Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey everybody. This is Taylor from the Total Soccer show. And this episode is brought to you by Hotels.com the Summer of Soccer is right around the corner. And if you aren't using hotels.com to book the experience of a lifetime, it's worth asking why? As a member, you save up to 20% on hundreds of thousands of hotels around the world and earn rewards on every single stay. Which means the trips you're taking now help pay for the ones you're already dreaming about. So whether you're following your team across North America this summer or or planning a well earned escape after being glued to football for weeks on end, make sure you book on hotels.com and start earning rewards. Because when it comes to hotels, it's all in the name.
- [00:40]
B
Hotels.com on the 4th of July, 1776, 56 men put their names to a document that would change the course of world history. Its opening lines announced not merely a rebellion against Britain, but but a new vision of politics and human rights. It begins, we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- [01:14]
C
Words so powerful they are still being discussed, debated, contested, in some cases violently over 250 years later. But here's the thing. The men who wrote those words didn't entirely believe them themselves.
- [01:31]
B
So today we're going to look at the Declaration of Independence itself. Who actually wrote it, what it actually meant, and what was conveniently left out.
- [01:39]
C
Thomas Jefferson, who coined that iconic phrase, we hold these truths to be self evident. And the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Himself owned over 180 enslaved people when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock was, by British customs officials own description, running one of the largest criminal smuggling operations in the colonies.
- [02:04]
B
Famous phrase, all men are created equal misses out a few parts of the population too. It doesn't mention women, it doesn't mention indigenous peoples, and it absolutely doesn't mention one of the five Americans at that time who were enslaved.
- [02:17]
C
So was the Declaration a a noble statement of universal human rights that just accidentally left a few people out? Or was it one of the most successful and cynical rebranding exercises in political history?
- [02:34]
B
Hello and welcome to a new episode of Legacy. I'm Peter Frankopone. I'm AFWA Hash and this is Legacy, the show that explores the lives, events and ideas that have shaped our world and asks whether they have the reputations that they truly deserve.
- [02:48]
C
This is 1776. The Declaration of Independence the brand.
- [02:58]
B
Thanks for joining us on Legacy today. To support the show, Sign up to
- [03:02]
C
Legacy plus you can enjoy early access, fewer ads, Q&As and bonus content like when we spoke with Professor Helen Thompson about the conflict in Iran or when we caught up with surgeons Dr. Minyan Grey and Dr. Isoso Omarobe to go go deeper into the world of facelifts. If you enjoy listening to us and if you want to support this show, please sign up and subscribe some of
- [03:26]
B
our best material and you can find it at Sign up at Legacy supportingcast FM so afraid Last time we looked at how pressure was building up in the standoff between elites in North America and Britain. Take us through what's happening now as we begin the countdown to the 4th of July 1776.
- [03:41]
C
Well, by 1775 we're beginning to see what you could describe as irreconcilable differences between Britain and the and I say that because when they started out this dispute, there were many hopes on both sides that they could still reach some kind of agreement. But by the start of 1775, the British government is convinced that imperial authority is collapsing altogether in the colonies and especially in Massachusetts. Colonial assemblies there are defying Parliament, customs officials being intimidated, tea has been destroyed in Boston Harbour and and militias are openly drilling. From London's perspective, this is a lot less like a protest and more like a dangerous rebellion. And on the colonist side, they are becoming convinced that Britain intends to permanently strip them of what they regarded as the traditional and existential liberties of English subjects, their very status as descendants of the Enlightenment and inheritors of the rights of man.
- [04:42]
B
And as we talked about last time, the crisis partly escalates because neither side understand each other and they don't realize how far the other one is going to go. So most Americans are not really interested in thinking about independence. That's an act of betrayal towards their core beliefs. And most politicians in Britain certainly don't want another major war because it's expensive and it's risky. But mistrust and fear and miscalculation push events beyond compromise. So in 1775, things turn from standoffs to fighting. And that begins when British authorities try to seize weapons and gunpowder from colonial militias because they're worried that there's going to be a kickoff. And that's one of the reasons that by 250 years later, Americans are so concerned about any restrictions on their right to bear arms and the the importance of being able to defend yourself because of the fear that you're going to have your independence taken away. It left such a deep legacy and such a deep imprint. The kind of forming of local militias, you know, that you can still see those in some states where they are mainly men, but not only popping around in guerrilla outfits, guerrilla outfits, rather gorilla outfits, trying to, you know, have arm themselves to the teeth. And so that's one of the reasons why Americans feel, some Americans feel so important of the right to bear arms, that the worry that they're going to be told what to do by governments they don't trust. And you could see in some states, you know, at weekends and on day to day, militias sort of gathering together mainly men not only, but feeling that they have the need to be able to protect themselves against a government that's going to come after them.
- [06:11]
C
I would argue on an even greater scale, Peter, that the current US requirement that men aged 18 to 25 are legally required to register for the draft and if failing to do so carries criminal penalties, that is the current requirement in the United States. And I know this because I have American friends who are with boys who are turning 18 who genuinely worry that this requirement, which I think for most of their lives seemed rather abstract, but right now they think could actually lead to their sons being drafted, is also a legacy of this culture. And actually there are conversations at the moment about making that law automatic so that you no longer register for the draft. You are automatically registered. At the moment it relies on people registering themselves, but it is an offense to fail to do so. So there is deeply embedded into the American psyche this stuff idea that young men might have to serve, that the draft is part of their culture in history, and that the need for militias to be available, I think goes all the way back to this founding moment of needing to fight against the British in 1775.
- [07:16]
B
Well, I think you could see that. So after the coercive acts and the rising tensions in Boston, patriot groups begin to stockpile muskets and cannon and powder and ammunition in towns like Concord, Massachusetts. And that spooks the Brits. So General Thomas Gage is given orders in April 1775 to restore control and to prevent any risk of armed rebellion. So on the 18th of 19th of April 1775, I beg your pardon, British troops begin to march towards Concord to confiscate military supplies, and they encounter an armed militia at Lexington. Nobody knows who fired first. It becomes known as the shot herd around the world because it's the kind of starting point of, I guess, the sequence of events that leads to the most important geopolitical moment. Since Columbus crossed the Atlantic, which is the start of the point where independence, that bandwagon which has been brewing, suddenly cuts loose of its. Its shackle, because once blood has been spilled, events rapidly escalate into warfare.
- [08:11]
C
Until that point, even now that there's arming taking place and militias forming, there'd still been this reluctance on both sides to actually pick up arms and inflict violence on the other. These are still essentially all men who, on one level, share the same ideas. Loyalty to the British crown, pride in being part of the empire. But this is the moment where the positions become literally weaponized and entrenched. And as violence starts, it begins to escalate. So now local militias start raiding British arsenals and powder stores. During 1775, captured British weapons become important. Merchants and smugglers are importing gunpowder illegally through Atlantic trade networks, especially via the Caribbean. And once the war widens, foreign assistance becomes crucial. And this is where France comes in. France in particular, is supplying arms covertly from 1776, even before it enters the war directly in 1778, to great expense, as we'll later discuss.
- [09:07]
B
And if that hadn't happened, then it would have been a struggle, because the Continental army is always finding it difficult to get hold of muskets and cannon and uniform and shoes and ammunition. And you can have all the best will in the world, but if you can't actually fight on the battlefield and your odds decrease. So one of the reasons why the war drags on so long is that the ability to fight conventional battles means that the Americans keep having to move out of position because they don't have the ability to fight. But what we've said a few times in these episodes is one of the important things to understand, and we keep on reminding, is how British or English most Americans felt that they were, they didn't want to be fighting for independence. Colonists repeatedly refer to the rights of Englishmen. They think they're more English than the English and that they think that they're being prevented by having their rights of being British citizens, of trial by jury, of having assemblies, having protection from arbitrary taxation and limits on executive power. And so many blame parliament rather than King George. So the olive branch petition is sent by colonists in 1775, in July still describe Americans as your majesty's faithful subjects. So it's a very confused a set of what it is that the target is and who's actually being blamed for what the colonists want. And, of course, we should remind ourselves that not all colonists have the same opinions, too.
- [10:27]
C
But a few things begin to happen, which really increase the divide. And many of those involve indigenous people and enslaved African Americans. And tactics start to be used that are on both sides considered beyond the pale so that now the stakes are become even higher. And we'll see how that plays out after the break.
- [10:48]
B
Hi, this is Ben Green from the Athletic fc. The podcast you're about to listen to is brought to you by Hotels.com as a Hotels.com member, you save up to 20% on hundreds of thousands of hotels and earn rewards on every single stay. Which means the trips you're taking now help pay for the ones you're already dreaming about. And unlike some other places, there are no blackout updates. So when you want to travel, your rewards are ready to go. So the next time you're planning a work trip or a getaway, make sure to book it at hotels.com and start earning rewards. Hotels.com it's all in the name
- [11:23]
A
one
- [11:23]
B
day.com AI agents took over my work and I absolutely love it. Chasing deadlines, writing status reports, updating stakeholders.
- [11:31]
A
Agents handle the daily grind. Now I stay in the loop only when admin matters. Create your own AI agent in minutes on Monday.com.
- [11:44]
B
So of the colonial population Afwa, about 15, maybe 20% actively support the patriot calls, from what we can tell. And a substantial minority remains loyal to Britain. These people become known as Loyalists or Tories. And Tories gets used as a sort of label of. Of as an offensive label to describe people who are usually associated with being loyal to the monarch, who believe in the Church of England, who believe in social order. And it's used as insult by patriots to imply that the Loyalists were defenders of royal authority and enemies of liberty.
- [12:17]
C
As the Patriot cause gains ground, they become incredibly suspicious of many of those ideas. The Church of England is seen as a threat to religious freedom. Loyalty to the King is seen as a threat to this burgeoning idea of American revolution. Self governance, representation with taxation. And so people who support the Loyalist cause, which includes officials, clergy, some wealthy merchants, become fearful for their own safety and they start to flee. Many of them flee eventually to Canada, to the Caribbean, an ironic place to flee for pursuing ideals of liberty, or to Britain itself. And so you're seeing the peeling off of people who don't conform to what is becoming more cohesive as a revolutionary cause.
- [13:01]
B
What about indigenous peoples? Afra, tell me about the. What we know about peoples who were native to North America and how they sided and saw these ideas of the fight for liberty and the break for Britain.
- [13:11]
C
This is something we see across the imperial world, that indigenous people often face a dilemma because they are watching confrontations between different groups, essentially of white colonists, all of whom seek to deprive them of their rights. And they have to choose which side is going to represent the lesser evil. And essentially. And many indigenous nations in this war actually think that Britain offers them a better chance of what they want. Their priorities are to limit colonial expansion into indigenous lands. And after the Seven Years War, they saw Britain do that. And it's actually one of the things that aggravated the colonists. Britain tried to place a limit on expansion into the Ohio Valley, this westward expansion that men like George Washington desperately wanted to take more land, to expand itself into what they saw as this. This wilderness for the taking. Indigenous groups are looking for any protection that will prevent white expansion and the theft of their land. And as history turns out, they were absolutely spot on in that fear. So they're, in some cases, siding with the British. On the other hand, there are existing relationships between some indigenous groups and the French, and the French are now on the revolutionary side. So there's a real difference, I think, between the Native American and the African American experience here, because African Americans are from foundational to the economy that the colonists want to run after independence. And we'll hear more about that. But Native Americans are essentially in the way for both sides. They're not fundamental to their vision, but they are seen as a group that can be exploited to assist militarily and serve a cause. And so they are having to side in whichever way they can. So the Hordinosaunee confederacy, the Cherokee, and the Shawnee and Creek communities are. Are all examples of groups that side with Britain. And one of the most prominent indigenous leaders allied with Britain is the Mohawk diplomat and military leader Thayendanega, or also known by the British as Joseph Brandt. But we should also talk about enslaved Africans because they play a huge role in the competing visions for the future of the colonies. And they are also getting drawn into this war in a very, very direct way. So in 1775, Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, does what the American colonists regard as absolutely beyond the pale. He offers freedom to enslaved people if they will rebel against their slave masters and join on the British side. Now, you can imagine to enslave people for whom this is a war between different white groups, all of whom have enslaved them. The offer of freedom is a trump card. And they flock in in their thousands to join the British side. And it really speaks to the heart of the contradiction in this revolution because the colonists demanding Liberty are outraged that the British would dare to free their enslaved people. They regard this as a deprivation of their property. They also regard it as weaponizing something that has no place in this war between the civilized white men and the specter of formerly enslaved people fighting against them. And in the case of George Washington, for example, someone that he actually personally enslaved and his family property joins the British side in the Revolution, and that becomes very personal and a source of great grievance to the colonists.
- [16:34]
B
So I think, you know, we did our live show, after which I hope you'll all get a chance to listen to. You know, we talked about what an enormous day of celebration the 4th of July is in the United States. You know, the whole country shuts down and everybody comes together. And the story of the Fourth of July, apart from about liberty, is about unity. It's about, this was good for all of the American people. But as we've been talking about, there are so many conflicting, different views amongst the colonists, the indigenous peoples, the enslaved peoples, the different opinions, the different fears, the different hopes. It's absolutely dissipated and very, very diverse around what's happening and how and why and what sort of focuses. Lots of the mind is when open warfare breaks out at the battles of Lexington and then Concord, and then British troops under General Gage march from Boston to seize colonial supplies. And things just get worse and worse and worse at that point. So by the time the British return from having had their first battles of the war, they've had more than 270 casualties. And then news starts to spread around the colonies, the American colonies, rather. The British, are using force against American colonists. And within days, thousands of militia surround Boston, effectively putting British troops under siege. Even then, colonists are still hoping for reconciliation rather than for independence. But things change at the Battle of Bunker Hill Afwa in June 1775.
- [17:51]
C
Although that's technically a British victory, that battle is extraordinarily costly. British forces suffer more than a thousand casualties, far more than any confrontation during this war to that point, while their colonial positions are attacked overlooking Boston. And these losses stun commanders who had expected their poorly trained American militia to collapse quickly, they begin to realise they really do stand a chance against the professional British troops. And on the British side, they begin to realise with a sinking heart that this conflict is going to be far harder and far more expensive than anticipated. And it's not just the military events, people. I think what's interesting about this war is how much press, narratives and popular imagination play a role in this fight. And a really key figure in that is Thomas Paine.
- [18:42]
B
Yeah. So in January 1776, Thomas Paine publishes a pamphlet called Common Sense. And there he starts to argue openly and directly for complete independence. Apart from the fact it's written in accessible language and the fact that it is with well timed, it becomes unbelievably popular. It sells in vast Numbers, if not 150,000 copies are sold within months. And Common Sense, it's perfectly judged. It attacks monarchy as being corrupt and absurd, paid, dismisses heredity, kingship as the most prosperous invention the devil ever set foot for, the promotion of idolatry, which is a pretty aggressive statement about kingship generally, but about King George III in particular, he argues that the colonies have got no future within the British Empire and, and urges them to seize the opportunity to create a new republic. That thing you've mentioned, Alfred, so often about how important those classical models are, the way that people know about the past, what they're trying to achieve, to move away from the Roman Empire back to the Roman Republic. And the idea that independence has once been conceived as being completely impossible and too radical, suddenly becomes the kind of the main product on offer to all the ordinary colonists.
- [19:52]
C
Okay, here's a thought. Do you think we could liken Thomas Paine's intervention to Iran's Lego videos? Because what those Lego videos, and I was speaking as there's this conflict between the US and Israel and Iran and Iran, which is, I think it's fair to say most countries outside that region know quite little about Iran. You know, it's been quite closed. People haven't been able to travel there, international journalists haven't been able to visit easily. And Iran, which everybody knows has been abusing its people's rights and, you know, a repressive state in so many ways, has been publishing these videos that depict the hypocrisy and malfeasance of America. And it's just so effective. It's Lego figures, they set it to music like hip hop or country. They're kind of weaponizing American culture against itself. And they're reaching really young audiences who are very easily able to grasp what are, in spite of all of the complexities about Iran and the wrongdoing on the Iranian side, really ring true in terms of also the wrongdoing and hypocrisy of America. And it's just that kind of ability to capture whatever the media of the time is in a way that's very accessible, that's viral, that really speaks to people's emotions rather than necessarily their intellectual pedigree. And you know, the colonists, as we've been saying, have been reading and imbibing the works of Plato and Catullus and Virgil, all these ancient writers. But most people in the colonies haven't been reading the classics. They are not able to necessarily dive into the underlying ideological writings for these revolutionary ideas. But when they read Thomas Paine, they can immediately grasp the message.
- [21:37]
B
The difference about those Lego videos, afraid, is that you don't get to see them if you're in a role because you're restricted for your Internet access and use. So that's designed to fight a battle outside, outside to generate support. THOMAS PAINE I think it's just the encapsulation of simple ideas. You know, if you have a target you could go for, if you could explain what you're trying to do and you can paint your opposition in extremely bad light, then you could galvanize support. Everybody gathers around to believe in the mission. And so for the American colonists, what is effective is that it creates the idea that they are having to fight a war of existence that they have to step up because otherwise they're going to be devoured by whether it's a tyrant or an empire or they're going to be treated badly or allowed starve to death. Doesn't really matter which of those. But it's the idea that they need to stand up and take part in fighting a clash of civilization, of their survival. And so by the summer of 1776, that momentum, that full separation is required is the only solution that will allow Americans to be free, has gathered full momentum. So on the 7th of June, 1776, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia introduces a motion declaring that these united colonies are of right, ought to be free and independent states. And Congress appoints a drafting committee, including people we've talked about in the Founding Fathers episodes, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. And on the 4th of July, here we go, the drum roll. Congress approves the United States Declaration of Independence. And as we've talked about, it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, but with a committee of editors too. And 56 delegates eventually signed the document, although not actually on the 4th of July. But tell me about our friend John Hancock, Afraid, the great smuggler, because he makes sure that his name is written big on the piece of paper.
- [23:25]
C
Well, he understands branding because he plays a relatively minor role in the drafting and ratification of the Declaration of Independence. But he signs his name so prominently that it really stands out and it actually laid to the cast becomes slang in America for signature because John Hancock is the signature that jumps out if you look at the physical document. And those who signed were not just putting their names to something they thought was a good idea, but it was a relatively high stakes endeavour. I mean, from the British perspective, this was an act of treason that is a crime that was punishable by death at the time. And many of these men actually risked and indeed did lose property, wealth or family members during the war that followed. So much as I think we're very correct to critique how genuine the intentions and how deeply implemented the ideals behind the Declaration of Liberty were, it's also true that these were men who were willing to put their real life lives on the line for this. They were investing in this high stakes situation because they at this point know that independence from Britain is really the only way forward that they can accept.
- [24:37]
B
But like you say, afwed the high stakes. I think it's easy to forget that, you know, that with the efficiency, capability, training and resources of the British empire, you'd think 99 times out of 100 that the British would squash the rebellion and would hunt down all of the founding fathers and signatories and brings justice. But that doesn't happen. But what's interesting from a point of view, I think, of political philosophy is that Jefferson's opening line, the Declaration of Independence as a who transforms a colonial rebellion into a universal political statement, that again as we talk about in the live show, has implications that connect to the French Revolution, to Russian Revolution, to thinking in the 19th century too, and 20th centuries has such an important legacy. But what had begun just a year or two earlier as a dispute over taxation and constitutional rights evolves itself into revolutionary claim about liberty, about sovereignty and about the nature of political power. And again, as we talk about in the show, you know, it's if there's a kind of kitchen sink element to it where, where they've obviously all sat around the, the table and said, right, who can think of something else that we could blame the King and the British for? And the more that you can throw mud at the wall, the more of it is going to stick. And again, it's worth reminding that the lot of the American colonies was a very prosperous and happy one. People paid lower taxes than people in Britain. There were colonial assemblies that had a lot of autonomy in individual states. They hadn't had mass famine as there had been in Bengal. There hadn't been systematic political terror of leaders being arrested and deported, taken away, no attempt to abolish colonial self government. So for Britain, the complaints just look like a cry of A self indulged, overindulged population who are objecting to the fact that although they're rich, they want to be even richer rather than accepting their place within the great order of things.
- [26:28]
C
It's impressive that a document with this kind of impact was created. I mean, this is still the middle of a war. It's written by Thomas Jefferson, but it's then kind of tinkered endlessly with by the Congress, which is extremely painful for Jefferson. And I'm sure, Peter, that you can relate to the kind of torment of being a writer and having your work edited by committees. Terrible. He had to sit back and, and watch that happen. And at the same time, they're just kind of, as you said, throwing everything they can at it to try and make a case that the King has treated them badly and that they are the oppressed, you know, the, the downtrodden of the earth, which is a bit of a stretch given, as you said, their relative wealth and comfort. But they still create this document that if you just take it on its face, it's so incredibly compelling. Who doesn't want to believe that it's self evident that all humans are created equal and that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a foundational right for every one of us to pursue and it has that purchase on our imaginations. Abraham Lincoln later treats the Declaration of Independence as a moral statement pointing towards universal equality, even though the society that created that document was clearly falling far short of it in real life. So the greatness of the Declaration is not necessarily what the authors were actually doing when they wrote it, but what they were able to articulate and put into words that survived their situation, their emergency, their own failings, which were many and deep and have a lasting impact on the culture. And we'll be looking at more of those questions when we come back after the break.
- [28:04]
A
Hey, everybody. This is Taylor from the Total Soccer show, and this episode is brought to you by Hotels.com the summer of soccer is right around the corner. And if you aren't using hotels.com to book the experience of a lifetime, it's worth asking why, as a member, you save up to 20% on hundreds of thousands of hotels around the world and earn rewards on every single stay. Which means the trips you're taking now help pay for the ones you're already dreaming about. So whether you're following your team across North America this summer or planning a well earned escape after being glued to football for weeks on end, make sure you book on hotels.com and start earning Rewards, because when it comes to hotels, it's all in the name. Hotels dot com.
- [28:51]
B
So let's just very quickly round off the story of what happens after the fourth of July. Well, nothing that is immediately decisive. There's no sort of immediate triumph. Instead, what follows are years of uncertainty, of military confrontation, of near collapse. You know, as we already mentioned, the British Empire is vastly stronger than the colonies, both militarily and financially. The resources of guns, gunpowder, uniforms, and so on are difficult for the colonists and the revolutionaries to get hold of. Soon, the British forces capture New York. Washington's army repeatedly has to retreat, and many expect the rebellion and the revolution to fail. But it does then expand into an international war and into a brutal civil war, too. You have Loyalists fighting alongside British troops, where violence spreads into frontier regions as governance starts to break down, especially in the south and in the west, as we mentioned, indigenous nations are drawn into the conflict, with many, but not all siding with Britain because they fear the expansion. It's only gradually, particularly after the American victory at Saratoga in 1777, that France starts to conclude that the rebellion might succeed. It's been sitting, waiting, watching to see what happens. And the French intervention actually transforms the war. Louis XVI's government gives weapons, money, troops, and, crucially, naval power. And then the Dutch and the Spanish see that the pendulum is swinging against Britain. So they come into which stretches British resources across the Atlantic, the Caribbean, in India, the Mediterranean. And so the tide starts to turn.
- [30:20]
C
There's nothing that serves as a better example of how your enemy's enemy is your friend than the sight of monarchical, imperial France intervening on the side of this revolution for freedom against empire and monarchy. But it is absolutely transformative to have these foreign powers, and especially France, intervening. And it does play a really material role in getting to the Treaty of Paris in 1783, where Britain admits defeat, recognizes the independence of the United States States. It's hard to talk about this in a kind of concise way, though, because none of this is neat. Peter. You know, it's not this moment of triumphant victory where the colonists have won and achieved all of their dreams because victory solves far fewer problems than they'd hoped it would. They emerge heavily indebted, politically fragile, and deeply divided. And it's one thing to have this Declaration of Independence that's hugely inspiring, soaring rhetoric. Now they have to work out how to create a state that actually works and not only works, but addresses their very specific concerns about the kind of government they had versus the kind of government they want. So the Articles of Confederation had created a very weak central government. And as a result, and they want weak central government. This is part of their ethos. But then how do you raise taxes? How do you regulate trade? How do you maintain order? So there's this constant tension between the need to deal with an economic crisis, to reign in inflation, to protect and prevent civil unrest, while also avoiding the very thing they fought a war against, which is this over concentration of executive power and over interference in the daily lives of colonists, men who believe they are entitled to a great degree of freedom. And the result of this is this creation of the American Constitution, which remains one of the most important constitutional documents in the world. And I say this as a former constitutional lawyer, that, you know, you cannot understand constitutional law without a fairly good grasp of the U.S. constitution. And what the U.S. constitution is primarily concerned with doing is actually not really protecting individual rights, although it does attempt in some quite flawed ways, as we'll see, to do that. It's really concerned with constraining the power of the executive. It does not want another king. It does not want somebody who can override the wishes of the people. It wants the executive branch to be the weakest branch of government. And it attempts to create the separation of powers, these checks and balances, many of them ideas that have some kind of resonance in the English system, but are much more strongly codified and well thought out and regulated in this American arrangement.
- [33:08]
B
And you know, the echoes of the 21st century of seeing how some of those things are shifting, where the resistance to a strong federal government, the resistance to a strong autocratic leader who's got no checks and balances, is something that of course has deep echoes of this period too, and the ironies. But I mean, you're right so afraid the 1780s that civil unrest spooks the Founding Fathers. You have the Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts in the late 1780s that convince when you have armed farmers protesting against debt and taxation, that is one of the drivers behind the centralization of authority. And so at the end of the 1780s, George Washington is elected the first president. It's a kind of moment where Those difficult first 13 years have been got through by the American revolutionaries. But the long term meaning of revolution, including slavery, federal power, westward expansion, who counts as being equal, are not just unresolved, they're mainly being unmentioned and unspoken. But it also, the American Revolution and independence dramatically changes global geopolitics because it shatters Britain's first empire. Since the late 17th century, the late 1600s, Britain has built an integrated Atlantic system where the eastern seaboard of the United States, or as it is now, is crucial in the links between West Africa, the Caribbean and India. And the loss of these colonies forces Britain to think and rethink imperial strategy entirely. So more attention towards Asia, and particularly to India, helps accelerate East India Company thinking and also the construction of what Britain should be doing in the 19th century. So the American Revolution doesn't end British imperialism, in fact, it redirects and reinforces it.
- [34:48]
C
It's also important to understand, I think we mentioned in the last episode, that this is a defeat for Britain. It's one that is felt painfully, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the importance of maintaining its other imperial possessions. Remember, Britain came out of the Seven Years War feeling triumphant that it had gained Canada, it had managed to swap other territories with Spain and France, and it is much more concerned with maintaining its plantation economies in islands like Saint Lucia, Antigua, Jamaica and Barbados than it is really with the loss of the American colonies. While they're populous, while they represent this kind of extension of Britishness into North America, they do not earn anything like the kind of establishment central revenue for the British Crown that the slave colonies of the Caribbean do. So this is something that Britain works with, and that's what happens after independence. And what are the other ironies of this post revolutionary settlement?
- [35:46]
B
PETER well, another one I've been doing lots of work on, Trump and his coercive use of tariffs and economic coercion. I mean, one of the great ironies of the American Revolution is that many of the ideas and policies that the colonists get angry about and denounce as being oppressive under British rule, get adopted very enthusiastically by the new United States itself. So, for example, the use of protectionism, of aggressive state intervention once power is in the hands of the new US is something that is one of the main grievances that they had in the first place. Before independence, colonial leaders had bitterly criticised Britain's Navigation act, for example, or customs Enforcement, or restrictions on trade. But almost immediately afterwards, the new United States adopts very similar methods. So the Tariff act of 1789, one of the first significant laws passed under new constitutions, and it's officially designed to raise revenue for the federal government and protect emerging American industries from foreign competition. And Alexander Hamilton, who we talked about too, argues explicitly the United States needs tariffs and subsidies and strong financial institutions to compete. And in his famous 1791 Report on Manufactures, Hamilton calls for active government support to domestic industry. So exactly the sort of state economic management that many revolutionaries had once condemned. So protectionism is the kind of main story of the United states in the 19th century. Tariffs being used in 1812, the 1828 tariffs, the tariff of abominations, the extremely high tariffs and duties put on imported goods. So it's funny that 250 years on we see some of these same themes about the ideas of liberty and freedom, enrichment of key individuals, including let's say in this case, the President and his immediate intimates and golf buddies rather than the Founding Fathers. But those tensions between who actually benefits from the United States? Is it equality for everybody? That's something which you know a lot about Afro in today's world, that the presentation of the US is a land of that's home of the free and lad of the brave. It depends who you are to get those rights.
- [37:46]
C
Well, we have talked a lot about Founding Fathers in the last few episodes, Peter, so I think it's high time we had a chat about who exactly were America's founding mothers. And I have some suggestions as to who fits the bill for that. And we will look at that in the next episode.
- [38:05]
B
Thanks for listening to Legacy.
- [38:07]
C
To dive deeper and support the show, sign up to Legacy. You'll get to enjoy bonus episodes, early access, fewer ads, Q&As and the warm feeling of supporting our very hard but very fun work.
- [38:22]
B
Go to Legacy supportingcast fm and don't forget, you can watch all of our episodes on Spotify and YouTube as well. For everything else, including our substacks and updates on TikTok and Instagram, just check out the show notes or search Legacy Podcast I'm Peter Frankenbern.
- [38:38]
C
I'm Afra Hersh and we'll see you on the next episode of Legacy.
- [38:58]
A
Hey everybody, this is Taylor from the Total Soccer show and this episode is brought to you by Hotels.com the summer of soccer is right around the corner, and if you aren't using hotels.com to book the experience of a lifetime, it's worth asking why? As a member, you save up to 20% on hundreds of thousands of hotels around the world and earn rewards on every single stay. Which means the trips you're taking now help pay for the ones you're already dreaming about. So whether you're following your team across North America this summer or planning a well earned escape after being glued to football for weeks on end, make sure you book on hotels.com and start earning rewards. Because when it comes to hotels, it's all in the name. Hotels dot com.