Democracy and Equality in Revolutionary America

My class has agreed up to this point that the foundations of America were very carefully set on the ideals democracy and equality. That’s all well and good, but now it’s time to look deeper into the realities of democracy. How democratic was America in the years leading up to the revolution? Ideals are different from truths, and despite how self-evident Thomas Jefferson may have felt that the concept of equality was (Declaration of Independence), it would be naïve to think that his views were reflected by the entire country. In his letter to Patrick Henry, Jefferson claimed that he was trying his best to represent the sentiments of the colonies at large, and felt that he did so effectively, but the declaration was the work of educated, upper-class men. To really examine the political atmosphere of America, I’m going to look at the entire class system, not just the founding fathers or Boston with its teeming trade.

I have no doubt that the people of colonial Wethersfield believed in democracy; they were probably proud to be living in a country where the common man could represent himself in his own government. But did he? No. As document H of the Wethersfield packet shows, Lower-class individuals were remarkably under-represented in the five-year span from 1751-1756. In fact, the lower-income 50% of white males in the town held absolutely no governmental offices at this time, and the amount grew sluggishly from 1771-1776. In both time spans the gross majority of offices were held by the top 20%, income-wise– 51-56 saw a whopping 82% of offices held by this top 20%, while 71-76 showed a drawback to 77%. Are these the trappings of true democracy? The way I see it, there’s political and societal democracy. The two are different, but so inexorably intertwined that it is virtually impossible to have one without the other. The upper classes in America argue when the paychecks of our leaders are held up that lower-class individuals are perfectly free to run for office, but it’s fairly obvious to see that this, too, is an ideal, not a reality. Where will an impoverished person find the funding for a campaign for office? Even holding a minimal office takes training and education that many people cannot afford. While everyone is free to represent themselves in America’s government, being able to represent themselves is a whole different matter.

What interested me, while studying this topic, was the shift from direct democracy (one man, one vote sort of thing) to representative. Much of our class readings seemed to show a country in which each individual voted on virtually everything, which is definitely no longer a system at play in the US. According to Alan Brinkley’s book The Unfinished Nation, the governmental system was realized to be unstable by the late 1700s. Power to the people does mean less power to the government, and a government that is too weak to govern is useless. The expression “too much democracy” (133) was used, a slightly illogical phrase that, while kind of making me laugh, is understandable. The country strove too far in its ideals and created a government in which angry mobs could force tax collectors to resign in the name of democracy, as seen in document L of the Wethersfield packet. The peoples’ voices were heard, but their voices seem to have been calling for ‘an end to that thing we don’t like’ rather than thinking logically about what is good for their country. Yes, everyone hates taxes, but any reasonable person knows that they are necessary. Given one’s own say in every matter, the human instinct is to start shouting over the rest; the sensible voices cannot be heard in the ruckus.

The United States’ government has always, at its core, relied on the common sense and wisdom of the people themselves. It’s a laudable ideal, but it always has been and continues to be just that– an ideal, more than a reality. The desire for democracy was burning in the country at the time of the revolution, and continues to do so, just not in the sense of pure, direct democracy. Really what this has made me think is just…does it matter whether our country is truly democratic? Like communism, democracy is more efficient on paper than in reality, as can be seen in the incident with the tax-collector. Perhaps we should be looking more into whether the people are happy and empowered than whether our system aligns perfectly with the shining ideal of democracy.

Famous Speeches and the American Mindset

A look at the famous speeches of any country is always worthwhile in my book, but I find several of the United States’ great addresses to be particularly interesting simply because in order to really appeal to the American people, it seems that one has to tie into the ideals that make up the country’s basic creed. But what is the true American philosophy? According to Dr. King’s famous I Have a Dream speech, it is that “All men are created equal” (archives.gov). This phrase was first used in the Declaration of Independence (archives.gov), a document deeply embedded in the American mind, and since it has been used again and again to great effect when arguing on civil rights issues, as seen in the Gettysburg address (abrahamlincolnonline.org) and the I Have a Dream speech. So why does it work so well?

It appears to me that many Americans pride their nation in being extremely democratic; truly by the people and for the people. This may not always be entirely true or entirely functional, but it remains a theme of the collective consciousness of the US. Therefore, when the rights of man are brought up in speeches, our patriotic minds turn sympathetic to the speaker’s point; it’s a shared idea, a shared dream– it could even be considered the American dream, in that it suggests that all people may have good things in their lives: homes, families, property, fulfilling work. If one person has these things, there should be nothing stopping another from achieving such happiness.

Despite the ever-more present divide between political parties in the US, I feel like most Americans still share this ideal somewhere in their minds. Even in my most cynical states of resentment towards the gung-ho patriotism sometimes present in my country, I’ll admit that I hold that same philosophy: the people above all. Above kings, presidents, governments, and sometimes even reason, make human lives the best that they can be.

Sources:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-henry-lee/

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf

War and the US Constitution

In the first few days of my United States History class, we did not, in fact, discuss history. Instead, we dipped into the current situation in Syria, and tried to suss out exactly where the power to go to war lies in the US government. The constitution gives the President the title of Commander in Chief, but also gives congress the ability to call for military action. Even this was only a vague concept to me; I’m rather politically ignorant and I’ll admit I was disappointed and intimidated to know that we were addressing modern day, rather than the 1700’s. It seems to me that the American constitutional laws surrounding war are fundamentally idealistic, as are much of the fundamentals that the US government is built on. Americans like to think of their country as incredibly democratic- all about the people’s voice, the people’s feelings. In a way, this is true. The systems (especially those around war) rely heavily on the wisdom of the people. We must elect leaders that truly represent our views, and are honorable and intelligent to boot. If we do not manage this, our leaders find easy loopholes in our constitutional law; it is quite simple for the president to go to war without congress behind him, and the country must follow. Our constitution is not a safeguard against corruption; in fact, it assumes honesty much of the time. All of this may be a rather limited view– these are just my own musings, mostly informed by the War Powers  Act here and my own sense of American idealism.

But of course, the US isn’t really where one should be looking here, in my opinion. The world revolves around the UN now, so what is the United Nations doing about Syria? Thus far, it appears that military action is nixed. “This appalling situation cries out for international action, yet a military response or the continued supply of arms risk igniting a regional conflagration, possibly resulting in many more deaths and even more widespread misery,” (Navi Pillay, un.org) The UN has requested through Russia that Syria give up its chemical weapons, which are illegal under UN law, and Syria seems prepared to cooperate, but the entire problem will not be solved. This issue is complex and very interesting, and I think I’ll be following it closely in the coming weeks.