A SHORT NOTE ON LIVING HISTORY
Thanks to everyone for the links and kind words about my blogging experiment in trying to recreate the history of the vote for independence and the debate over the Declaration of Independence. I hope we all learned a little something about history - and ourselves.
It was not quite as fun as liveblogging Gettysburg. But the subject matter certainly lent itself to a deeper examination of core beliefs held by the American people at that time. Hence, I tried to fold myself into the blogger character a little more thoroughly in order to discover just what he believed about a variety of issues facing the colonies at that time; slavery, Tories, the Congress, independence, and perhaps a fresh look at the personalities of the revolution from the perspective of someone who was there.
I received some criticism from this gentleman who took me to task for ending up on the wrong side of the slavery debate:
He took a requisite swipe at the French (his French acquaintance viewed the Americans as ‘arrogant’) even though, without the services of Lafayette and the French government he influenced, the revolution would have failed.
And anyone who thinks that both the leadership and ordinary people were not extremely suspicious of the French - Lafayette or no - doesn’t know anything about colonial history. Besides, Tocqueville said pretty much the same thing, although he admired this trait in Americans - our self confidence in the face of challenges.
But the gentleman loses it when he, in essence, criticizes me for not using fantasy to alter history:
Not only does Moran seem to believe that all Americans of the time viewed slaves as savage animal worshipers, but that all considered slaves to be legitimate property. And while many did, why should Moran side with the majority in his little fantasy liveblog scenario? Because unity against the British demands it?
Because that’s the way the convention and history played out, Moran chose to be on the side of those who achieved victory, believing that every choice they made was crucial to that outcome. In fact, one could theorize better outcomes with wiser choices - especially in a fantasy.
If I was going to do an alt/history piece, I would have done an alt/history piece. I chose instead to liveblog a period in history - that’s history, not the gentleman’s fantasy. In fact, I would urge the gentleman to try his hand at this kind of parlor game. I’m sure he could do a much better job.
Those attitudes I chose to adopt toward slavery were realistic and widely held at the time. I make no apologies for the ignorance of our ancestors although the ignorance of those in contemporary times who try and change history to suit some politically correct sense of the past, I condemn for being dishonest.
But this fellow was the exception. Most of you took the exercise for what it was - a fun way to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who lived more than 200 years ago and actually live those historic days in Philadelphia. I appreciate all the support and look forward to contiuing these experiments in blogging in the future.
Regards,
Rick Moran
Proprietor
I really did enjoy the exercise. Good work and a clever idea.
And you took the side on slavery compromise that probably would have been common and did, in fact, prevail by the majority. So this is an historic fact.
However, I’d note that misguided complaints about your hypothetical position bring up what I think is an interesting point.
Conservatives at the time America has faced its major decision points held what are now widely regarded by TODAY’s Conservatives (and general public) as being the wrong view. Very few (some, but let’s agree a minority) would argue that America should turn back the clock on the issues I cite below.
Examples where contemporary conservatives, in the whole (we can find individual exceptions of course), held what we now (almost) universally consider the wrong if not downright reprehensible view:
1. slavery
2. race discrimination
3. women and voting rights
4. social security (in its original form as a minimum anti-poverty program)
5. government mandates in issues of public health, water, air quality
6. public funding of infrastructure (think ‘rural electrification’)
7. minimum wage
8. desegregation
Will this list in 50 years of things that almost all consider obvious in retrospect include some minimum universal health coverage and allowing marriage between any two partners?
Which makes me wonder - if the prevailing conservative view at the time is so consistently proven wrong later, perhaps it says something about the difference between conservatism=’hanging on to status quo’ vs. conservatism=’a coherent political philosophy’ that can be applied sequentially to each issue.
Comment by John — 7/5/2007 @ 5:06 pm