Shays' Rebellion

I mention this event quite a bit, but am amazed that it has been expunged from the US consciousness.  That's a shame because it is highly important to the development of the US as a nation.  There have been many rebellions both before and after US Independence, yet I would argue that this is one of the most important of them. In my opinion, it does emphasise that the War for American Independence was a civil war which left more issues unresolved than it solved. It also highlights the fact that the US is a rather belligerent nation that there are frequent insurrections and people who feel this is somehow a right.

Only three years after the American Revolution ended, thousands of Massachusetts citizens took up arms against their new state government. The rebellion started on August 29, 1786. It was precipitated by several factors: financial difficulties brought about by a post-war economic depression, a credit squeeze caused by a lack of hard currency, and fiscally harsh government policies instituted in 1785 to solve the state's debt problems. Protesters, including many war veterans, shut down county courts in the later months of 1786 to stop the judicial hearings for tax and debt collection. The protesters became radicalized against the state government following the arrests of some of their leaders, and began to organize an armed force. The rebellion took place in a political climate where reform of the country's governing document, the Articles of Confederation, was widely seen as necessary.

Shays' Rebellion was the main impetus for the adoption of the US Constitution.  In fact, the rebellion hadn't been quelled (resistance continued until June 1787) when the Constitutional Convention began in Philadelphia (May 1787)!

This is why the Constitution makes it clear that its purposes is "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare".   Also, it makes clear that the role of the militia is "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15) and that waging war on the US is Treason (Article III, Section iii).  Article IV, Section 4 talks about "domestic violence".  All these refer to Shays' Rebellion.

Anyway, the best resource for this event on the internet is found here.  It is a site run by Springfield Technical Community College (fitting as this was the location of the main "battle").  Although, I do wish they would update and fill in the gaps on the site since a lot of important essays have yet to be written.  It is an interesting site to explore.

And maybe if enough people ask, they will fill in the gaps on this incredible resource.

Robbie Burns on the War for American Independence

I was listening to the complete ballads of Robert Burns on Linn records when I heard the lyrics to "When Guilford good our pilot stood". This was Burns' take on the War for American Independence and was probably written in 1784.

•  See also: www.worldburnsclub.com/expert/expert_ballad_on_the_american_war.htm

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

Repost from my blog

Comparing the Modern Tea Party to the Original By Barbara Smith

From: http://www.hnn.us/articles/134859.html
Barbara Smith is the author of “The Freedoms We Lost: Consent and Resistance in Revolutionary America,” just issued by The New Press.

In light of the recent anniversary of the original Tea Party, shouldn’t we consult history to clarify what the Boston brouhaha of 1773 was really about? Here are some things we would do well to remember today:

* There was little that was “conservative” about the event. A mob seized and destroyed private property. Conservative interests at the time deplored it, and the respectable descendants of the Revolutionary generation did their best to forget it when they wrote up their official accounts of the Revolution.
* It was not all about taxes. The colonists who dumped tea in Boston harbor did not oppose taxation by representative governments. They routinely voted in town meetings to support the poor and pay for common goods such as roads or public schools. From time to time they dug into their pockets to pay off public debts created by expensive wars. They did not worry much about the likelihood of taxes going to “freeloading” poor people or immigrants, because they knew that government is rarely controlled by the poor or the newcomer. Far more likely—far more dangerous—was an alliance between government and the already wealthy and well-connected.
* It was about the power of private interests. As colonists saw it, Parliament had been corrupted by the influence of money. First, opulent West Indies planters had promoted the Sugar Act to boost their profits. Wealthy Britons had supported the Stamp Act in order to cut their own taxes. Now shareholders of the East India Company hoped to reap a windfall off a monopoly on the tea trade. All these measures served special interests at the expense of ordinary colonists in North America. Rather than defending the tax breaks of the wealthy or the monopoly privileges of private companies, the original Patriots championed the wellbeing of middling households.
* It was about the obligation of government to regulate economic transactions. Eighteenth-century Patriots assumed a principle of public activism. Samuel Adams explained in a Boston newspaper: Governments might oppress the people by grabbing too much power, but oppression also occurred when governments were too weak. Government existed precisely “to protect the people and promote their prosperity.” In normal times, people expected government to limit monopolies and excessive profit-taking. In the imperial crisis, Patriots insisted that countless transactions—not only tea sales—should come under public scrutiny and serve the common good. What justified destroying the East India Company’s tea was the principle that public good trumped corporate profit.
* It was about the distribution of wealth. Americans’ ancestors had been uprooted from the British countryside as great landowners amassed more and more of the land. In North America, many English settlers had achieved a sort of middling security. Now that security was threatened. Parliament was taking the side of the rich, and some rich Americans were taking the side of Parliament. The danger was the impoverishment of everyone else. The Patriots believed that a rough economic equality was necessary to maintaining liberty.

Viewed accurately, the original Patriots would sadly disappoint today’s Tea Party activists, who promote a far different political philosophy. Of course no one today needs to agree with eighteenth-century ideas, and we know that the Patriots had their profound flaws. But we must object when present-day interests sidestep good-faith discussion of the merits of their position by misappropriating the founding generation. The principles of today’s Tea Partiers may (or may not) be correct, but they cannot establish it through sleight of hand, blithely invoking the founders while ignoring those founders’ ideas. The rest of America should not be intimidated by unfounded claims that Tea Partiers are the “real America” or that their values are the ones that originally won American freedom. Those claims fly in the face of history, and they contribute little to our ability to address the massive problems that we face as a nation.

See also: By Jill Lepore’s Boundless promise and grave peril

American Independence: A blessing or a curse?

The person who asked this question was none other than Patrick Henry. To be quite honest, I am of the opinion that if the founders were to return to modern day American, they would be extremely disappointed in how their experiment turned out, which was the basis of my A Message from the Founders post. Additionally, the quote from Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, I mention in this post informed my comment:

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

I have been thinking about the following quote from Patrick Henry and how it might relate to his opinion of the current state of the Union.

After Patrick Henry died, his family found among his papers one sealed envelope with this written on it: " Enclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia Assembly, in 1765, concerning the Stamp Act. Let my executors open this paper." There was a copy of the resolutions in his handwriting inside. On the back of the paper containing the resolutions was written in Henry's handwriting:

"The within resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British Parliament. All the colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a burgess a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on the blank leaf of an old law-book, wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God had bestowed upon us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader, whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."

What does he mean by virtue? Is he talking about characteristics that promote individual and collective well being? Does he mean it in the Aristotlean sense of being a mean between two extremes (For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance)? Or is he talking about the Sainted personality which Americans desire, but human nature falls far short of being?

Also, there is a thin distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness. If he means righteousness as acting in accord with divine or moral law, was he truly righteous in engaging in his actions that caused the US to move into the mess it currently is in? Self-righteousness is a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. It can give one conviction that their actions are correct when they are very wrong.

But the most important piece of this is "If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable."

We see a lot of self-righteous persons of contrary character in modern US politics. US Politics is that of division, which is most certainly contrary. It seeks to promote various interests above others, often (as in the case of "gun rights") that interest runs contrary to public interest. The Right exploits single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.

To Quote the Wisconsin AFL-CIO:

Union members have been fighting attacks on worker rights and protections on many fronts. These are not random, unconnected attacks. They are the result of a coordinated strategy by a corporate-funded ideological movement that aims to eventually destroy the labor movement. Other progressive movements have seen hard won gains attacked and eroded as well.

Think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn't a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party works toward the interest of the workers. Chris Hedges wrote a great piece called Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama about how he is just as much of a tool of big business as was Dubious Bush. But Liberals are to blame for failing to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics which is the norm in the United States.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, I am certain that Patrick Henry would have been a Tory. But hindsight is 20-20 and he didn't realise the mess he was creating for future generations when he acted so ill-advisedly in demanding independence before the nation was ready for it.

Reposted from http://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/american-independence-a-blessing-or-a-curse/

See also ALECExposed