Back in 1776, the British colonies had choice: they could either continue along the path of negotiation and diplomacy with England, or they could choose violence. As should be no surprise to anyone who is following our current events, they went with violence. Today, I'd like to raise the question, as I do with myself most Independence Days, as to whether this was the correct decision. A little bit of alternate history, if you will. A chance to reflect.
This diary is being written between going outside into our 105º Sac Valley heat to grill chicken, salmon, and corn, so take it in that spirit: with a bit of salt.
Of course, everything is interrelated and it's impossible to isolate historical causes in this kind of what-if scenario. But there are several things that happened fairly close to the time of our independence that might give us pause. First, the European powers east of the Mississippi had generally made treaties with the indigenous Americans, had accepted them as trading partners, and generally respected them to a certain degree. Once we booted out the English (who had already almost completely booted out the French), we ended all that. The Indians became no more than a simple impediment for us, that we swept out of the way with little compunction. I don't mean to suggest that the English or French treated Indians as equals, but I don't think it's possible to deny that [some of the] the really, really bad stuff didn't start happening to Indians until the former colonists took control of governing. Would this have been different if we had not broken away from England? Maybe. But I don't see how it could have been worse.
A very similar thing was slavery. Slavery, racialism, and racism were all enshrined in the unamended US Constitution, and in fact, had abolition and equality of the races been emphasized by our Founders, it is extremely unlikely that the Revolution, not to mention the Constitution, would ever have gotten off the ground. By 1833, England had freed all of her slaves with limited violence; we had to fight a horrible Civil War to free ours, and true racial equality isn't even on the horizon for us. Would this have been better without the Revolution? Once again, it's impossible to say. It's not like the Brits haven't done some pretty nasty, racist things over the years. But once again, it might well have been better, and could hardly have been worse.
What about all of our freedoms? Well, the fact is, the American Revolution can be viewed historically as part of the long slog of the English people toward democracy and liberty. After we broke away, they continued the process their way, and we continued it our way. If you compare the freedoms and liberties of today's UK citizens with our own, it's hard to say who is more free. Furthermore, the most direct comparison is with the former colony of Canada, which had to make the same choice that the lower 13 had to make. They chose to stay with the King, and rejected our subsequent overtures, both violent and nonviolent, to become part of the USA. Did they make the wrong choice? Are they less free? It doesn't seem that way to me.
I also think that our violent beginnings may have started us off on the wrong foot. Would we have committed the same atrocities against the Indians otherwise? Pushed the Spanish and the Indians out of our way west? How about the Munroe Doctrine: without our violent origins, would that have seemed to be a reasonable policy? There could even be a connection between Bush's invasion of Iraq and our decision of 231 years ago to resort to violence, but that's probably pushing things too far.
I just wanted to provide an opportunity to people to question some assumptions. Don't spend too much time on it, after all, it's not like we can actually change anything now. And enjoy your holiday.
Greg Shenaut