"The Charbor Chronicles": Restraint Was the True Wisdom & Gift of the American Revolution

Altered picture that I took of the Benjamin Franklin Memorial in Philadelphia some years ago.

Below is a slightly revised version of a blog entry that I originally posted well over a decade ago. Here is the link to the original, unaltered blog entry from July of 2012:

Restraint was the Wisdom of the American Revolution

https://charbor74.blogspot.com/2012/07/restraint-was-wisdom-of-american.html

It seems to me that much of the greatness and wisdom of the American Revolution, which was truly one of the shining moments in American history, can be attributed to recognizing the wisdom of restraint.

Restraint, that is, on many levels:

Restraint from the British monarchy's seeming ability to exercise control over the colonies at will, including posting British troops in the homes of the colonists. -

Restraint by insisting on no taxation without representation, and that the colonies should be able to have a say in their own affairs, instead of simply being dictated the terms by a superpower of it's day, three thousand miles away on the other side of an ocean. -

Restraint in government, as the Constitution assured that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be attempted, at least, and was in theory a better idea than a non-elected monarchy. This notion that a people should rule itself had been tried before, but never on such a scale, and not in such times. It was still merely an experiment, and thus, as such, kind of a new idea at the time.

Restraint in that civil liberties were to be recognized and protected against a potentially tyrannical government, or even against the possibility of a tyrannical and intolerant majority of people. These rights seem modest by modern day standards, but they nonetheless existed at the time, and grew and grew in time, becoming ever more expansive and including more and more Americans. Privileges should not be reserved for a tiny minority, they believed - a lesson that we perhaps have forgotten over time. -

Restraint for a leader of a nation. Some wanted George Washington to be crowned king, but he rejected this, not wanting full, virtual dictatorial powers, and opting instead for a more limited role as leader when he as elected America's first President. Compare this to the revolutionary movements in France and in South America, both of which ended in dictatorships of sorts, under Napoleon in France, and Bolivar in South America.

There was also the restraint of simply putting a limit on limitations themselves. That is to say, on a small group of people being empowered to identify who were true "Americans", or at least, who could vote in America.

I know, I know, the American Revolution and the seminal documents that sprang from it - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - were still quite limited afterwards, yes. No arguments there.

However, the beginning of the expansion of rights, of civil liberties, if you will, really began with the ideas of the American Revolution and it's aftermath, which saw the implementation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These documents may have been flawed on some level by modern standards, yet they remain on the books even to the present day. That would suggest that they had staying power for a reason, and that reason was the possibility of future inclusion of more and more people. This was possible because the emphasis on those documents was on restraint, that nobody should be able to impose their will enough on others to deny them their liberties, their rights.

The American Revolution happened for a reason. It did not go as far as the French Revolution did, which did not go unnoticed by those who participated back then, nor to historians since. It was considerably less violent, and ended with a democracy trying to gain a stable foothold, rather than a superpower at the time ending the political turmoil with a dictatorship (Napoleon). This is to it's credit, and the main thing that can be admired about it is, indeed, not just the notion of restrain, or paying lip service to restraint, but acting on it, as well.

There is much discussion these days about what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, what their vision for the nation was, and what their positions might be on many of the dominant issues in the present era. In the process, many claim the wisdom of the Founding Fathers to back up their own views, and sometimes, they do so quite erroneously – such as Sarah Palin claiming that religions was the cornerstone that the Founding Fathers established the American republic with.

With all of the talk about what the Founding Fathers really wanted or intended, it was ultimately their moderate stances that allowed the great democratic experiment to be tried and to thrive, even. It expanded and become inclusive of far more people, ultimately, than it did originally during the days of the Founding Fathers themselves, and this seems like it was designed to be so. That was the true greatness of the Founding Fathers, and why we still tend to look to them for guidance in our present era. They displayed some great prominence with legendary restraint, and what has been lost since is that sense of restraint, as fiery political idealogues push their absolutist agendas, having lost any sense of compromise. The Founding Fathers were prominent and accomplished men of their time, and their concern was in helping to establish a floundering little republic that hugged the Atlantic Coast, and was looking to gain credibility. But the modern day politicians have been born into a superpower nation that has lost all sense of restraint, and this has given the population overall a false sense of entitlement and immunity. It is fitting, on many levels, that politicians today would be a reflection of the extremity of this age, and would be more selfish and transparently place what is in their own best interests ahead of what is best for the country.

Back then, the country came first above all. Now, a lot of things seem to come before the country, including individual ambitions (as already stated), as well as political parties (the major two, in particular), corporations, etc..

What is different? What has been lost? I would put forth that the most valuable thing that we lost is any sense of restraint, nationally and individually. There is something to be said for that, and for the restraint that they put not only on other institutions, including the British monarchy and the American government, but also on themselves. We could use a little bit of that apparent wisdom of restraint ourselves these days, towards institutions for sure, as well as individually, in our own personal lives. We could certainly do worse than learn from their example.