Chained to the Outpost of Liberty

Chained to the Outpost of = Liberty:

The Consequence of Freedom in the American Revol= ution

A great pa= radox existed under the American Revolution: at the same time free men espoused an innate right towards liberty from oppressive governments, there existed a foundati= on of slavery which would bear the burden of American exigency. Within this paradox rests a fear of dependency that compelled both the American Revolution and the perpetuation= of slavery. This fear caused ico= ns like Thomas Jefferson to question the very meaning of liberty in the great American experiment. Behind t= his fear was a greater calling, one that is at the core of human nature itself – to be free, even at the expense of the enslavement of others.

This essay= will examine the fear of dependency that lay behind the founders’ argument= for a Revolution as discussed by Hannah Arendt, and their perpetuation of slave= ry as discussed by Edmund S. Morgan. I will show how these arguments are connected by the founders’ innate desire for freedom from both the oppression of monarchs and the masses.

The Americ= an Revolution was unprecedented in history.&n= bsp; Prior revolutions were intended to merely change the face of authori= ty, not to destroy the very structure of it.&n= bsp; If a monarchy lost favor with the people or the nobility, a new mona= rch would take over, and the foundation of authority and legitimacy would remain firmly in place. Arendt expla= ins: “those who not only made a revolution but introduced revolutions onto= the scene of politics – were not all eager for new things, for a novus ordo saeclorum (…)R= 21; (Arendt 34). But the period of the Enlightenment brought forward the conception that society should be led not= by kings in ivory towers, but the people for which society is made of. She goes on to explain that an “enormous pathos of a new era” arrived with such a rush that it elicited a “point of no return” (Arendt 35).

The French= and American Revolutions were constructed off the philosophy of the Enlightenme= nt, coupled with the idea that the monarchial system of governance had gone terribly astray. The natural = rights of man had been circumscribed for the rights of monarchs who, as many Enlightenment philosophers believed, did not have the best interests of man= in mind. Arendt explains how the= movers of both Revolutions believed they would “restore an old order of thin= gs that had been disturbed and violated by the despotism of absolute monarchy = or the abuses of colonial government” (Arendt 37). Instead, the movement took on a gr= eater role than the actors would have ever assumed – an opening of the publ= ic realm itself.

The public= realm as described by Arendt, was previously open to those free from the burdens = of necessity: nobility or owners of property. But the Enlightenment rhetoric had = now opened the public realm to the masses enslaved by their daily needs (Arendt 41). While the main actors in a revolut= ion saw their objectives as freeing man from the oppression of fellow man, Karl= Marx suggests that the peasant class saw revolution as their liberation from the “fetters of scarcity” (Arendt 58). Revolution gave the masses a voice= in the body politic. But it was = soon realized that politics could not meet the demands of necessity, and violence became the only means to quell rebellion.&= nbsp; Thus, while the French Revolution had to deal with this issue of nec= essity, the American Revolution was wholly absent of it.

The Americ= an colonies were populated by the Third Estate, that landless impoverished class which had little hope of perso= nal achievement on the European continent.&nbs= p; Arendt says that Europe understoo= d well the American continent had become a “meeting ground for the poor (…) ‘united by silken bands of mild government’” (A= rendt 17). Professor Morgan explain= s that the population problem in England was solved by sending the third estate to the New Wo= rld where “they would redeem themselves, enrich the mother country, and spread English liberty abroad” (Morgan 83). The development of the colonies in= to an American nation was accomplished ironically with the presupposition of free= dom for one group and slavery for another.&nbs= p; The slave class took on the burden of life that ultimately prevented= the answering of the social question in the America Revolution and helped America= gain its independence.

The inabil= ity to address the social question displays a troubling distinction between private and public happiness in the American landscape. Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, could not quite distinguish whi= ch form of happiness Americans sought. The former members of the th= ird estate who climbed the social ladder, a concept unthought-of in times p= ast, became addicted to the taste of leisure, pleasure, and those aristocratic v= alues that accompanied life outside the realm of necessity. Arendt describes how Americans ins= tead of entering the marketplace of distinction, i.e. politically entrepreneuria= l endeavors, practiced “conspicuous consumption”. The common attitude towards governm= ent was of disinterest as long as it perpetuated “self-preservation”= ; (Arendt 64). Any attempts by the Brit= ish to intervene in this self-preservation was viewed as a breech of sovereignty, = this included the imposition of taxes on trade (Morgan 39). The fear of their property being reproached by illegitimate auth= ority reigned high in the conscious of men with historical grievances against the throne. Furthermore, the inab= ility to address both the social question and what kind of happiness America would encapsulate prevented the hypocrisy of slavery from being addressed in the public sphere. Since slav= es were considered property, and property considered outside the realm of government, the legitimacy of slavery was held as a personal, rather than a public dilemma.

Critical in understanding the founders’ fear of dependency is to understand how t= hey viewed the lower rungs of society. Morgan explains that Thomas Jefferson viewed urban landless workers = as free in name only since property was considered a hallmark of achievement t= hat was more deserving of freedom than one’s natural inherent rights. It appears that freedom was viewed= as a quality one had to earn rather than receive. For those without the moral compass needed to obtain the merits of freedom, such as idle or irresponsible individuals, slavery was the preferred option. Slavery therefore, was given moral= and ethical validation (Morgan 80). In supporting these morals, fear existed among land-owners that the idle would become a burden to society – thus enslaving property owners into a cy= cle of permanent support to the peasants.

While publ= icly, slavery was established as an ethical and moral institution, personally many like Thomas Jefferson held doubts. Arendt alludes to slavery as the “primordial crime” for which the Republic was founded, and that Jefferson “trembled when {he} thought that God is just” believing their s= in would forever curse the American nation (Arendt 66). Despite inconsistencies in the rhe= toric of the Revolution, Jefferson and others found both personal and public justification in the policy. =

Morgan exp= lains the fear many had that the sudden rush of landless peasants could disrupt i= nto sporadic chaos as seen in Europe and the= early Virginian colonies. As mentio= ned earlier, the English sent a mass of rejects to the N= ew World as primarily a means to control their own population problem. Jefferson feared the release of slaves could present a similar “sore on the body politic” (Morgan 82). C= haos could also have affected the economic setting of the New W= orld. The position of America relied upon slave labor working on tobacco fields, tobacco which would ship to Europe. With this in mind, Morgan conclude= s that “it may be said that America bought their independence with slave labor” (Morgan 78).

On the mic= ro-level, most of the founders including Washington, Madison, and Jefferson relied up= on slaves on their own plantations. The value of his slaves kept Jefferson out of debt upon his death as they were sold to cover his expenses. Debt was something Jefferson feared and despised his entire life, even if he partook in it often. Like today, mobility of capital and goods demanded the willingness of individuals and businesses to go into debt. = Jefferson claimed it “limited his freedom of action” since the demands of= a republican government “required a body of free, independent, property-owning citizens” (Morgan 78-79). Jefferson concluded that any nation made up of debtors was one that was “ripe f= or tyranny” (Morgan 79).

We can see= how the founders could find justification for the perpetuation of slavery. Slavery was economically efficient, cheap, and socially acceptable. After it suited their individual economic interests, it could than be justified t= o fit the best interest of the nation, even if it faced a rhetorical and ethical paradox. Jefferson and the fo= unders were more inclined to keep the chains intact, for to loosen the reigns of power, would force the nation to face the social question of poverty and ma= ss deprivation – a problem that would inevitably place him and his natio= n in a state of dependency.

At the sam= e time, the founders were attempting to break away from the reigns of Great Britain. After arriving in America= as the third estate, colonialists were able to break the chains of necessity and experience freedom far outside the controls of government. They felt as if they had re-entere= d the state of nature, where man was free to achieve whatever he desired without oppressive forces preventing him. In England, the third estate had complete equality of conditions, but that equality prevented individuals from distinguishing themselves or forging a path whol= ly absent from the reigns of the social structure. In America however, one could se= t out as a pioneer, own a piece of land, or become a laborer – a choice was available. Now that they were= in America, monarchial rule loomed as a threat to their state of freedom and personal power.

What links= the two pieces is man’s desire to be free.&n= bsp; But this freedom is dependent itself on power and control. The American Revolution replaced t= he historical structure of authority and implanted it with something new. This new form of governing was dep= endent though upon the enslavement of a class that would bear the burdens of pover= ty and desolation. In order for = one group to emancipate itself from the necessity of life, they had to violently enforce their power and control on those who had none. Slaves were chained to the outpost= of America’s liberty, forced to view it, but never to touch it.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. = On Revolution. Viking Press,= NY 1965.

Morgan, Edmund S.&nbs= p; The Challenge of the American Revolution. WW Norton & Co.

1978.

= ;