This coming Friday, July 4th, is our nation’s 249th anniversary since the delegates to the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. Two hundred forty-nine is not considered a major milestone event. We’ll wait until next year for a big celebration, so let’s think of this year as something of a dress rehearsal for a Most of us will celebrate the national holiday with parades, fireworks, bands, perhaps picnics and other family and friends activities that we enjoy. Since this year is a long weekend, we get some extra time to do some things we want to do. As a bonus, we get to plan for next year.
For those of us of a certain age, the bicentennial of 1976, seems like it was just yesterday; those who are younger might say it is ancient history. In many ways, things have not changed all that much over the past half-century. In fact, the basics have not changed that much over the past two and a half centuries. To me, the important part is that we still live in a wonderful country that, for the most part, is populated by people who seek to do good, and we are still as divided as ever.
For example, by the time the delegates assembled in Philadelphia, and began working on the Declaration, a state of war already existed for over a year. In April 1775, the Battle of Lexington and Concord was fought. In June, the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought. Among the civilian population, sentiment was roughly divided into thirds: one third Loyalists, one third Patriots, and one third either undecided or ambivalent.
Not all the delegates to the Continental Congress liked the way things were going. At least two of them, John Jay of New York and Edward Rutledge of North Carolina, were adamantly opposed to parting company with England. In time, both were won over to the Patriot side.
The origins of this war date back even further, to the early 1600s when the Kings of England were trying to muzzle free speech and free press. Like the nation, Parliament was divided, with most of the Members demanding that newspapers should be controlled so that they printed nothing that went against the beliefs and policies of the government. During the English Civil Wars of the 1640s, and then the Commonwealth a decade later, the debate over a free press grew increasingly viscous. At various times newspapers were muzzled by both the King (until 1650) and Parliament. The Church, the religious bureau of the monarchy, was also divided. High ranking officials in the Anglican Church wanted tight controls on the press. At first, Cromwell advocated for the freedom of the press. Then, after the execution of the Archbishop of Canterbury and King Charles I, Cromwell, with the title of Lord Protector, reversed himself and enforced tight control over the press.
It might have remained that way in America had it not been for the Declaration of Independence. The delegates were, for the most part, some of the most learned men in the country, highly influenced by the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment. Since democracy depends highly on free speech and free press, foremost among the Bill of Rights in the Amendments to the Constitution was the right to free speech, freedom to associate with whomever we choose.
Many citizens found this new form of government confusing, messy, chaotic, and far from efficient. When a woman asked Ben Franklin what type of government the delegates had given the nation, he answered, “A democracy, if you can keep it.”
Very little has changed since then, and it is still messy. Little wonder our democracy is so fragile. A dictator or tyrant who has control over speech and the press, merges with government and organized religion, has effectively silenced his or her opponents. History points that out whenever we look at the biographies of Czar Nicholas II and other Romanovs, Lenin, Stalin, and more recently Putin in Russia. Hitler’s henchmen sponsored book burning parties and rounding up dissidents for a one-way train ride to the concentration camps. Benito Mussolini began his career as a columnist and then editor for an Italian paper and understood better than anyone else about the dangers of too much freedom. He clamped down on anything that did not support the fascist state.
We have had challenges in our own country to the freedoms of speech and free press. During very challenging political and military times, the government has temporarily restricted those freedoms. Far more common was when a group that opposed an editor’s views stormed into the newspaper office, destroyed the press, and perhaps roughed up or killed the editor. It happened during the years leading up to the civil war, after the civil war, and during the rise of labor unions. It happened during the dark years when Senator McCarthy hysterically claimed that communists were taking over the country. It happened again during the civil rights movement, and the Viet Nam War.
In all of these scenarios, anyone who dared to speak up against those who were repressing the freedoms and rights of others, was soon silenced. That is one reason good newspapers and good editors provide space for Letters to the Editor. It is an opportunity for readers to submit their ideas, even when they are the opposite of the editor or paper’s position.
Nor does this attempt to control the press and destroy free speech stop with the news media. It soon extends to the performing and visual arts. Hitler outlawed performing or listening to the music of Jewish composers. All visual art was deemed either good or evil, depending on how it fit into the political narrative. Pieces of art were removed from art galleries; museum pieces were removed from the galleries, either destroyed or hidden away, because they were did not fit the political agenda and therefore, were not ‘right.’ The message was clear: this tacky little dictator who was a failed postcard painter and could not get into art school, knew more than anyone else. And since there was no freedom of speech, no one could disagree with him.
Stalin thought he knew more about architecture than anyone else and insisted in designs that have been described as ‘brutalist’ – massive stone and glass buildings that were just plain ugly. Elsewhere, he ordered the constructions of huge dams, apartment complexes, and collective farms. All of them collapsed from poor design and shoddy workmanship.
Elsewhere, leaders attempted to destroy any record of a country’s history before they began their regime. Perhaps you will recall a couple of decades ago when the Taliban dynamited some ancient stone carvings of Buddha. It was not just because of the polytheistic beliefs of Buddha, but because the dictators wanted to make it clear – history begins with us.
Before them, Emperor Chin of China did it, and then built his famous wall to keep foreign ideas out of his country, and his people corralled inside. Centuries before Chin, Egyptian pharaohs destroyed the temples and tombs of predecessors whose history they deemed to be a threat.
When the Continental Congress assigned John Adams, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence, the three men, plus their colleagues understood the significance of the job. They truly were ‘re-inventing the wheel’ when they set out to create a unique form of government, a hybrid that established a representative democracy. It was not sufficient to stop British repression of the people of the thirteen colonies. This document had to clearly state the sacred dignity of all people in a government based on laws, not blind obedience to a cult leader. It would be a country ruled by law, not the whim of a single individual or a small group. For officials and citizens alike, there would be checks and balances so the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would be protected.
Like the anonymous woman who questioned Ben Franklin about this new government, the answer remains and continues to challenge us to do our part: A democracy – if we can keep it.
