We have heard a lot about patriotism and the sacrifices of our founding fathers of late, but how united were these United States in 1776 and how much of what we attribute to patriotism was merely a matter of opinion and perspective?
A very dear friend of many decade (yes decades, not years) recently posted this meme on Social Media and it got me thinking. How many of the folks who are currently rattling their sabers under the banner of patriotism have any idea what that means? How many of them yearn for a time when America was united in common cause and common goals? A time like the quintessential Spirit of 1776, when we bound together to fight the oppressor, and to win our independence under the bright torch of freedom and the universal blessings of liberty.
This is perhaps one of the saddest myths of our founding, not because it isn't true; our founders were very brave and they did try to build something more noble than just an outright oligarchy. The "revolution" of which we speak was not our independence; that was merely the result of winning a civil war of secession from the British Empire; the revolution came later, when our founders turned political science on its head and made government a gift of the governed rather than representation of gift of the state. The myth of which I refer is unity of purpose and nobility of action, and the sadness of that myth is that we strive for a common purpose and equanimity in viewpoint now, that we have never had from the beginning.
But then the founding of any empire is bound to get a few layers of varnish slapped over the grain. And yes, I did use the word "empire" because from the very start, that is exactly what we were; an empire as so defined... "
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress."
Our empire was governed by a civilian junta called the Continental Congress who appointed a military dictator (George Washington) to win a war by basically raiding and pillaging, because Congress was utterly incapable of borrowing money since it had no viable way of paying it back. And whereas the members of this congress did pledged their"lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor" they did so as seditious traitors from the perspective of the British, especially our second president, John Adams, who was particularly singled out by George III to be publicly hanged once the war was won.
The point here of course is perspective. The difference between a traitor and a patriot is rarely one of actions but rather, how those actions are viewed by history. Was Oliver Cromwell a liberator defending democracy against tyranny, or a tyrant himself? How about Francisco Franco? Augusto Pinochet? Adolf Hitler? Gandhi?
In the case of the United States, the"traitors" happened to win. John Adams was not hanged, but instead, went on to meet King George III personally, and to become rather friendly with him in the bargain. They discovered they had many common interests like farming, animal husbandry, the law, and a strong distaste for the French and Benjamin Franklin. Peace, it seems, can make strange bedfellows as well as war can.
How the insurgents of 2020/2021 will be viewed in 2120 or 2220 is impossible to predict; but history generally supports the idea that insurgents who fail will be viewed as traitorous and those who win will be viewed as virtuous; and that could apply to either side of the insurgency. Take for example rioting for racial justice. Many decry this as horrible and self-defeating; that it is an un-American assault on private property and the rule of law. Of course this is a myth; there is absolutely nothing un-American about rioting, attacking private property, or breaking the rule of law. The aforementioned John Adams was appalled by the actions of his cousin, Sam Adams, who promoted and executed all three. The Boston Massacre for example (of whom John Adams defended the British soldiers involved) was a riot of thugs taunting the police with rocks and ice balls, who just happened to be British soldiers on watch; a riot that got out of hand when the law enforcement officers in question feared for their lives. The Boston Tea Party (another riot) cost the innocent stockholders of the East India Company a cool $1.7 million dollars in today's money, and was yet another action that revulsed John Adams, like tar and feathering loyalists, breaking into the governor's mansion and raiding the wine cellar, and generally terrorizing anyone who didn't see things the mob's way. It is not hard to imagine that the Adams family at Christmas was anything but merry and bright if cousin Sam popped in for a visit.
Then there are the other patriots out there, the ones that think wearing a mask is a violation of liberty and that the government is out to enslave them. They would not have liked living during the revolutionary war. All the things we hold most dear: the writ of habeas corpus, due process of the law, rights of private property, were just not there. By necessity, all thirteen colonies were under marshal law. His Excellency (General Washington) was authorized by his junta (the congress) to use all means at his disposal (and his best judgement) to supply his army and to guarantee security. If that meant raiding farms and houses, and locking up loyalists, so be it; and he did!
None of this is to diminish our founders; they did have a just cause. A bloated empire was arbitrarily taxing one category of citizen differently than another. Since King John had been forced to sign Magna Carta, it was perceived that all English subjects had the right to have a say in their taxation. John Adams became a patriot because, as a lawyer, he thought he had a very strong case based upon English constitutional law; not because he was a rabid radical. The people of 2020 could certainly make this same argument today about the Federal government, since 85% of its income is derived from payroll taxes that do not tax people equally, but rather, tax those who produce more at a rate higher than those who produce less. This would be a cause similar to the one we fought the British Empire over. But for whatever reason, we choose to disregard this obvious inequity in lieu of bickering over masks, police budgets and feckless politicians that we ourselves have elected of our own free-will.
So for those of you out there who look in the mirror and see themselves as John Adams, or Benjamin Franklin (or even John Dickerson for that matter) remember that every one of those 56 signers did not agree with the document they signed in toto; they opted to swallow individual objections and personal pride, to put forward a unified face toward their common enemy, the British crown and parliament. In my opinion, that is the true definition of patriotism; putting the needs of your country and its people ahead of your own needs; that is sacrifice. Anything else is just petulance and puffery.
How this will turn out will have to wait until the mythology overtakes the reality. Hopefully there will be more heroes than traitors when history turns the page on our times.
Editor's Note: A special thanks to A.R. for her repartee and solid opinions, even when they don't match (or more often than not, violently clash) with mine. Keep fighting the good fight!
Comments