The Winner gets to write the History
The Winner gets to write the History
The goal of the American Revolution was to end the ancient equation of the power where the arrogant, oppressive and depraved rulers on one side produced subservience and a gradual erosion of the self-respect, capacities, and virtue of the people on the other side. The result was an increasing corruption and degeneracy in both rulers and ruled. Unless this cycle could be broken, Independence would mean little more the exchange of one tyranny for another.
The aspirations of the English Loyalist for commercial growth, westward expansion, increased national power and effective world diplomacy was in some ways attractive and worthy, but they also fitted an ominous, all too familiar pattern of “great splendid consolidated government and “Universal Empire”. To the English Loyalist it meant, growth in national power and prosperity all within a federal system of government retaining the colonies and deriving its authority from the people, but also competent at all the needs and exigencies of respectable, energetic nationhood. This was an attractive purpose for large numbers of people of all classes and was in their view a legitimate outgrowth of the new country. The English Loyalist sought English-style commercial growth domestic prosperity and world power.
The Americans on the other hand sought a society where virtuous hard working men and women lived simply in their own communities, enjoyed their families and their neighbors and were devoted to common welfare and had such churches, schools, trade associations and local governments as they needed to sustain their values and purposes. The Americans were skeptical and disheartened. They saw in the English Loyalist hopes for commercial and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a “splendid empire” where in the time honored way, the people would be burdened with taxes, conscription and campaigns.
These are excerpts from a book on the American Constitution. Reading this you may think that this was a cause of the Revolution but it is not. This was actually the discussion that occurred during the Constitution Convention between the “Federalist” and the “ Anti-Federalist” I substituted the words “ English Loyalist” for the Federalist and “Americans” for the Anti-Federalist. Here is how the excerpt actually read from a book by Ralph Ketchem called the Anti-Federalist.
The aspirations of the federalists for commercial growth, westward expansion, increased national power and effective world diplomacy were in some ways attractive and worthy, but they also fitted an ominous, all too familiar pattern of “great splendid consolidated government and “Universal Empire” that the American Revolution had been fought to eradicate.
To the federalist it meant independence, growth in national power and prosperity all within a federal system of government retaining the states and deriving its authority from the people, but also competent at all the needs and exigencies of respectable, energetic nationhood. This was an attractive purpose for large numbers of people of all classes and was in their view a legitimate outgrowth of the Revolution.
The federalist sought English-style commercial growth domestic prosperity and world power, which they thought were compatible with Revolutionary ideals of freedom and self-government. They believed the new Constitution furnished the means for achieving those goals.
The Anti Federalist were at once skeptical and disheartened They saw in the federalist hopes for commercial and international prestige only the lust of ambitious men for a “splendid empire” where in the time honored way, the people would be burdened with taxes, conscription and campaigns
The Anti-Federalist on the other hand sought a society where virtuous hard working men and women lived simply in their own communities, enjoyed their families and their neighbors were devoted to common welfare and had such churches, schools, trade associations and local governments as they needed to sustain their values and purposes.
The Anti-federalist looked to the Classical idealization of the small, pastoral republic where virtuous, self-reliant citizens managed their own affairs and shunned the power and glory of empire. To them, the victory in the American Revolution meant not so much the big chance to become a wealthy world power, but rather the opportunity to achieve a genuinely republic polity, far from greed, lust for power and tyranny that had generally characterized human society. Was it possible, they asked themselves, to found a society on these bases and with other aspirations that would nourish the virtue and happiness of all the people? Could they break the self fulfilling cycle where selfish people needed to be controlled by checks and balances of all the people which in turn required and encouraged more and more self seeking by the people.
To the Anti-Federalist this meant retaining as mush as possible the vitality of local government where rulers and ruled could see, know and understand each other. Thus they cherished the Revolutionary emphasis on the state and local council and comities, and the Articles of Confederation where the central government rested entirely on the states. The idea of self-government was tied inextricably to something like a town meeting elected representatives who would really know the people of their districts. Each “district” furthermore, would be a town or ward or region conscious of it’s own particular identity rather then being some amorphous arbitrary geographic entity. Only with such intimacy could trust, goodwill, and deliberation essential to wise and virtuous public life be a reality. Anything else though resting in some fashion on the consent of the people would not really be self-government.
To dismiss the Anti-Federalist would be to dismiss the likes of George Mason, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. These are the men that espoused the ideas of “Liberty for All” or “ Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”.
The Constitution is thought of as the protector from government but in reality it was the establishment of a government. If it is such a grand document ask yourself this. The protection comes from the Bill of Rights, Why did the Constitution have to be amended to add these protections.
The federalist had their idea of what they wanted this government to be and we are seeing it today. We can’t solve the problem unless we recognize it!
