Now
that we have examined many political philosophers writing on the
subjects of government, rights, freedom, and checks and balances, it is
time to examine the American Revolution, Thomas Paine and the American
Constitution in light of what we have learned so far. Next time we will
be looking at the French Revolution which started just as the American
Revolution was concluding.
The American Revolution
As
we know, in the early 1770s the original thirteen colonies rejected
British rule and banded together to fight for independence. At first,
the colonies planned to remain independent of each other, but through
the process of the revolution and formation of the constitution the
thirteen colonies became a federal republic that agreed to a system of
checks and balances much like those called for by Machiavelli, Locke and
Mill. The British called the colonists terrorists and insurgents,
while the colonists called themselves freedom fighters. The Declaration
of Independence was signed in 1776, the British renounced claims to the
colonies in 1783, and the Constitution was ratified in 1788 just as the
French Revolution was beginning.
While
Americans celebrate the Revolution and Constitution as the triumph of
freedom, it is important to recognize, as we have all along in the
class, that the founding fathers were not in favor of absolute
democracy. They were particularly afraid of mob rule, and so like most
of the thinkers we have covered so far they wished to maintain
aristocratic control of the people not to mention slaves and indentured
servants. In the 1940s and 1950s, the John Birch Society (a foremost
supporter of McCarthy’s anti-communism hearings) declared openly that
America is NOT a democracy, but a republic. Consider that America and
the Soviet Union pointed at each other during the cold war and accused
the other of deceptively claiming to be a government of the people for
the people. Both China and America claim to be republics that represent
the people. The words Communism and Democracy mean ‘of the people’,
but differences aside, both have had struggles with the age-old problem
of authority. The struggles over the American Constitution and its Bill
of Rights reflect this.
Because
many of the thirteen colonies were afraid of joining a union for the
same reasons that they were afraid of British rule, the American
Constitution was an exchange of checks and balances. In exchange for
the Bill of Rights, which was primarily concerned with the independence
and freedom of the colonies and not of individuals as it is understood
today, a strong centralized federal government was established. Today,
there are still problems with this exchange. Texas, Alaska, Arizona,
and other states have active movements for secession from the union due
to perceived abuses and excesses of the federal government, just as the
thirteen colonies participated in a movement for secession from Britain.
Recently, Arizona has considered legislation that would allow the
Arizona state assembly to veto federal laws. While supporters have
argued that this is in the original spirit of the Constitution (state
independence), others argue that this directly violates the Constitution
and its imposed exchange of balanced authority (federal law and Bill of
Rights trumps state law).
Locke
and Rousseau were particularly influential on the American Revolution,
the Constitution, and the founding fathers. Locke argued that the state
must protect the individual’s right to life, liberty and property.
Rousseau argued that the state must preserve the liberty of the
individual or the people have a right to rebel and overthrow the
government. The Americans who were reading and being influenced by
these thinkers applied these ideas to their grievances with Britain and
its efforts to use the colonies and its taxes to wage wars in Europe and
across the globe. Notice here that right wing Americans will point to
the Tea Party (as the Tea Partiers do today) and say that the revolution
was about the right to property and fair taxation, while left wing
Americans will point out that people today have taxation WITH
representation and that the majority of taxes go to military expenses as
they did for Britain in the period of the Revolution.
However
one interprets it today, Americans felt that Britain was violating the
social contract by not preserving the American rights to liberty and
property. Remember Rousseau’s metaphor of the bandit with the gun. If
someone comes up to you with a gun and demands your property, you have
no obligation to tell them the truth about where you are hiding your
money or duty to surrender your property. Thus, according to Rousseau’s
argument for the Americans, if the British Monarchy was unjustly
infringing on the rights of life, liberty and property through the use
of force and intimidation, the American rebellion was not unjust in
resisting the British monarchy with the use of force and intimidation.
This is why the British called the founding fathers terrorists and the
Americans called them freedom fighters. Consider that when the
Americans defeated the British, they were left, like Britain from
previous wars, with substantial war debt, and when the colonies tried to
collect taxes to pay the debt there were rebellions by American
citizens against the colonial governments.
While
the revolution is often pictured as a brilliant transition from
monarchy to democracy, it should be remembered that just like the
Parliamentarians of Hobbes and Locke’s time, most still wanted a monarch
in the arrangement of checks and balances. The conservative British
political philosopher Burke argued that America needed a king because a
country could not be ruled by a piece of paper. Many Americans agreed
because they did not have, as we do today, a tradition of being ruled by
a piece of paper, and it was only through the process of negotiations
that led to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that America became a
constitutional democracy. This then inspired French revolutionaries to
cut off the head of the king and renounce monarchy as an institution.
Consider
that Canada, Australia, and South Africa still officially recognize the
Queen of Britain today as their sovereign, featuring her image as well
as that of other British royalty on their money, while having
independent parliaments. Many Americans originally hoped for just this
sort of relationship with British monarchy, while others wanted to
replace the British monarchy with an American monarchy (some suggesting
that George Washington was a perfect candidate for the job). With the
split between loyalists and patriots of the American Revolution, we see
again a similar split to that between the Royalists and Parliamentarians
of Hobbes and Locke’s time. This time, however, there was no
restoration of monarchy, but those who leaned away from federal power
and towards states’ rights like Jefferson would likely say that in part
there was a restoration of the same problems and grievances.
Native
Americans and African American slaves and freemen were torn in their
allegiances. Both sides promised fair treatment and abolition of
slavery at various times, especially to those who were enslaved to
supporters of the opposite side. Some Natives and Africans felt that
they could bargain with the British for greater freedom and security in
exchange for support of the loyalists and monarchy against the patriot
rebellion. Others felt that the independent colonies would be more
favorable to their plight. Most Natives remained neutral, with some
(like the Iroquois) fighting for the British with British weapons and
supplies. Most free Africans fought for the colonies. The British
accused the American patriots of hypocrisy in calling for freedom as a
set of slave plantations, and actively encouraged slave rebellions while
telling Americans that without British government the slaves would rise
up and kill them. Of course, while the patriots won the war, it is
certainly true that Natives and Africans did not fare so well after the
revolution but it is also true that the British supported the slave
trade and would not likely have treated the Natives or Africans much
better.
Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man
While
Paine’s The Rights of Man (1791) was composed after the revolution, in
fact in response to Burke’s conservative criticism of the French
Revolution which was in part inspired by the success of the American
Revolution, it is an excellent expression of the philosophy behind the
American patriot cause. Thomas Paine (1737 – 1809), one of the central
founding fathers, was a corset-maker and author was famous during the
revolution for his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense which argued that Britain
was unjust and rebellion had become necessary. He later became equally
famous for his work The Age of Reason which argued for freedom of
thought and deism vs. institutional religion.
In
The Rights of Man, Paine attacked Edmund Burke, who supported the
American Revolution but suggested a king and attacked the French
Revolution for beheading the king as well as the nobles. Paine argued
that the institution of monarchy was outdated and enabled the violation
of rights to life, liberty and property. This is a departure from the
thinking of all the thinkers we have discussed so far with the exception
of Thoreau who argued for the least government possible. Of course,
Thoreau was writing in the mid-1800s, well after Paine. Remember that
Mill was British, and stood for checks and balances without the need to
renounce or dismantle the monarchy. In spite of this, America has
followed Mill’s thinking in the manner of Paine and Thoreau possibly
more than any other great power in history. Today, this has become a
debate between right and left over social institutions and federal
limits on taxes and trade. Hilariously, because of French royal support
of the American revolution (to screw the British) and aversion to
capital punishment, Paine argued that the French should have exiled
Louis the 16th to America rather than behead him, and was later
imprisoned by the radical French Revolutionaries led by Robespierre for
this support of the institution both Paine and Robespierre despised. I
am sure Burke found this hilarious.
One
of the central issues of the text is whether or not people should
choose their leaders and representatives. The monarchy, of course, is
hereditary, so the people can rebel against it but cannot vote a monarch
into power. While Americans celebrate the revolution as a clear
transition from monarchy to democracy, consider Mill’s argument that
people should vote for their bosses in business or there will be
economic tyranny. Paine was a supporter of guaranteed income and thus
also wealth redistribution and saw land holdings as a great source of
injustice and tyranny. Paine argues that authority must arise OUT of
the people, not OVER the people.
The United States Constitution
At
the conclusion of the American Revolution, the colonies and power
holders were fighting amongst themselves. There was massive debt from
the war, riots, and armed militia who resisted centralized authority.
One of the first and famous phrases from the Constitution, “in order to
form a more perfect union”, refers to the fact that the colonies were
already unified in their opposition to Britain but had yet to work out
the details. It is only much later, with the Pledge of Allegiance, that
we hear, “one nation, indivisible”.
One
of the central issues was how to divide and check power in the union.
Should there be a central figurehead, or not? If so, how would this
avoid the problems of monarchy? If not, how would the union be
preserved and how would equality amongst the colonies be maintained.
How should the power be divided among the states? Should states get
equal power, or should the more populated states have more say? As we
know, by offering the Bill of Rights to states that feared federal
control, the compromise was a bicameral congress with the House of
Representatives expressing the popular vote and the Senate expressing
the equal voting power of participating states. One of the famous
injustices of this overall compromise was the three fifths compromise:
African slaves counted as three fifths of a person for calculating the
number of house representatives even though they had no right to vote
for these representatives.
Another
issue: how much should individual liberty be protected? Consider that,
even though most of the figures we study were not offended by the
institutions of slavery, some Americans wanted Rousseau-like individual
freedom while others sought protections for the institutions of slavery
and indentured servitude. As the reading points out, the word
“democracy” do not appear even once in the constitution (as the John
Birch Society was happy to point out, arguing that we are a republic,
not an evil communist democracy). America, like other countries in the
world, speaks about furthering democracy when in fact it should be
speaking about furthering republicanism (such as that of Machiavelli).
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, who were presidents for most
of the first four decades of independent America, were all slave
owners.
Another
interesting problem: the House has the power to bring charges against
government officials, called impeachment, and the Senate has the power
to convict or acquit the officials. Only seven people, all judges, no
representatives, no senators, no presidents, have been convicted by the
Senate. This removes the official from office, but does not send them
to jail. In fact, while carrying out their duties, officials are
shielded from arrest and lawsuits with the occasional exception of
arrest for serious criminal acts such as murder. Consider how Rousseau
would react to this, or Paine.
A
last issue, consider the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech.
Remember Mill argued that free speech is a strength and does more good
than harm. The Bill of Rights says the Federal Government will not
infringe on freedoms, but the states can do what they please. While
these freedoms are secured at the state level today, speech that is
declared a threat is not free, nor is speech on private property.
The French Revolution
Like
the American Revolution which we studied last time, the French
Revolution (1789 – 1799) was a transition from monarchy to
constitutional republic heavily influenced by Locke and Rousseau. It
was also, of course, influenced by the American Revolution. Unlike the
American Revolution, the republic collapsed and France became a
dictatorship under Napoleon and only became a republic again after many
years and transition periods. In spite of this, historians and
political theorists have recognized the French Revolution as one of the
key transitions in modern political history and fought over its
significance. As mentioned last time, for Burke and other conservatives
the French Revolution was a classic failure of liberalism. For
Marxists, who we will study in a few weeks, the French Revolution was an
important antecedent to the Communist Revolution in Russia and then in
China.
At
the end of the 1700s, France was going through rough times. Wars with
England had plunged the country into war debt, including French
participation in the American Revolution. Remember, the British war
debt, from the same wars with France, was also a central cause of the
American revolution when the British tried to collect from the
colonists. France had lost many of its land claims in the Americas to
the British, bringing in less revenue to cover the mounting debt. In
addition, many years of bad weather and crops had brought famine and
economic hard times, especially to the peasants in the countryside.
Just like in the times of Hobbes, Locke and the Royalists vs.
Parliamentarians, the French King Louis the 16th started
(unwittingly)the long process of the French Revolution by calling
together an assembly in 1789 for the purpose of collecting taxes.
At
the time, the peasants and lower class were bearing much of the burden
of the taxes as there were many exemptions for the nobility and the
clergy. Note that a similar situation exists in America today, at least
according to the left, but it is the wealthy and corporations that now
get the exemptions. Several advisors argued that the exemptions for the
nobility and clergy must be reduced as the peasants could not be taxed
any more, especially in the harsh times of the day. In spite of this,
the nobles and clergy who dominated parliament opposed this advice and
so the king called the assembly to try to forge a new consensus amongst
the “three estates”, the nobility, the clergy, and the populace or
commons (communes in French).
The
third estate, the commons and their representation, became outraged at
the stalling and blocking of motions by the nobility and clergy. After
many failed negotiations, the commons met together and declared
themselves to be the National Assembly with full power to decide
political matters that involved the common populace. Frightened by this
radical move, the king closed the building where they were assembling
saying that carpenters had to make repairs and preparations for a royal
function. Because of the bad weather, the commons reassembled in a
nearby indoor tennis court and swore what was later called the Tennis
Court Oath: they would continue to assemble until a workable
constitution for France was established. Some clergy and nobility
joined their assembly and cause and support poured in from all areas of
France, but the majority of the nobility, the clergy, and the military
did not. After the king fired advisors who supported the assembly, the
situation exploded and France was consumed by rebellion, rioting and
looting.
One
of the first and most famous events was the storming of the Bastille, a
fortress and prison that held a large weapons store. While the prison
held only seven prisoners, the prisoners were liberated and the fortress
and weapons were taken. It was seen as a great victory for the
rebellion. This is still celebrated in France as Bastille day, though
today they do not put the governor’s head on a pike and parade it
through the streets. The king was afraid and did not know what to do.
Many nobles began fleeing France in large numbers for safety.
Commoners formed militias and began attacking nobles and their
property. The assembly officially abolished feudalism, though it was
effectively gone already with the fleeing of the nobility. This
simultaneously removed all power and lands from the nobility as well as
the clergy (the Catholic Church in France, which owned almost 10% of the
country making it the single largest land owner).
The
assembly proceeded to publish the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
of the Citizen, which like the Declaration of Independence was not a
constitution but a statement of purpose and intent to write a
constitution. Just like in the American Revolution, the assembly still
held the idea that the king would play a role in the French government,
particularly as a veto check on parliament, and it was only in the
process that the king became eliminated and the government became a
constitutional republic, not a republican monarchy. The king, afraid of
the popular rebellion, moved to Paris from Versailles after it was
stormed by the armed Women’s March, effectively confirming the power of
the assembly.
It
was at this point that factions in the assembly began to emerge, the
most important being that between the liberals who sat in the left wing
of the assembly and the conservatives who sat in the right wing. This
is where we get the names “left wing” and “right wing” as labels for
progressive and conservative. Hegel, who we will study in a few weeks,
was deeply influenced by this in his thinking as a teenager watching the
revolution from Germany with excitement along with his fellow German
youth. The right wing wanted to follow the British and establish a
constitution that preserved the monarchy, the clergy, and the nobility.
The left wing wanted to maintain the complete disenfranchisement of the
clergy and nobility, and a radical few wanted abolition of the
monarchy. This is similar to issues between left and right today in
America. Far on the left was the now infamous Robespierre, who would
commit the dictatorial acts that became a symbol of the evils of
progressivism for conservative thought up through the present time
(though as mentioned everyone is strangely labeled ‘Hitler’ by the
popular right in America today).
In
1791, the king and royal family fled Paris wearing servants’ clothes,
but they were recognized, arrested, and brought back to Paris. The
assembly largely still wanted the king to remain a figurehead, but
fighting broke out in the streets over whether the king had acted in a
way such that he should be completely deposed. In 1792 the Paris
Commune, the government of the city, rose up in insurrection, took over
the assembly, slaughtered the Swiss guards who protected the king, and
took the king prisoner. With the assembly dominated by the radical
left, they officially abolished the monarchy and declared France to be a
constitutional republic. Finally in 1793, with foreign governments
such as Prussia announcing they would take military action against
France if the monarchy was not restored, the king was declared a
political enemy of France and beheaded by guillotine.
Widespread
gang warfare and chaos broke out under Robespierre and the Reign of
Terror in 1793 and 1794. The Revolutionary Dictatorship was
established, with brutal suppression of nobility and clergy supporters.
One general famously said, “Mercy is not a revolutionary sentiment”.
Peasants in the countryside revolted in support of the clergy and
religion, which Robespierre and the Jacobin assembly wanted removed from
society and replaced with deism and the “cult of reason”. These issues
are similar to problems with communist revolutions and winning the
population that we will study in coming weeks. There were mass killings
on both sides. A major lesson from the French Revolution, the Russian
Revolution, and the Chinese Communist Revolution: if you try to take
religion away from the peasants, they will give you much trouble and die
for the cause. Robespierre, as Revolutionary Dictator, declared the
peasants to be enemies committing “crimes against liberty”, brutally
suppressed the resistance, and was eventually beheaded himself by
guillotine in 1794 because of it.
After
five more years of chaos and gang warfare, Napoleon Bonaparte took over
France with a military coup, establishing himself as dictator and then
in 1804 Emperor of France. This was the end of the French Revolution,
and it was only after several periods of change that France again became
a republic as it remains today.
Wide
debate remains about the meaning of the revolution and its importance.
Conservative thinkers like Burke argue that it was a failed attempt by a
few individuals such as Robespierre to establish a radically liberal
and unsustainable state. Marxists argue it was a rebellion of the
workers and farmers that prefigured the Russian Revolution and later the
Chinese Communist Revolution. Other more centrist historians have
pointed to the rise of the middle class as a major cause. All agree
that it was one of the most important periods in modern European history
and that it should be studied to understand the roots of many political
struggles that remain with us today.
