Independence Day Thoughts

 

The blog has been quiet as all of us here at Colonial Quills are dealing with various real-life issues, but a dear friend shared a thought worth sharing--and expounding upon.

It's interesting to think that as a nation, we have always been divided. The Revolutionary War [where we had patriots] versus those loyal to the crown ( I learned this from your stories), the Civil War, and it goes on and on and here we are. ... our division is nothing new. 😒

She's so right. From the very beginnings of what we know as our country--Native people was set against Native people, the Spanish against the French and the English, and certainly what we know of the various attempts at English settlements (to where America traditionally traces her earliest start), division was endemic. Simon Fernandes dumping the 1587 colonists in a location they did not choose, the colonists as one against their own governor (even though that was to send him back to England in an attempt to appeal for the sake of the colony) ... and Jamestown! So much bickering amongst the leadership, even those who all professed to be fervent Christians.

Occasionally, for five minutes at a time, they'd come together and pray and agree that they were there for a common cause, but then division would rear its ugly head again.

Fast-forward to the American Revolution.

It wasn't just, as our schoolchild history often painted it, "the righteous Patriots" versus "the heathen British." It wasn't even as simple as the patriots against the British. Division took place across family and denominational lines. People on both sides of the conflict often chose either rebellion or loyalty based on deeply held Christian convictions as well as less noble motivations.

Ironically, my initial study of the American Revolution was sparked by interest in the British and loyalist point of view. The one thing that stood out to me, over and over (and I've said this elsewhere), was that the United States didn't gain her independence out of military might. It might be argued that we literally wore out the British, who possibly had spread themselves too thin in their quest to rule the world. And they weren't the only ones seeking to build an empire, although they catch the most heat for it in modern commentary! Check out the histories of the Arab world, the Ottomans, the Spanish and Japan and modern-day China.

No, America didn't gain her freedom through individual battles won, or brilliance of strategy. It was gained, for better or worse and however you choose to interpret individual events and political schools of thought, through the mercy and grace of God Himself. We are here as a nation because He allowed it.

Let us not only remember and respect the sacrifices of individual people in the process, but view our own privilege with sober gratitude and resolve to use it wisely.

After all, with great power comes great responsibility.

Historical Look at Impeachment

With our current political climate all about impeachment, I thought I'd take a look at how these things were handled in Colonial times.

Impeachment wasn't new, even at the start of the colonies on American soil. The term and usage of impeachment date back to the Middle Ages. For as long as there have been leaders, there have been those who wish to be rid of them. Some were ousted for legitimate reasons, others not so much.

The impeachments in England differed quite a bit from what it has evolved into here in the colonies - er - states. Those impeachments were a vehicle for forcing the monarchy into line with the will of the people in many instances, and with limited success.

Today's impeachment is a vehicle for a leader - not just a president, but any elected or appointed leader - to be removed after conviction of a high crime or high misdemeanor. I'm not going to attempt to unravel that kitten's ball of yarn here.

In Colonial times, even though the colonies were subject to the Crown, they handled their disputes mostly "in house." I found one reference of an exiled person who was sent back to England - Thomas Morton - on the hopes that the Crown would deal with him. But he wasn't imprisoned in England, and he actually returned to the colonies to stir up more trouble later.

So what did the colonists do to people they wanted to be rid of? They exiled them. Tossed them out on their proverbial ears. That may not seem harsh today with our 24/7 communication devices and air travel, but back then it was devastating. To be exiled was to potentially be lost to one's family and friends forever. To be exiled was considered a far more damaging sentence than to be impeached.

Even then, impeachment was viewed as a rather weak and ineffective way to settle an issue.

Pegg Thomas - Writing History with a Touch of Humor

Honoring Those Who Served

Kings Mountain memorial, SC

Veterans Day is a fairly modern holiday, established to honor anyone who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces—in contrast with Memorial Day, which serves to remember those who died while serving. Originally named Armistice Day, in celebration of the agreement that ended World War I, signed at the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month of 1918. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Day)

I suspect we history buffs hold those who served in the older wars of our country, particularly the War Between the States and the American Revolution, in special awe.
It’s always heartwarming to me to walk through an old cemetery and see memorial flags decorating the graves of those who were known veterans ... sobering to look at photographs of the oldest living veterans of the Revolution, and to wonder what their stories were.

Confederate graves, Strawberry Chapel, SC

 

 As the wife, daughter, and sister of veterans, I’m keenly aware of the sacrifice. In awe of those who went weeks, months, and often years without word of their loved ones who went off to fight. Fascinated by the courage and tenacity it took for both men and women to endure wartime—especially those brave women who followed their men on campaign for love and necessity.

Kings Mountain, SC

In working on my next article, which focuses on the infamous British officer Banastre Tarleton, I began to wonder, why does the whole myth vs. fact thing matter ... and am I dishonoring those who fought for our country’s freedom?

Henry & Eliza Laurens, Mepkin Abbey, SC

To begin with, deconstructing myth can be hard and cruel. I've found that people would often rather hold onto their suppositions and prejudices than accept evidence for another view--or even look at the other side of an issue. (Just look at the debate over whether the Civil War really began over states’ rights or slavery.) And it's astonished me how fact can get embellished into legend, and either romanticized or demonized, not very long after the fact.

The more I read and study, the more I realize that some myths will never be completely dispelled. People's opinions are sometimes literally set in stone, and so many will continue believing the idea that the patriot cause was completely righteous, and the British one completely corrupt.

In truth, I think any serious examination of primary sources will reveal that the issues of time past were far more complex ... just as complex as some of the issues of today. And just like today, some find it easy to decide which side to give their allegiance to, but for others, the choice was excruciatingly difficult.

Francis Waring, WWII veteran, Strawberry Chapel, SC

Regardless of political leanings, the truth is that our country came to be through the blood, sweat, and tears of those who believed there was something worth fighting for ... and despite all odds, this upstart, ragtag bunch of colonists managed to wear out one of the greatest empires in the world. It was nothing short of Divine Providence that allowed us to be, and later continue as a union—and for that, I am awed and grateful.

Ironwork at the Laurens family plot, Mepkin Abbey, SC

So for today, for this month, I would like to offer my deepest gratitude, first to the Author and Finisher of our faith and freedom, and then to those who fought on behalf of both. This country has been a wonder and a marvel to many, over the past 238-plus years!

May God continue to bless America—and have mercy on us.

(Photos by Kimberli Buffaloe, Breanna McNear, and myself)

American Politics: A History of Invective, Chicanery, and Mudslinging

Every presidential campaign season I ruminate on the history of American politics, and since we’re coming down to the wire in the current race, I thought this would be a timely—and lively—topic for discussion. We hear a lot of complaints about personal attack ads and dirty tricks, including from the politicians who are guilty of using them. But you don’t have to do much digging to discover that political chicanery is a time-honored American tradition that has been exercised with glee since America was still a collection of British colonies on the course toward revolution. So let’s take a quick tour of some of the more egregious examples from our nation’s history.

Political parties didn’t exist in this country until we were well on the way to revolution. At that point, the division between those who supported the British and those who opposed them spawned the Loyalists, or Tories, and the Patriots, or Whigs. There was no such thing as neutrality between the two points of view. Anyone who didn’t support one side was automatically consigned to the opposition. Where Patriots held sway, mobs often forced Loyalists out of their homes, denying them legal counsel and trial. Loyalists might be jailed, have their property confiscated, their citizenship revoked, and even be exiled. Where Loyalists held power, Patriots suffered similar treatment. At times someone of the wrong political persuasion was even tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Mobs played a big part in colonial politics, particularly in Boston, where Dr. Joseph Warren helped to refine mob rule into an art form. But mobs were a force to be reckoned with throughout the colonies. In June 1775, one placed the home of New Hampshire’s last royal governor, John Wentworth, under siege, demanding he turn over his guest, John Fenton, who had urged acceptance of the latest British proposals to avert the crisis. When Fenton understandably refused to comply, the crowd wheeled a cannon in front of the mansion and beat on the walls with clubs until the hapless offender finally gave himself up. Fearing for his and his family’s safety, that night the governor fled with his wife and young child to the fort in Portsmouth harbor, ending decades of British rule in that colony. Nothing like the direct approach to changing your government!

From America's earliest days as a democracy, name-calling and character assassination has been a highly popular tactic, such as when Davy Crockett accused Martin Van Buren of secretly wearing women’s corsets. In 1828, when John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson vied for president, Jackson’s campaign nicknamed Adams The Pimp, based on a rumor that as the American ambassador to Russia he had forced a young woman into an affair with a Russian nobleman. Adams’ supporters responded by circulating a pamphlet claiming that Jackson's mother had been a prostitute brought to this country by British soldiers, and that Jackson was the offspring of her marriage to a mulatto!


The name-calling in the 1800 presidential election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, however, takes the prize for no-holds-barred mudslinging. Some of the charges and counter-charges are cited in this hilarious YouTube video: Election of 1800 Attack Ads. And you thought our modern political chicanery was bad!

In 1840, American politician Thomas Elder wrote to a friend that “Passion and prejudice properly aroused and directed do about as well as principle and reason in any party contest.” Every campaign season we see the proof of that claim!

So what do you think? Has the political scene improved any today? What are your main (nonpartisan only!) gripes about American political campaigns? What, if anything, can be done to change things?