The colonists rebelled not only to free themselves from the yoke of British rule but also in order to reject the stratification of British society. They fought to bring to life one of the Enlightenment’s highest ideals: a new and nobler definition of what a human being is.
According to progressive thinkers of the eighteenth century, people did not need to bow to someone whose sole claim to superiority over them was birth… In the New World, in other words, merit alone would count. A man should advance not because of which family he was born into I but by virtue of his intellect, character, exertion, and luck.
Kiernan writes about what transpired in the spring of 1776 in New York Habor:
There George Washington and the fledgling colonial army had gathered after an unexpected victory in Boston. At the time the colonies did not possess a navy, not even a single ship. To demonstrate his power, the king sent warships to New York that May and June, foremost among them the sixty-four gun HMS Asia. Soon the British added two fifty-gun ships, the Centurion and Chatham, then the Phoenix with its forty guns, next the thirty-gun Greyhound with an army general aboard. These ships also bore tens of thousands of troops. The king then added the Rose, as well as the Eagle-another sixty-four-gun ship, this one commanded by the fearsome Admiral Lord Richard Howe. Colonists spied five lore ships arriving one day, eight another, twenty another. By late June the harbor and its outer reaches were crammed with some four hundred ships, including seventy-three warships and eight ships of the line with fifty or more guns each. It was the largest military force ever dispatched by any nation on earth.
And what did the colonists do that July? How did they reply to his terrifying display of power and glory?
They declared their independence. They cataloged their grievances, explained their reasons, and announced their permanent separation from Great Britain. The bonds were dissolved, the ropes that tied the colonists to the monarchy permanently cut.
It was not mere impudence that this act of rebellion displayed. It was character. It was determination. The king had failed to realize that every step he took to suppress the colonists, to intimidate them, to reinforce their inferiority, only invigorated their growing conception of what a human being is.
You’d think with the clamor for presidential leadership, in light of the BP crisis, which means President Obama must be seen emoting —rage, or expression of sincere pain thereof—he’d be on board. As the usually inane folks on “Morning Joe” noted, it’s not his thing. Thank God.
On this point —the concept of presidential leadership, I can’t say I’ve done some long reflecting, although I can say I’ve done a not so insignificant amount of reading and absorbing. I can tell you the pluses and minuses, etc of John Adams or Calvin Coolidge on the spot.
By reading American presidential history, I’ve become very firm on one point: We need less of presidential leadership. Recently finishing up a one volume bio of Andrew Jackson by Jon Meacham, editor of the profit flailing Newsweek, “American Lion”, I was slightly annoyed.
I’ve had a small, ongoing animus toward Andrew Jackson. He just seemed damned fiery, a little intoxicated with himself. Turns out, I was right.
Meacham thesis is many-entrees but the choicest bits are: Jackson gave us the first glimpse of the Energizer Bunny presidency, our ongoing infatuation with presidential fanfare and personality, political glad-handing and campaigning, and the pernicious concept of the president as a “father figure” to the nation.
These are significant things, especially if you go back and review the constrained view and restrained use of presidential power —of Jackson’s enemies (like John Calhoun and Henry Clay) and his predecessors —James Madison, for instance.
Jackson went out of his way to strengthen the presidency because he had this bizarre view of the American people as his children. That’s how he explained his uncanny political sense and “mystical” connection to them and his political success.
I’d explain his success another way: He was a shrewd political operator and a manipulative and needy man. That guided his political instinct and his need for control. Meacham forwards the theory that this may in part have something to do with his being an orphan (His mother died in his early childhood). Having been an orphan myself, I can buy this view as top-notch psycho-babble.
Yet like Clay and others, I abhor the imagery because its the mindset of the dictator, the tyrant. Stalin thought he was the father of modern Russia.
Jackson was a man of phenomenally uneven judgment: His decision to take deposits from the Second National Bank, the infant Federal Reserve, caused an economic crisis; his Indian removal policy which tore up 25 yrs of diplomacy was a disaster from which Native Americans still suffer, and his inability to understand the complexities of the then emerging American manufacturing industry and the point of the tariffs for their support, was a setback. His only redeeming decision and virtue was his calling John Calhoun’s bluff and averting a succession crisis.
So, when Meacham in a smooth, lively and informative prose style praises Jackson and the presidency he created as taking America from its pedestrian and pre-modern constitutionalism, I can’t be persuaded it was a good thing, but just inevitable.
Although Jackson had what a post-Buckleyite right-winger would call conservative instincts —- his states rights positions, his penny-saving fiscal policies, etc.— his overwhelming appetite for governmental power is a fine example of liberal presumption, which made those policy traits less distinctly conservative.
What Jackson did was create a polity that relies constantly on presidential guidance and interference —and it rarely likes the result.
As David Brooks wrote in his NYT column:
“In times of crisis, you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts. On the one hand, most people know that the government is not in the oil business. They don’t want it in the oil business. They know there is nothing a man in Washington can do to plug a hole a mile down in the gulf.
On the other hand, they demand that the president “take control.” They demand that he hold press conferences, show leadership, announce that the buck stops here and do something. They want him to emote and perform the proper theatrical gestures so they can see their emotions enacted on the public stage.”
We can thank Andrew Jackson, American lion, for this circus.
— Chris Timmons shares his insights and conservative sensibilities in a featured blog for The Village Square.
Definition of civil discourse: Posting a smart and well-written blog even when it 1. Rips one of your favorite shows on TV (Morning Joe, I think they’re doing important work in this hyperpartisan climate) and 2. Rips your great x5 uncle (Andrew Jackson, although I already had a whole bunch of bones to pick with him, perhaps we just add one?)
Having personally met the first person sent to prison for the crimes surrounding the Watergate break-in – the delightful, humble and wise Bud Krogh – I know that you can’t paint people with too broad a brush. So here are some words you might find meaningful whichever side of the aisle you find yourself on? Or maybe these are words you might find challenging, no matter what side of the aisle? Well, either way, here goes: Chuck Colson, of Watergate infamy and now a widely read Christian writer, on the rising populist anger as expressed in the tea party:
… The inevitable consequence of all of this should deeply trouble Christians, who, of any segment of our society, understand the necessity of a strong government. The Bible teaches that God ordains government, appoints leaders, and requires obedience so that we might live peaceable lives. Why is this? God recognizes that even a bad government is better than no government. No government leads to chaos and mob rule. When order breaks down, justice is inevitably undermined. As Augustine of Hippo argued, peace flows from order, and both are necessary preconditions to the preservation of liberty and some measure of human dignity and flourishing.
This is why great leaders of the faith throughout history have held government in such high esteem. Some, such as John Calvin, considered the magistrate the highest of vocations…
“The tea party movement may have a lot of traction in America today, but it makes no attempt to present a governing philosophy. It simply seeks an outlet—an understandable one—for the brooding frustrations of many Americans. But anti-government attitudes are not the substitute for good government.We should be instructing people enraged at the excesses of Washington and the growing ethical malaise in the Capitol to focus their rage at fixing government, not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
We Christians are to be the best citizens, praying for our leaders and holding them in high regard, even as we push for the reforms desperately needed to keep representative government flourishing. Only when we funnel frustrations into constructive reformation can we expect a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
(Photo credit and – as is often the case when we find a good article – thanks to Lea, Queen of All Things Internet.)
John R. Miller writes in Sunday’s New York Times about how George Washington played a key role in forming the cherished American principle of civilian control of our miliary (thanks to Luke for finding this):
On March 10, an anonymous letter appeared, calling for a meeting of all officers the next day to discuss the grievances. Within hours came a second anonymous letter, in which the writer, later revealed as Maj. John Armstrong Jr., an aide to top Gen. Horatio Gates, urged the troops, while still in arms, to either disengage from British troops, move out West and “mock” the Congress, or march on Philadelphia and seize the government.
When Washington learned of the letters, he quickly called for the meeting to be held instead on March 15 — to give time, he said, for “mature deliberation” of the issues. He ordered General Gates to preside and asked for a report, giving the impression that a friend of the instigators would run the show and that Washington himself wouldn’t even attend. He spent the next few days planning his strategy and lining up allies.
But just as the meeting of approximately 500 officers came to order, Washington strode into the hall and asked permission to speak. He said he understood their grievances and would continue to press them. He said that many congressmen supported their claims, but that Congress moved slowly. And he warned that to follow the letter writer would only serve the British cause.
The officers had heard all this before — the letter writer had even warned against heeding Washington’s counsel of “more moderation and longer forbearance.” The crowd rustled and murmured with discontent. Washington then opened a letter from a sympathetic congressman, but soon appeared to grow distracted. As his men wondered what was wrong, Washington pulled out a pair of glasses, which even his officers had never seen before. “Gentlemen,” he said, “you must pardon me, for I have grown not only gray but blind in the service of my country.”
The officers were stunned. Many openly wept. Their mutinous mood gave way immediately to affection for their commander.
“One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection.”–George Washington’s farewell address
In her New York Times “And the Pursuit of Happiness” blog, Maira Kalman treated us on New Year’s Day to By George. The picture above is her take on Mt. Vernon. Since I’m highly partial to George Washington, his 110 Rules of Civility, and spirited colorful art, this was bound to wow me. If you don’t get all the way to the end, know that this will come out as a book in October. I’ll see you at the bookstore…
I just had a wonderful opportunity to talk with University of Virginia’s Ted Crackel about The Civility Project at U.Va., which will release a revised list of rules, in the spirit of Washington’s original. It is particularly wonderful that students are putting together the list. You can actually submit ideas for rules on their website: The Civility Project: George Washington Meets the 21st Century.
This isn’t any ole vanilla re-do of Washington’s rules, however. It’s got gravitas:
The Civility Project will be undertaken with organizational guidance from The Papers of George Washington, a Founding Fathers project based at the University’s Alderman Library, and with the inspiration of Judith Martin, who writes the nationally syndicated Miss Manners column in the Washington Post.
Martin and Theodore J. Crackel, editor-in-chief of the Papers of George Washington, met in 2005 when both were being honored at a White House ceremony. So when the Washington Papers staff recently discussed the idea of basing a project on our first president’s famed “Rules of Civility,” Crackel knew right away whom he wanted to enlist.
“I am absolutely delighted to have Judith Martin working with us on this effort,” Crackel said, noting that the columnist will play an active advisory role. “We in the project and the students involved couldn’t have a better adviser.”
We probably won’t sleep nights waiting to hear the results…
We had our first Politics, Partisans & A Pint happy hour last night, a great crowd very evenly divided along party lines. I had some of my best conversations of the year and it made me think of Adams and Jefferson, whose spirit was alive and well Thursday evening at Finnegan’s. Please help us make it spread…
Hop on over and read this same post at Purple State of Mind today, and just do some general visiting with our partners in civility while you’re there.
“…You and I ought not to die until we have explained ourselves to each other.”
So began the late-life correspondence between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the founding fathers described in the HBO mini-series “John Adams” as “the north and south poles of our revolution.”
Once friends, differences in opinion and political competition had taken a toll.
They, like others in the founders’ generation, had deep philosophical disagreements. But as they went about the business of building a country, an endeavor that if unsuccessful would surely lead to their hanging, they hardly had the luxury to stop talking to each other.
So they agreed where they could, disagreed where they had to and kicked a lot down the road a bit (toward us, in fact).
Despite the differences between them and the odds against them, the founders managed to cobble together their opus – and ours – the Constitution, which despite all probability still guides this diverse group of people forward together.
But, alas, “politics ain’t beanbag” and two election cycles later, Jefferson and Adams had no tolerance for one another.
Fast-forward a couple of centuries and most of us are likely to relate to the fix Adams and Jefferson found themselves in. We, like they, have deep disagreement with – and sometimes little tolerance for – one another. Even our understanding of the founding document we all revere is riddled with fundamentally different viewpoints.
The two founders ultimately died friends, having given history the gift of their final correspondence. They died on the same day, July 4th, 50 years to the day after the nation they built was born. Not knowing that Jefferson had passed on just hours before, Adams last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives,” providing one of history’s most poignant lessons to us across the centuries.
If we continue to choose the path of this legacy – the uneasy yet unbreakable partnership of opposites that is our unique birthright – it will never be easy. Maybe a big part of our problem is that we’ve grown far too accustomed to easy.
“Whether you or I were right,” Adams had written to Jefferson, “posterity must judge. Yet I ask of you, who shall write the history of our revolution?”
The philosophical descendants of Jefferson and Adams are alive and well today in us, in this amazing American experiment “in the course of human events.”
And we are still writing the history of their revolution.
Like the founders before us, we hardly have the luxury to stop talking to each other.
If you have not seen Republican Orrin Hatch’s eulogy of Ted Kennedy, please watch before we forget what a Republic looks like (3 parts). This conservative Mormon and liberal Catholic did it just as our Founders intended. This is a rivalry befitting this great country. This is the real conversation of democracy. If this isn’t the standard your Senator or Congressman strives for, I hope you’ll expect better beginning tomorrow morning. If you don’t, who will?
For this occasion, I will pass it off to the Founders. Please feel free to add your favorite quotes to the mix.
“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.” — George Washington
“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” –Patrick Henry
“A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.” — Benjamin Franklin
“Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.” –John Adams
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.” –Thomas Jefferson
On this July 4th, I’m reading Authentic Patriotism by Stephen P. Kiernan. You should too. Here’s Kiernan about the origins of this very day, 243 years ago:
