Figure 1.--

This is a discussio is about the fundamental accompllishment of the Ameican Revolution -- gthe principl that ordinry people can goverbn themselves without kings and a hreditary aristocracy. Now there is no doubt that slvery wa an severe imperfectiomn, but fundamental betayal. Yhis was especially the case because emamcipation was already in progress. And the Constiytioopn that followeed was a an nti-slasvery dicumnt. It did not end slkavery, but established a Reopujblic nd legl system thst would end slsvery. And it created aystem of free labor in workd domintd by firced labor that would ovewealm the slave system of the southen states. Of course America can be criticized for taking too long. But list in the desre to criticise merica is 1) lunching the end of monacil rule nd 2) the bedginning of society dominsted by free lbor in a world dominzated by firced labor systems.

Fundamental Betrayal

Sorry, I got busy! I agree with you about the loss of civility. People who shout and call names are only displaying the weakness of their argument and their own personal insecurity. Here's my point about slavery in the USA (not anywhere else): it was a fundamental betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Slavery deformed the Republic at birth. Jefferson knew it when he wrote it. I recommend Henry Wiencek on Jefferson and Washington (two aristocrats, in relative terms, in British North America at the time) for perspectives on how they each were riven by regret over that deformed birth. Washington - perhaps the greatest American and easily one of the 10 most important figures of the last 500 years globally - tried to reckon a way out of it. As for the scope and global repercussions of the entire system of slavery capitalism which was catalyzed by Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, I highly recommend Sven Beckert's Empire of Cotton: A Global History. That global economic empire was predominantly a British-spawned empire, of which the USA was a pivotal part, but a part. Empires are vampires and the British Crown plays Dracula too well. But the legacy of British political thought and action, from the Magna Carta to the English Civil War to the First American Civil War (as we Loyalists call the War of Independence, for which the French King is due a best supporting actor award) to the Second American Civil War, is that the idea of a head of state being subject to a legislature with a common franchise is the most important invention in human history. It's in constant need of improvement and re-invention. Frederick Douglass, who I think is on par with Washington as perhaps the greatest American, is the embodiment of how free speech can empower even the lowliest born man to use words - not swords - to transform and re-invent democracy. Democracy is worth taking up the sword for, in any case, in any place, at any price - as President Zelensky is reminding the world today. As to your point 1, on Lend Lease - today we are all moving far too slowly to effect the same kind of Arsenal of Democracy that Roosevelt armed to Churchill, to arm Zelensky. I think by August 2023 we will be back in Poland again. In August 1941, at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic, Churchill said to Roosevelt that it was time to finish the job begun in August 1914. It's still unfinished. Tyrannical militarism is still a real threat to our democracy and Western democrats who think it can be contained are deluded. Empires are vampires. There's a vampire in Moscow, and another in Beijing. -- Georgeevideo

CIH Response

I disagree a little about the reason for the lack of civility. I think the primary reason is that our universities and now schools are full of Marxist -influenced professors who dishonestly present history and economics which is reflected in the media and Hollywood. Not so much insecurity (which I do not disagree on), but more basic ignorance of real history and economics.

Now your basic point is on slavery. Of course I agree that slavery was evil and morally reprehensible. But I disagree that slavery was a "fundamental betrayal" of the Declaration of Independence or that it "deformed the Republic". Certainly, it was not part of any utopian vision. This I agree. But with history, we are dealing with real people and real societies. Slavey existed long before the Declaration and the Revolution. If Jefferson had added emancipation to the Declaration, it would never have been adopted and the Southern colonies would have become loyalist strongholds, meaning the Revolution would have failed. Real people and real countries have to make compromises, sometimes painful compromises. For example, to defeat Hitler, the Western Democracies had to align themselves with Stalin--another brutal dictator. Would you have not done this and allowed Hitler to win World War II?

The Declaration and Constitution made a larger point, that the individual can govern himself without kings and heriditary aristocrats. That was the fundamental turning point in history. With very few exceptions, the American Republic. This was the beginning of a major chapter in human history. And one if we look at China and Russia is still not settled today.. Now was it perfect? No it was not, but to say fundamentally flawed is a misstatement when 90 percent of the population was included. And the system those two documents created immediately began freeing slaves. In the early republic/antebellum, era, one northern state after another began emancipating slaves. There was a serious divide on slavery at both the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention. At both, there were compromises on slavery. Two important ideas prevailed. 1) compromise was needed to gain the support of the southern colonies/states. 2) Slavery was an inefficient, dying system that would disappear on its own as was happening in the North. Only the invention of the cotton gin (1793) changed this. And despite this, the Federal Constitution that emerged was anything but a pro-slavery document, a major achievement at the time. (This is not what the hate American professors in our universities are telling students. I will be glad to discuss this if you would like.)

An important part of the discussion here should be how unique America was, even with slavery. America and to a lesser degree Britain were rare places where individuals could own land and were not restricted by some form of forced labor. Slavery was not the only form of forced labor. Agriculture still predominated and throughout the world, Europe, Russia, China, India, Latin America, etc, it was rare for people who tilled the land to actually own the land. America was a rare exception and land ownership would only increase as the young American Republic grew. Again compare us to utopia, we lose. Compare us to real life and other actual countries, America is in truth the shining "city on a hill" that John Winthrop spoke of.

Also important is to study what destroyed slavery. Ir was fundamentally the result of abolitionist movements in two countries--America and Britain. As a result of the British Abolitionist Movement, the Royal Navy was set on a mission to destroy first the slave trade and then slavery itself. The American Abolitionist Movement not only succeeded in the North before the Civil War but in large measure caused secession and Civil War. When Lincoln first met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed, "So this is the little lady who started the war." There were no abolitionist movements of any significance anywhere else in the world--that speaks volumes and is just ignored in our universities and schools.

Created: 8:55 PM 3/16/2022
Last updated: 8:55 PM 3/16/2022