Reflecting on July 4, and the Meaning of the American Revolution Today
In keeping with my faith in the History News Network, I turned there for a source of inspiration. I read two articles by Thomas Fleming, both engaging in some sort of dream conversation with George Washington: http://hnn.us/articles/88215.html; http://hnn.us/articles/95850.html
There was only one comment, by our own Jonathan Dresner, which I found about as appropriate a response as was possible: “Prof. Fleming has now successfully demolished the myth that George Washington was a man of wisdom, restraint, or dignity. At least I think that’s what he was doing. . . .” Right on, Jonathan!
A bit distraught, however, at all this, I turned to the Wall Street Journal, perhaps for some deeper wisdom around which to celebrate this day, and found a piece by that observer of all good things Republican and American, Peggy Noonan, “Making History: In appreciation of our country’s founders and our greatest living historian.”
Peggy had taken most of her quotes celebrating the signing of the Declaration of Independence from David McCullough’s book John Adams, later, of course, after all of the literary awards such as a Pulitzer Prize, made into a successful PBS television series. The last half of her article was a paean to McCullough, and of a meeting she attended, where he spoke....
“and David McCullough rose to speak of Washington, of his courage and leadership. A storm had been gathering all day. Now it broke, and as he spoke of Valley Forge there was, literally, a sudden roar of thunder, and lightning lit the clouds over the river. Mr. McCullough continued, with his beautiful voice, and we all got a chill: What kind of moment is this? What could we possibly have done to deserve it?
Nothing of course. Some gifts are just given.
That's what Mr. McCullough's work has been, a gift, one big enough for a nation. So thanks today to the memory of John and Tom and George, and old Ben, and John Dickinson, and Caesar Rodney too. Good work, gentlemen. You too, David.”
Wow!
Was this the same book on John Adams that I had reviewed for a publication of the American Enterprise Institute when it came out in 2001? In that book, the author, a chap also named David McCullough, was a bit confused about the relationship between Abigail Adams, and the great historian of the Revolution, Mercy Otis Warren, calling them just “friends,” when they were cousins. Ah well, here in the South female cousins are great to have, sometimes for even sexual relationships, but surely the Puritanical John would never have thought of such a thing, especially since the arch-Republican, Mercy Otis, was always scolding him in letters, even decades after the Revolution, for his pretentious, often almost monarchical behaviors!
That was a minor slip on McCullough’s part, one that could be easily forgiven. On the other hand, I noted, he accepted Adams’ supposed assessment that only a third of the Americans supported the Revolution, a third opposed it, and a third were neutral. This was a much more serious question of interpretation, one that had crept into numerous American histories as early as 1902, and which has been repeated ad nauseum for generations, by serious historians as well as popular ones such as Ms Noonan’s hero.
I had addressed this question in 1975 in ”The American Revolution and the Minority Myth.” This is not the place to launch into a full-scale interpretation of the nature of the American Revolution and its relevance for today when the United States has evolved into a great Imperial super-power, with thoroughly “counter-revolutionary” policies militarily, in foreign affairs, and in so-called developmental economic aid as well. And, yet . . .
If Mr. McCullough’s interpretation in both his Adams’ book and his later 1776 were correct, our Revolution was carried out as a kind of minority “coup,” sort of like what some critics are accusing the Iranian Mullahs of doing in the face of protests today. It is certainly true George Washington, in consistent Imperial fashion, was still trying to “take” Canada as late as 1781 as the War was ending, and as President in 1792 gave massive aid to the French Creoles in Haiti in an effort to halt the Black Revolution there, but this “interventionism” on his part was not true of the American nation's attitude as a whole. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys had told those with an Imperial view of taking Canada, in essence,"to stuff it" in 1781, and had gone home rather than mount such an expedition.
In a number of articles found at the Independent Institute web site, www.independent.org and at my own site, www.marinareport.com, I have sought to show that the American Revolution was a great “People’s War,” whose ideas and tactics have been copied by many revolutionaries around the world, even as our own Government has itself become increasingly counter-revolutionary on a global scale.
Mr. McCullough is, of course, a powerful practitioner of narrative history, one who certainly knows the right line for a “Court” historian of the Empire to take in order to be rewarded by those who offer honors and remuneration for such “fawning” history. His interpretive framework, to the extent there is one in his books but never quite openly articulated, is almost always conservative to reactionary!
On the jacket of the Adams book, for example, it announces McCullough was also awarded a Pulitzer for his book on Harry S. Truman. Go to that book, and see in its over one-thousand pages if you can discover even the slightest hint that it was Mr. Truman who first involved the US into the Vietnam imbroglio.
FDR, whatever his foibles in leading the nation through a “backdoor to war” in WWII, had made it not only a War to defeat Fascism, but Colonialism as well. His Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, had been, as a young Congressman from Tennessee decades before, one of the original American Anti-Imperialists, seeking to free The Philippines, which had been promised Independence in 1936 and which was fulfilled a decade later.
One of those who took such promises seriously was Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. American airmen who were shot down and rescued by the Viet Minh were escorted back to American lines. Those unlucky enough to fall into the hands of the extensive Chinese forces in the South, were usually sold to the Japanese. In the Japanese offensive in the area in 1944, the Chinese fell back and allowed the Japanese forces to capture a number of American bases and airmen. No wonder that Gen. Stilwell was not exactly an admirer of Chiang K’ai Shek. All of this is well documented in official US Military histories, and should not have been news to Mr. McCullough.
On assuming power, Mr. Truman reversed those policies. The British gave the Japanese in Vietnam their guns back to keep out the Vietnamese forces until the French could return. Mr. Truman offered the French some 15 boatloads of military equipment for Vietnam. To their credit, American longshoremen would not load the stuff, and so Harry had the military do so. That great Radical, Gen, Douglas MacArthur, called this perhaps the “most despicable act of WWII.” It was but a prelude, as we well know, to American policies there in the years to come, and, our final defeat in 1975. from which we appear to have learned nothing, as we again"hunker down," this time for a long haul in the Middle East and South Asia, with no end, let alone"Victory," in sight!
And so, as we celebrate this Fourth, Prof. Fleming communing in dreams with George Washington, and Ms Noon enthralled over the “greatest living historian,” let some of us attempt to use this day to try to understand why this nation is looked upon by many around the world, no longer as a bastion of Independence, Liberty and Freedom, but as the very center of Counter-revolution, in all of its numerous manifestations, including outright Occupation, something we once had the honesty to call"Colonialism!" With even the Water Torture in vogue with creatures like Dick Cheney, and Obama now protecting him, it appears to be The Philippines in 1898 all over again. Even that"Sage," Yogi Berra, ought to be able to see that, even if some historians and their admirers cannot!