Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanks
I recently read a historical fiction book on the history of Russia, ending at the Russian Revolution. A very interesting read, and the first I’ve read where the purpose is to introduce Russian culture to Western readers.
One of the main things I wanted to get out of the book was an understanding of the origins of the Soviet Union, and an understanding of how a society gets to such an oppressive government. What I learned is, oppression is the norm, at least in Russia. The only things that change are who is in charge, and whether or not they pretend to be working for the common good.
As I was reading, I made a point to compare three famous revolutions - American in 1776, French in 1789, and Russian in 1917. Only one of these revolutions really can be considered successful, as the French revolution resulted in a bloodbath and a dictator in short order, while the Russian revolution resulted in tyranny nearly identical to that which it replaced.
Why is it that one succeeded and the others failed? Different cultures? More capable leadership? What was so different about the American Revolution that resulted in the founding of a nation based on the freedom and equality of man? That was the goal of the French Revolution too, and at least in their rhetoric, many agitators and participants in the Russian Revolution wanted the same.
What it just dumb luck that we succeeded where they failed?
In the course of the American Revolutionary War and the subsequent formation of a government, George Washington ended up standing head and shoulders above the rest of the American leadership. Many people were dissatisfied with the prospect of a republican government, believing that the people were incapable of governing themselves in such a fashion. They wanted strong central leadership, like that of European countries. They looked to Washington as the obvious candidate to provide that leadership.
In 1783, some members of the army of the United States of America wrote a letter to Washington expressing their concerns with Republicanism, and expressing their desire for him to take the title of King of the United States of America with their support. The following was Washington’s response:
No occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity.
You could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable.
How would Lenin or Robespierre have reacted to such a suggestion? I think the answer is obvious. If Washington were an unscrupulous man, he could have accepted and used the army to do exactly what the Russian and French revolutionaries did - systematically eliminate their opposition and take absolute power to themselves.
In any revolution where the existing power is swept away and replaced, there must exist a new power strong enough to remove the old power. That new power can easily be corrupted by it’s leaders, and history shows that this is frequently the case.
The miracle of the American Revolution is that the leadership was so scrupulous as to not just avoid seeking such power, but to actively turn it down when it was offered to them. Regardless of the flaws of those leaders, this is the key to the success of the American Revolution, and this above all else is what sets it apart from other modern Revolutions. That precedent has held for nearly 250 years, through good times and bad, and it will not lightly be broken. It could easily have been broken once, but no longer. We have Washington to thank for that.
On this Thanksgiving, I will be especially thankful for the men that led this country to independence, with a new and profound appreciation for how easily it could have been otherwise. Such men, incorruptible by power, are extremely rare, and the world is better place for having had one in the right place at the right time at the founding of our nation. It is up to us to live up to that standard and to preserve that legacy.
Comments
-
One of the things I’ve always head about our revolution as opposed to others was that in many cases, it had been accomplished before it began. The colonies were already self-governing to a large extent, with a solid history of town meetings and houses of burgesses long before Lexington and Concord. In some ways, the revolution was the final step, not the first one, and that probably made it much easier for the newly independent Americans to experiment and make mistakes for a while at the federal level. At home, they were already living as free people.
In every other revolution I know about, the rebels throw off the shackles of opporession and are immediately thrust into chaos, needing--on day 1--to reinvent society and keep the trains running on time. It’s a hopeless task...and of course the people end up turning to their former oppressors. They were sons of bitches, but at least they could keep the lights on.
I read an interesting book, years ago, by an Italian historian writing mid-Mussolini era, about the fall of democracies in the early part of that century. Why, he wondered, after abandoning kings in such recent memory, did so many Europeans go straight back to autocracy. His answer was that autocracy, as ugly as it may have been, was a system that had a track record, and, therefore, legitimacy in people’s eyes. Whereas the New was...well, new. Untested (by them) and therefore not necessary legitimate. When it didn’t work, they went back to what did work.
Here’s the wisdom of our ancient stories for you: when God brings the Israelites out of Egypt, he separates them from the land of slavery by a sea (that can only be crossed once) and then makes them wander and learn freedom for 40 years before they find a home.
The rest of us are rarely so lucky.
Andrew | 11/19/2007 07:02 PM CDT -
In other words, Andrew, the outcome of our revolution isn’t the way to bet.
Rarely (if ever) do violent revolutions yield the promised results. We were the lone exception.
It was truly amazing that we had so many people who came together to do the right thing.
Washington was a gift, but that’s why he was asked to do all he did.
He was the moral anchor for the country, and all that came after.
The one who never ceases to amaze me, however, is Sam Adams. Without Sam we’d still have the Queen’s face on our currency. Remove any of the others from the mix and the outcome may have been different, but there would have been no Independence without Sam. He knew what to do, and how to do it, without having a playbook on it. He wrote that playbook and it’s all too easy to forget that he had no model on which to base his actions, besides his common sense and tenacity.
Mrs. du Toit | 11/21/2007 09:02 AM CDT -
AF: Which book on Russian history did you read? Would you recommend it?
JPatterson | 12/11/2007 10:12 AM CDT -
It was Russka, by Edward Rutherford. It is set as a collection of short stories occurring between 100 AD and 1917, following several different families as their place in society evolves and as they participate in the events around them. Not the greatest book in terms of being enjoyable fiction. I liked it, but it is not worthy of a second read. However, it was very interesting from a historical perspective. I learned quite a bit about Russia and it’s inhabitants. Certainly not as good as a true historical study of the region and it’s people, but far better than nothing in my opinion.
American Farmer | 12/11/2007 10:34 AM CDT
