The Lessons of April 19th 1775

[jmdavis]

What are the lessons that you take away from April 19th, 1775? The answers can be both practical and philosophic.

For me the practical side is an example of unconventional warfare and the value of small unit tactics. The philosophic lesson is that relationships mean something. People who know and trust each other, who have a common goal and who are committed to that goal succeed.  The converse is also true as evidenced on the British side that day.

[ATM]

Maintaining the truly moral high ground in any struggle may well seem a penalty at the onset, but it is of inestimable value to the cause in the long run.

[jmdavis]

Crickets...

[jrturbo]

My takeaway from the events of 18-19 April, 1775 is actually an increased interest in what happened leading up to the events of those days.  For 150 years prior to those events, the Colonists had governed themselves, although under the umbrella of the English Crown.  The E. C. wanted to have "someplace" to send the undesirables and malcontents that cluttered up their idea of civilized society.  Then when they had to get involved with the colonists they wanted them to pay for it.  (even though it was the E.C.'s idea to keep this "someplace" for their undesirables) 


The colonists viewed themselves as both British and Colonist (American).  What on earth would push men so far as to take up arms against their own countrymen?  How horrible must have that process been?  I have been reading about what lead up to that decision.


I am, so far, disappointed in what I have found.


We, as a nation, have consistently hired the wealthy to tend to our affairs.  I believe that this is due to the necessity of our working class to spend the bulk of our time working.  The wealthy have the means to appropriate the time to this kind of administrative duties. 


What kind of environment can this arrangement  propagate?  Has anything changed in almost 400 years?  Has our experiment been proven or disproved?   Is it time for a different experiment now that we have a control?  Or should we add more variables, take away some variables? 


Unfortunately my takeaway is just more questions...... I am afraid that I cannot just look at 1774(ish) and later.  I believe that much of the context is missed If I focus on one climactic set of events.

[FiremanBob]

Turbo, if the reference to "hiring the wealthy" addresses today's political class demographic, I would have to disagree. And over the years, some of the best politicians have been men of modest means: Sam Adams, Lincoln, Coolidge, Truman. And some of the worst, whom I will not name lest this seem partisan. The modern issue is not so much that politicians come into power after achieving wealth, but that they abuse their government positions to amass it. This was not so easy eighty years ago, when the federal government was smaller and adhered mostly within the limits of its constitutional powers.

Mike's question has had me thinking of a number of things over the past week. Here are a couple of incomplete ideas:

1. Gaining intellectual and emotional commitment across a large segment of society is critical to a political movement. As John Adams said, the revolution was won before April, 1775, in the hearts and minds of Americans. I just finished reading the TH Breen book, "American Insurgents, American Patriots" which details how widespread the spirit of liberty and the opinion that our British rulers were bent on destroying it, actually were in the general population. When, after the Powder Raid of 9/1/74, the false rumor spread throughout New England that the British were destroying Boston, some 30,000 men took up arms and marched on the city, with no central organizing power whatsoever.

Led largely by the brilliant strategy of Sam Adams, we worked quickly in the twelve months after the Tea Party to organize the Committees of Correspondence, the first Continental Congress, and the Association (non-importation agreement enforced by local committees) which unified public opinion throughout the colonies and sowed the seeds of republican government and an American national identity. Most ordinary Americans had already concluded before 1775 that revolt and independence were inevitable.

2. The fog of war and random chance have enormous influence on the outcome. The men of the Alarm List intercepted the army's supply wagon, depriving the Redcoats of supplies and ammunition. The delays of the initial landing in Cambridge gave the militias time to organize an effective force by the time the Redcoats arrived in Concord. In perhaps the greatest counterfactual what-if, perhaps if the Americans had known how large their force really was they could have pressed the advantage and captured Percy's entire army before they reached Charlestown.

3. A good spy network is also critical to anticipate and prepare for the enemy's movements. Revere had the express rider network organized and ready for April 18th, but good information was critical to activating it in time to get the militia on scene. Even so, imagine if there had been not a few hundred, but a few thousand Americans blocking the road from Lexington to Concord...the day would have been much different. Good intelligence was also critical to the successful preemptive defense against the Powder Alarms in Portsmouth and Salem during the winter of 74-75.

4. Controlling the information war is also critical to success. The successful broadcast of the American version of the Battles of Lexington and Concord to all the colonies strengthened the unity of the colonies and ensured that Massachusetts would not be isolated as a rogue state, which is how the British wanted to portray it.

[Sly223]

I have some simple yet deep thoughts.
We were creating an Identity, now we are destroying it!
We were people of God therefor of Godly powers.
We loved God and he provided divine intervention.
Amerigo Franco "America is great because she is good if she ceases to be good she will too cease to be great"(close)
They worked so hard to create we work so hard at not working.
No matter how much you do it pales in comparison to what they did.
Look what they did.What have you done?
They did more with less, we do less with more!

[ItsanSKS]

What lessons do the events of April 19th, 1775 teach us?

You can gauge how strongly a people believe in Liberty, by counting the numbers who would defend it with their lives.  Some founding father said something similar to that, I think. 

I believe that the general populace of the American Colonies had a better understanding of Liberty than we do today, primarily because they were a self-sufficient lot. 

To my mind, self-sufficiency begets Liberty, dependency begets slavery.  Or, "A society of sheep begets a government of wolves", and the American Colonists were no sheep.

The American Colonists who first moved to the New World found very quickly the truth of that age-old adage: "a man who does not work, does not eat".  They  founded their society upon the principals of Self-Governance- not in the political meaning, which is how we tend to view that phrase today, but in the practical way- in that a man who governs his own actions according to his own conscience has no need of a governor. 

This fundamental ideal continued through to the people of 1775, who believed in self-governance because they lived that way for over 150 years, and could point to the benefits of that ordering of society all around them; the contrast between European and American lives and living conditions was stark, indeed.  The actions of the few colonial political entities that existed pre-1775 were limited, not by artificial/imaginary 'constitutional constraints', but simply because the people had no need for governmental interference/control in their daily lives, and the people themselves would not abide such an unwarranted intrusion, no matter how slight, or how well-intentioned- the people governed themselves, in the  truest meaning of the phrase.

It is this meaning and understanding that I believe Captain Levi Preston of the Danvers Militia was speaking to when he responded to the question of why he fought the Kings men with "We had always governed ourselves; they didn't mean we should".   

If we want to return to the ideal of Liberty, we must embrace self-sufficiency, with all the hardships that it brings, and teach others to do the same. 


-ItsanSKS

[FiremanBob]

Good points. One other thought drawn from ItsanSKS's post is that the Americans of 1775 had strong communities. Their communications networks were very efficient, because they were personal, and everyone clearly understood the value of participating in their community and the larger society. Today people are almost completely isolated from each other, even though they live closer together and have more leisure time to socialize than the early Americans did. They "communicate" in unidirectional broadcast from centralized sources of mass media and government, but hardly ever across those lines with each other.

Tocqueville warned against this and prophesied exactly how it turned out, in "Democracy in America".

[Fred]

Their communications networks were very efficient, because they were personal...Today people are almost completely isolated from each other, even though they live closer together...

    Hmmm, this suggests each of us should adopt the strong imperative that "All Appleseeding begins in the home!" Home first, then neighborhood, then friends, then co-workers, etc.

    We need to rebuild the network, and, in rebuilding the network, in the process rebuilt that culture of liberty which we so badly need.

    It all starts in the home, and the neighborhood, face-to-face, like FiremanBob points out.

    Building "a nation of riflemen", one rifleman at a time. Never fast enough, but steady, and sure...

    Create your own local "chapter" of Appleseed, surround yourself with Americans awake to their heritage and a love of liberty, understanding what we need once again to be individuals about whom it can be said, "they know what they are about".

    Be selfish, and take advantage of the fact that a neighborhood of riflemen, a neighborhood of liberty-loving Americans - well, it's got to be one of the best neighborhoods on the planet!

    And, maybe best of all, YOU can be the one who made it happen!

[jrturbo]

There will always be exceptions, however, for the most part Americans (including the colonists) have "hired" those with the financial means to attend to our municipal affairs.  By "hired" I mean appointed, elected, succeeded, etc.  If you look at the histories of these men of modest means mentioned by FiremanBob, most (not all) were college educated.  That cost something.  Also, these men had the time to allocate to their education and political aspirations, which cost something. Many had relatives who were politically involved.  These kind of contacts often come with access to wealth. Please understand that I have no problem with wealth.  As ItsanSKS says "a man who does not work, does not eat" is a principal I believe in.  I don't even have a problem paying someone to attend to my affairs when necessary.  I do have a problem (as do you I see) with the mismanagement of that responsibility.
[/size]
This problem HAS been going on for about 400 years in America. Pre Revolution, the regional governance was staffed by Colonials or British Nationals who were appointed to serve as the English Crown's representatives in their respective districts.  These appointments were given to those who could afford to attend to the task.  If the appointment came from the colonists, they would not choose a person who lived hand-to-mouth. (That is not to say these folks were poor or even destitute)  A man who had to spend most of his waking time providing for his family is respectable, but may not be able to afford the time to devote to such municipal administrative tasks.  If the E.C. appointed someone, likely they had personal means or were supplied by other means of wealth.  Yes, these folks were wealthy.  We as contemporary Americans are wealthy by most global standards. I don't consider myself wealthy, but I cannot remember the last time I "needed" anything.  I have not gone without due to lack of financial means.  EVER. 

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."  (Lord Acton)  They knew this even then.  There had been thousands of years of proof. 

Our Founding Fathers put a system in place to attempt to oppose this kind of thing... as an experiment.  Not a theoretical experiment, but a practical experiment.  As with any experiment, the controls must be maintained and they weren't.

Who is to blame?   I am...  I didn't do enough to assure that we all stayed within the parameters of the outline.  I didn't do enough to keep contamination from polluting the elements that make up the experiment. 

Well... I suspect that jmdavis didn't really want this kind of discussion.  (or guilt trip)  So I will continue to research the past so I will not repeat mistakes that have been perpetrated in the past.  I will continue to work on correcting the intended course of the experiment in which Appleseed seems to be a good fit for my abilities.  I will continue to encourage those around me to do likewise.  I will continue to look at things from a perspective that is as "all encompassing" as I can possibly stand and carry on

[jmdavis]

Todd,

It's an open ended question. So your kind of discussion is fine, as is that of everyone else. I was focusing more on the lessons of April 19 specifically, as opposed to those of the Revolutionary war as a whole or politics as a whole. But I don't think that there are any wrong answers, at least not if they are honest.

[PHenry]

Add a lust for Liberty that burns to marksmanship and what do you get?

You get a clear and present threat to tyranny or invasion.
If you are effective and stay the course, you might get a generation or two of Liberty.