Hypocrisy and the American Revolution

  

     Contrary to modern standards, being labeled a hypocrite used to mean something.  There was a time, not so long ago, when seeing one politician catch another in an action that counters their public beliefs would have been considered quite a newsworthy win.  Using a person’s religion or political party (or both), for the “gotcha” moment was seen as great debating.  Catching a friend in a moment of hypocrisy, leading to that moment of awkward silence as they survey the landscape and realize they have been trapped, was twisted fun.  For sure, there are any number of hypocrisies in our history.  Probably too many to even name, but there are some people that we have looked up to since the founding of this country who were also definitely not immune.

     I spend quite a bit of time in my classes playing devil’s advocate, and pushing students to look for the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of our country and its history.  Some will ask how people can be both pro-choice and anti-capital punishment, while conversely others are pro-life and pro-capital punishment.  How can a Catholic politician support legalized abortion?  How can our country support dictatorships in one breath while tearing down others in the next.  These are all valid, if surface deep arguments.  Of course there are many nuances to how people land on their ideologies, and some are nearly impossible to explain, but no less real.

     This brings me to the American Revolution.  The Declaration of Independence, authored by Thomas Jefferson, and painfully (for him) edited and eventually signed by 55 others, was a warning shot to the British crown.  The document literally says, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”  This sentiment sounds great in the context of British colonialism and “taxation without representation”, but how would a group of people making that statement today be viewed?  Am I wrong in thinking that this is a possible defense argument for anyone involved in January 6?  Not to mention that history tends to smile on the victors.  If the British had won, the founding fathers would most likely today be read as traitors who were all executed in a losing effort.

     But, that is not what happened.  The Americans won, and a group of wealthy, intellectual elites set up a capitalist based republic.  George Washington not only oversaw the military win, but went on to preside over the creation of the Constitution, and also secure the first and only unanimous electoral college win in our history.  He then gave it up after two terms when he had no obligation to, leading King George III to proclaim, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”  (The argument over whether or not he let it go over morals instead of his allergy to public criticism will be saved for another time.)  These are all plaudits of a great man.  

     Now, no one said it would be easy starting a brand new country, and there would be bumps for sure, not the least of which would be Shays’ Rebellion.  Daniel Shays was a Massachusetts farmer, and one of the first to volunteer for the Patriots under Washington.  He fought at Bunker Hill, Ticonderoga, and Saratoga before accepting a ceremonial sword from the Marquis de Lafayette and returning to Pelham, MA to farm again.  The problem with the new state of Massachusetts in the new United States is that some rich people from Boston funded the revolution and wanted their returns.  The state taxed its people more heavily than the British government had, expecting the debts to be paid in specie (gold and silver, because the paper currency of the Continental Congress was worthless).  People like Shays were threatened with debtors' prison (how the hell is someone supposed to pay off a financial debt if they are in jail??!!). 

 

 Long story short, in 1787 Shays and others took over the Springfield arsenal and used the weapons to shut down courts and face off against the Massachusetts militia.  They would eventually lose.  Shays, who had fought bravely to help found this country, narrowly escaped execution and moved to Vermont where he lived out his days. (history.com) 

      Guess who was against this rebellion.  Sam Adams, of all people, called for their executions.  Henry Knox wrote letters to George Washington to make his concerns clear.  Washington responded to Knox with, "On the prospect of the happy termination of this insurrection I sincerely congratulate you; hoping that good may result from the cloud of evils which threatened, not only the hemisphere of Massachusetts but by spreading its baneful influence, the tranquility of the Union." (mountvernon.org)  How could someone who fought against a ruling class over unfair taxation feel this way?

     Fast forward a couple years to when Alexander Hamilton (first Secretary of the Treasury and a genius in economics) had set up a plan for the federal government to assume all debts of the states, therefore any debt holders would have to deal with the federal government instead of an individual state.  To pay off these debts, the federal government, under President Washington, would collect tariffs and excise taxes (on “luxury” goods like whiskey).  Well, the western part of Pennsylvania had an issue with that.  The people who lived there relied so much on the production of whiskey that they even used it as currency.  A tax on this product would do immense harm to them. 

     To be fair, Washington didn’t love the Whiskey Tax, but was assured by local government officials in Virginia and Pennsylvania that it would be fine, so Congress passed it with his blessing.  God help the tax collectors of western Pennsylvania, working what quickly became the most dangerous job.  They were assaulted and shot at.  Their families were assaulted.  They were threatened with death if they didn’t resign.  They were stripped naked and tarred and feathered (which is much worse than it sounds).  Buildings were burned.  Some died.  Washington had had enough.

 

       After attempts to settle things with a peace envoy failed, Washington himself led a militia of 12,950 men, causing the rebels to disperse (Can you imagine a modern day president getting in a tank and leading the military to quell a protest?).  Two were found guilty of treason, but were pardoned by Washington.  But, again, how does Washington, as well as Hamilton and others, turn against the rights of its citizens to alter or abolish the government that seems to have become destructive to them?

     History and government is not black and white, but many, many shades of gray in a huge mess that may resemble a Jackson Pollock painting.  I suppose the answer lies somewhere in the middle of it.  The best way to explain it may be the question I pose to my student;  Can you be a hypocrite and right at the same time?  I believe the answer can be yes.  Can parents who have been  lifelong smokers and suffer lung damage tell their children not to smoke?  Can a person who has been a slaveholder become a key piece to the formation of a country based on freedom? Can a person who has put their life on the line to win a revolution and establish a successful republic also restrict rebellions by the citizens of that republic in order to protect it?

      I do love a country that allows us to actively discuss all of it, especially with our youth.  God bless America.