am
Why no on should be surprised when America behaves as an international
bully
If you relish myths and enjoy superstition, then the flatulent speeches of
America's Independence Day, July 4, were just the thing for you. No
religion
on earth has more to offer along these lines than America celebrating
itself.
Some, believing the speeches but curious, ask how did a nation founded on
supposedly the highest principles by high-minded men manage to become an
ugly imperial power pu****ng aside international law and the interests of
others? The answer is simple: the principles and high-mindedness are the
same stuff as the loaves and the fishes.
The incomparable Doctor Johnson had it right when he called patriotism the
last refuge of scoundrels and scoffed at what he called the "drivers of
negroes" yelping about liberty.
Few Americans even understand that Johnson's first reference was to their
sacred Founding Fathers (aka Patriots). I have seen a well known American
columnist who attributed the pronouncement to Ben Franklin, a man who was
otherwise admirable but nevertheless dabbled a few times in slave trading
himself.
Johnson especially had in mind history's supreme hypocrite, Jefferson,
with
his second reference. Again, few Americans know that Jefferson kept his
better than two hundred slaves to his dying day. I know a well educated
American who sincerely believed Jefferson had freed his slaves. Such is
the
power of the myths of the American Civic Religion.
Jefferson was incapable of sup****ting himself, living the life of a prince
and being a ridiculous spendthrift who died bankrupt and still owing money
to others, the man of honor being a trifle less than honorable in paying
back the money he often borrowed. When a new silk frock or set of shoes
with
silver buckles was to be had, Jefferson never hesitated to buy them rather
than pay his debts.
The date we now celebrate, July 4, is based on the Continental Congress's
approval of the Declaration of Independence, but in fact the date is
incorrect, the do***ent was approved on July 2.
Jefferson wrote the first draft of the declaration, but it was edited by
the
redoubtable Benjamin Franklin, and later was heavily amended by the
Continental Congress. Jefferson suffered great humiliation of his pride
and
anger at the editing and changes.
Despite the do***ent's stirring opening words, if you actually read the
whole thing, you will be highly disappointed.
The bulk of it has a whining tone in piling on complaint after complaint
against the Crown. Some would say the whining set a standard for the next
quarter millennium of American society.
In Jefferson's draft it went on and on about Britain's slave trade. The
'slave trade' business was particularly hypocritical, trying to sound
elevated while in fact reflecting something else altogether. At the time
there was a surplus of human flesh in Virginia, and prices were soft.
The cause of the Revolution is also interesting and never emphasized in
American texts. Britain's imposition of the Quebec Act created a firestorm
of anti-Catholicism in the colonies. They were afraid of being ruled from
a
Catholic colony.
The speech and writing of American colonists of the time was filled with
exactly the kind of ugly language one associates with extremist Ulstermen
in
recent years.
This combined with the sense of safety engendered from Britain's victory
in
the French and Indian War (the Seven Years War)and the unwillingness to
pay
taxes to help pay for that victory caused the colonial revolt.
Few Americans know it, but it was the practice for many, many decades to
burn the Pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Day along the Eastern Seaboard.
Anti-Catholicism was quite virulent for a very long time.
The first phase of the revolt in and around Boston was actually something
of
a popular revolution, responding to Britain's blockading the harbor and
quartering troops in Boston.
The colonial aristocrats were having none of that, and they appointed
Wa****ngton commander over the heads of the Boston Militias who volunteered
and actually elected their officers.
Wa****ngton, who had always wanted to be a British regular commander but
never received the commission, imposed his will ferociously. He started
flogging and hanging.
In his letters home, the men who actually started the revolution are
described as filth and s***. He was a very arrogant aristocrat.
The American Revolution has been described by a European as home-grown
aristocrats replacing foreign-born ones. It is an apt description.
Wa****ngton, Hamilton, Adams, and many other of the Fathers had no faith in
democracy. About one percent of early Virginia could vote. The president
was
not elected by people but by elites in the Electoral College. The Senate,
which even today is the power in the legislature, was appointed well into
the 20th century.
The Supreme Court originally never dared interpret the Bill of Rights as
determining what states should do. It sat on paper like an advertising
brochure with no force. At one time, Jefferson seriously raised the
specter
of secession, half a century before the Civil War, over even the
possibility
of the Bill of Rights being interpreted by a national court and enforced.
The Founding Fathers saw popular voting as endangering property owner****p.
Democracy was viewed by most the same way Wa****ngton viewed the "s***" who
started the Revolution around Boston. It took about two hundred years of
gradual changes for America to become anything that seriously could be
called democratic. Even now, what sensible person would call it anything
but
a rough work still in progress.
It is interesting to reflect on the fact that early America was ruled by a
****tion of the population no larger than what is represented today by the
Chinese Communist Party as a ****tion of that country's population.
Yet today we see little sign of patience or understanding in American
arrogance about how quickly other states should become democratic. And we
see in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo, and in the CIA's International Torture
Gulag that the principles and attitudes of the Bill of Rights still
haven't
completely been embraced by America.
Contrary to all the posturing amongst the Patriots - who few were a
minority
at the time - about tyranny, the historical facts indicate that Britain on
the whole actually had offered good government to its North American
Colonies.
Everyone who visited the Colonies from Europe noted the exceptional health
of residents.
They also noticed what seemed an extraordinary degree of freedom enjoyed
by
colonists. It was said to be amongst the freest place in the known world,
likely owing in good part to its distance from the Mother Country. A
favorite way to wealth was smuggling, especially with the Caribbean. John
Hancock made his fortune that way.
Ben Franklin once wrote a little memo, having noted the health of
Americans
and their birth rates, predicting the future overtaking of Britain by
America, an idea not at all common at the time.
Indeed, it was only the relative health and freedom which made the idea of
separation at all realistic. Britain was, of course, at the time viewed
much
the way, with the same awe of power, people view America today. These
well-known facts of essentially good government in the Colonies made the
Declaration of Independence list of grievances sound exaggerated and
melodramatic to outsiders even at the time.
The combination of the Quebec Act, anti-Catholicism, dislike of taxes,
plus
the desire to move West and plunder more Indian lands were the absolute
causes of the Revolution.
Britain tried to recognize the rights of the aboriginals and had forbidden
any movement west by the Colonies.
But people in the colonies were land-mad, all hoping to make a fortune
staking out claims they would sell to later settlers. The map of
Massachusetts, for example, showed the colony stretching like a band
across
the continent to the Pacific. Britain did not agree.
George Wa****ngton made a lot of money doing this very thing, more than any
other enterprise of his except for marrying Martha Custis, the richest
widow
in the colonies.
The tax issue is interesting.
The French and Indian War (the Seven Years War) heavily benefited the
Colonists by removing the threat of France in the West. Once the war was
over, many colonists took the attitude that Britain could not take the
benefits back, and they refused to pay the taxes largely imposed to pay
the
war's considerable cost.
And Americans have hated taxes since.
By the way, in the end, without the huge assistance of France, the
Colonies
would not have won the war. France played an im****tant role in the two
decisive victories, Saratoga and Yorktown. At Saratoga they had smuggled
in
the weapons the Americans used. At Yorktown, the final battle, the French
were completely responsible for the victory and for even committing to the
battle. Wa****ngton had wanted instead to attack New York - which would
have
been a disaster - but the French generals then assisting recognized a
unique
op****tunity at Yorktown.
After the war, the United States never paid the huge French loans back.
Some
gratitude. Also the United States renounced the legitimate debts many
citizens owed to British factors (merchant/****ppers) for no good reason at
all except not wanting to pay.
It was all a much less glorious beginning than you would ever know from
the
drum-beating, baton-twirling, sequined costumes, and noise today. And if
you
really want to understand why America has become the very thing it claimed
it was fighting in 1776, then you only need a little solid history.
_______
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.
I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an op****tunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are
at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
|
