REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGINS AND MEANING OF AMERICA’S INDEPENDENCE DAY

 

Why no on should be surprised when America behaves as an international bully

John Chuckman

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 pushing 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 supporting 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 document 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 document’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 Washington commander over the heads of the Boston Militias who volunteered and actually elected their officers.

Washington, 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 scum. 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.

Washington, 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 ownership. Democracy was viewed by most the same way Washington viewed the “scum” 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 portion of the population no larger than what is represented today by the Chinese Communist Party as a portion 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 understand 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 Washington 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 important 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. Washington had wanted instead to attack New York – which would have been a disaster – but the French generals then assisting recognized a unique opportunity 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/shippers) 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.

FREEDOM ON STEROIDS

John Chuckman

A writer at The Times counted 27 references to freedom in Bush’s inaugural speech. The speech contained not one reference to his ugly war in Iraq, but for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis the only freedom established by Bush’s invasion was their freedom to miserable deaths or future lives as cripples.

Bush promised he would bring freedom to the world’s dark corners. It is worth noting that none of the world’s people asked Bush to assume such a task, and every poll of those living outside the United States shows Washington now widely regarded as one of the world’s darkest corners, a source of fear itself rather than freedom from fear.

But I guess that’s how it is with freedom. Much as when the Incas and Aztecs were offered the freedom of Christianity under the drawn swords of blood-spattered Conquistadors, the world will just have to accept Bush’s benevolent gift. Bush has said many times he won’t be consulting the world’s people about what America does, and at least in this one particular, I think we can take him at his word.

Perspective is important to understanding the significance of any act or words. Bush’s promise was made from behind a bullet-proof podium under the eyes of snipers and police dogs. It was made with missile batteries in plain sight and heavily-armored police menacingly occupying every corner of central Washington. In various parts of the world, Americans were keeping thousands of people in cages as he spoke. Torture, centuries after being banned in England, came to America’s service in the fight for freedom, even achieving a certain respectability as a discussion topic over dinner. A plane, returning an Australian home after his release from Guantanamo’s grotesque tortures, was refused passage across American airspace because the Australians refused to keep him shackled.

Does anyone think Bush’s vision of liberty includes people like coup-installed General Musharaff of Pakistan or the hideous General Dostum, now set up cozily as a warlord in Afghanistan under American protection? Would Bush mean old friends like President-for-Life Mubarak or General Pinochet who keeps eluding any justice after killing and torturing thousands in Chile on America’s behalf?

Somehow we know that Bush means only the unelected who oppose America’s view of how things should be organized. On second thought, he likely includes the elected, too, having already deposed the elected President of Haiti, attempted to depose the elected leader of Venezuela, and having browbeaten and insulted many of the world’s truest democracies including France, Germany, and Canada.

Bush’s pledge is the kind you make when you don’t want to be honest about your intentions. It’s an ad for American foreign policy photographed through one of those silk-screen filters Hollywood used to turn the mummy lips and cracked surface of aging-ingenue faces like Doris Day’s into glorious Technicolor fuzziness.

Freedom is an abstract words like happiness, rich with favorable associations, because there are many unpleasant things in human experience from which we would like to think ourselves free. But abstract words have only abstract meaning without reference to real situations. You must be free from or of something specific. Apparently the something specific Bush has in mind is freedom from America’s telling you what to do.

Freedom is a much-abused word, being, after all, the proud subject of one of the state’s three basic slogans in 1984. Hitler used the word often. Dr. Johnson punctured the pretentions of American revolutionaries when he pointed to the bitter irony of “drivers of Negroes” making exalted claims about freedom.

Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father most beloved by America’s ragtag army of super-patriots, con men, Aryan types, and militias, spoke often of the Empire of Liberty. At a quick pass, Jefferson’s phrase could seem high-minded, but it truly represented the darkest part of the American character. What Jefferson – and close associates like Madison – worked toward was an entire American hemisphere ruled by the privileged group in frock coats who ruled early America, an aristocracy where the vast majority of people enjoyed no more right to vote and no more of any other rights than they had enjoyed under British colonial rule. It was, of course, an aristocracy built upon slavery. It’s only real merit from a local point of view was that it was local.

Jefferson wrote catchy slogans on liberty and freedom, effectively becoming his own best public-relations man. The fact is he opposed liberty for slaves in Haiti. He opposed liberty for slaves in the U.S. He opposed liberty for women. He opposed liberty for those with no financial assets. He ruthlessly opposed any effort for parts of the Louisiana Purchase – people and their lands callously sold to Jefferson by a bloody European dictator – to become independent of the United States. He even opposed the role of America’s Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution for the states, wanting the Bill of Rights to remain another public-relations piece with no force of law (something he and his followers largely succeeded in achieving for a century to come).

Now Bush threatens to place the entire planet under the shadow of Jefferson’s piratical banner, using phrases like “the power of freedom.” Ask yourself why an idea like freedom require B-52s and cluster bombs for its spread? And why isn’t there room for more than one version of freedom?

Bush’s “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” is a ominous formula for a new shadowy tyranny under a rich bully. Freedom, as Orwell so succinctly put it, through slavery.