Whither Independence; C. Carson

Clarence B. Carson WHITHER INDEPENDENCE 1980 A.D.l IT might be more appropriate to hold a memorial service for American in dependence than to celebrate it in the Year of Our Lord 1980 and of our independence 204. There is cer tainly reason for questioning the ex tent of our independence today. In any case, it is surely in order to assess where we seem to be headed on the matter of independence and to call to mind the ideals which called this country into being. The ((Fourth of July," Independence Day, is, of course, a day set aside to mark the anniversary of our independence from England. It. was on that day in 1776 that those oftpe Dr. Carson has written and taught extensively, specializing In American Intellectual history. He has further explored the subject of this essay In several books, Including The American Tradition, The Flight from Reality, The RebIrth of Uberty, and World In the Grip of an Idea.

members of the Second Continental Congress who could and would signed the Declaration of Indepen dence. From the earliest years, how ever it came to mean more than that. It caught up the aspirations of America. The American dream of an empire for liberty took on body in the Fourth of July celebrations, which, before too many years, be came national in scope. The ideal of independence had at least three dimensions from the out set. They were not separate dimen sions but were intertwined with one another. One dimension was na tional independence. A second was the independence of the states. The third was personal independence. All three dimensions were believed to be the necessary condition for individual liberty. 387 388 THE FREEMAN July Almost from the beginning, na tional independence meant much more than removing English politi cal control from America. It meant that, of course, and that was what the Declaration of Independence was about. Beyond that, however, thoughtful Americans were not long in concluding that it would be best to follow a politically independent course toward Europe generally. To that end, provisions should be made to retire the foreign debt, the United States should avoid making al liances which entangled them in European quarrels, and, in general, avoid dependence on foreign gov ernments.

George Washington stated the ideal clearly and directly, yet dip lomatically, in his Farewell Ad dress: The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as pos sible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. He went on to point out that the United States enjoyed the advan tage of distance from Europe and could, by making the effort, gain the necessary respect to have other na tions leave us alone. He recom mended independence strongly: Why forego the advantages of so pecul iar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rival ship, interest, humor, or caprice? He made clear, however, that in recommending independence he was appealing to enduring principles, not simply a favorable set of circum stances: Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, hu manity, and interest. But even our com mercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences ... , constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disin terested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its indepen dence for whatever it may accept under that character. . . . There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.

But this was more than presiden tial rhetoric; it was the cogent statement of what was an American ideal in the nineteenth century. While he was President, Washing ton had to take a stand on American national independence. When war broke out in Europe in the wake of the French Revolution, both France and England tried to involve the United States in it. Washington proclaimed the neutrality of the United States, and this proclama tion was later affirmed by the Con gress. During the Napoleonic Wars other Presidents and Congresses 1980 WHITHERINDEPENDENCE-1980 A.D.? 389 took even stronger action to follow an independent course. There was the Embargo Act of 1807, the Non Intercourse Act of 1809, and Ma con's Bill Number 2, passed in 1810. Finally, when the United States went to war against England in the War of 1812, it did so independent of the other warring powers, or, as President Madison put it in his war message: ~~avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the con test or views of other powers. . . . "1 Indeed, until well into the twentieth century, the United States followed a resolutely independent course in international affairs.

National Independence from Control by Foreign Nations National independence, then, means the independence of the United States government from domination, control, or political in fluence of foreign nations. It carries with it, of course, the freedom of the American people from such domina tion or control. It does not connote any opposition to trade, exchanges, or discourse between the people of the United States and those of other lands nor of the dependencies and interdependencies that may arise from these activities. And it cer tainly does not mean that the gov ernment of the United States is in dependent of the electorate, nor the branches of the government entirely independent of one another, nor that the federal government is inde pendent of the states. The original states were indepen dent of the United States govern ment in that they existed prior to the national government. They were formed before the Articles of Con federation were adopted. They had governments and constitutions of several years standing when the United States Constitution was ratified. They retained most of their independence under the Constitu tion, and when new states came into the union they shared in such inde pendence.

The federal system of government was devised for the purpose mainly of enabling the states to retain their independence. There was some talk at the Constitutional Convention of a consolidated government under which the states would become mere appendages. The idea did not gain favor. On the other hand, there was much sentiment in favor of a gen eral government which would not be dependent upon the states for its revenue and force. They attempted to resolve the problem by tracing the authority and power of the general government to the people. This is not only stated in the Preamble-UWe the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Con stitution for the United States of America" -but also by the method of ratification and choosing those who would govern.

390 THE FREEMAN July There are some lines of depen dence running both ways between the United States government and those of the states. For example, the original states were to come into the union by holding ratifying conven tions. The initiative for doing so rested with the states. (The question never was answered as to what would happen to a state which did not ratify the Constitution, and the document itself is silent on the point.) Elections are held within states for Federal officeholders, and some of the rules are left to state determination. Moreover, in the original Constitution, Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The states are dependent upon the United States government for the conduct of foreign relations, for the regulation of commerce, and to ttsuppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Also, the United States is charged with guaranteeing to each state a republican form of gov ernment.

Independence of the States The ideal, however, was the inde pendence of the states. At one place in the Constitution, as noted, the general government is authorized to suppress insurrections. At another, however, it says that tton the Appli cation of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)" the United States shall protect each of them uagainst domestic violence." The tendency of this is to leave to the states the initiative in seeking aid from the general government. The crucial point, though, is that the powers to be exercised by the states are not set forth in the United States Constitution. They do not, therefore, derive from it. Certain powers are denied to the states. For example, ttNo State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confedera tion .... " Beyond the denial of certain powers to the states, how ever, there is only the provision of the Tenth Amendment: uThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In short, the powers of the states have an origin independent of the United States. They exist in their own right and are not deriva tive.

There are beliefs so firmly in grained, so generally accepted, and so much a part of a people's make-up that they do not feel a need to make extended statements about them. The belief in the desirability of per sonal independence was like that for Americans. They made no procla mations about it, issued no manifes tos, nor ever set aside a day for it. (One exception comes to mind, the Declaration of Female Independence set forth in the 1840s. But that had political overtones.) Americans were 1980 WHITHER INDEPENDENCE-1980 A.D.? 391 long vocal about their rights. Indi vidual liberty was the subject of treatises, declamations, essays, and even poems. As George Washington said in his Farewell Address, UInter woven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is neces sary to fortify or confirm the at tachment." Independence of the Individual By contrast, the desirability of personal independence was an as sumed value. One can glean it from folk sayings such as that a man ought to stand on his own two feet, that he ought to be beholden to no one, and the longing with which boys looked forward to becoming men of their own. The belief in it as a value did lead some to write essays on self-reliance. It was the usually unstated means to the widely valued end of self-fulfillment. It moved Jef ferson to write these words in favor of the agricultural over the indus trial way of life: ttThose who labor in the earth," he said, ttare the chosen people of God, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for sub stantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire .... It is the mark set on those, who not looking up to heaven, to their own soil and industry, as does the husbandman, for their sub sistence, depend for it on casualties and caprice of customers. Dependence begets subservience and ven ality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition .... " Whether Jefferson was correct or not about the virtues of the agricultural life, he bespoke a common belief in the necessity of personal independence as the bul wark of a free republic. As he put it, ttlt is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution."2 If one man had to be chosen as the apostle of personal independence in America, I would nominate Benja min Franklin. He did not write much directly about it, yet it was the central concern of so much that he did write in Poor Richard's Al manac. Note these admonitions about going into debt: . . . Then since, as he [Poor Richard] says, The Borrower is a Slave to the Lender, and the Debtor to the Creditor, disdain the Chain, preserve your Free dom; and maintain your Independency: Be industrious and free; be frugal and free.3 Franklin wrote ever and again about the importance of work, of rising early, of applying oneself dili gently, of doing without luxuries, of saving, of investing, and so on. He did not always connect these admo nitions with independence, but he did often enough to make clear that it was a central goal, as when he said: 392 THE FREEMAN July UFrugality and Industry freeing me from my remaining debt, and pro ducing affluence and indepen dence.... "4 Perhaps the best evidence of all of the role of the ideal of personal in dependence is the great propulsive migrations by which America was settled. In the hope of independence, people crossed the ocean, went into the wilderness, hacked out a clear ing, built rude houses, and sought to make a living. In the same quest, they moved out upon the Great Plains, devised ways to turn the heavy sod, learned to make do with out trees, and began to produce the great quantities of grain for which America became famous. Nor did it end there. Others sought passes through the Rocky Mountains, loaded their Conestoga wagons, and pressed on to the Pacific. The vision

that drew them was of a place of their own, hopefully fertile, where a man might raise his children in independence, and look after his own. This quest was in considerable measure the saga of America. Avoid Entangling Alliances George Washington believed that the key to national independence was to abstain from permanent al liances with foreign powers. Tem porary alliances might properly be formed from time to time for joint purposes. He approved, too, acting with other peaceful nations to advance rules of trade and exchange. For example, presumably he would have favored such things as interna tional copyright agreements. My main point, however, is that it was the permanency of alliances that he thought crucial. Entangling al liances were also often proscribed in the early years of the Republic. Those are alliances in which there are prior commitments to actions in which one may be drawn by other nations.

There is a clue in this to the main tenance of independence, whether of nations, states within a nation, or individuals. As noted earlier, inde pendence does not imply a lack of relations with others. Indeed, there is some measure of dependency en tailed in all interaction; production, construction, trade, commerce, sports, entertainment, public wor ship, communications, and so on, require interdependency. To forgo this would be to forgo all social coop eration, and if it were consistently carried out life itself would become impossible. The distinction is not between in dependence and dependence or in terdependence; rather, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, it is between independence and subservience. To put it another way, independence is threatened or being lost at the point at which dependence becomes sub servience. VVhen does dependence become 1980 WHITHER INDEPENDENCE-1980 A.D.? 393 subservience? Dependence is on the way to becoming, if it has not al ready become, subservience when it becomes permanent. Dependence is headed for subservience when one becomes so entangled with others in interdependency that he can no longer determine his course. To put it more broadly, dependency be comes subservience at the point at which one party regularly serves the other(s) at the behest of the latter.

When interdependence loses its mutuality, subservience follows. Seeds of Servitude Within the Family Pathological conditions that sometimes develop in children parent relationships illustrate the permanency factor. Infants and small children are dependent upon their parents, more or less abso lutely. As the children grow up, they learn and are taught how to become progressively independent. If, how ever, the child insists upon being served by his parents regularly after he could do for himself, he is trying to induce servitude into the rela tionship. On the other hand, if par ents cling to their grown children, insist on their living at home and doing for them, that can become a form of servitude. Permanent de pendency begets servitude. Entanglement is the mode of col lectivism. Collectivist democracy is a device for getting everyone's affairs entangled with everyone else's. Collectivism proceeds by describing our interdependencies as requiring common decisions. The decision making process-the vote-becomes a means for rigidifying interdepen dency as entanglement.

Americans are by way of losing their independence. Individuals are becoming increasingly dependent upon government, and the depen dence is becoming fixed. The states have lost much of their indepen dence by changes in their relation to the federal government. Our na tional independence has been seri ously compromised by both entan gling alliances and by the belief that we should only act in foreign affairs in concert with other nations. It is an attractive notion that Americans have been seduced into yielding up their independence, that they have been surreptitiously in duced to sell their heritage for a mess of pottage, so to speak. It is not only attractive, but much evidence could be adduced in support of the notion. Undoubtedly, politicians have laid great emphasis upon the gains and downplayed the costs when they were advancing their pro grams. Undoubtedly, too, many in tellectuals have drawn beautiful word pictures of the future their ideas would bring into being when put into effect. The thrust to socialism, by which so much of inde pendence is being lost, has been ad394 THE FREEMAN July vanced by every artifice known to man.

That, however, is a considerable distance from being the whole story. The Founders of the United States, who knew next to nothing about what we call socialism, would not have been surprised by the loss of independence by Americans. Many of them feared that the Republic they brought into being, the federal system they devised, and the rights they proclaimed would not last. They knew that constitutions are but pieces of paper unless men breathe life into and sustain them. They knew what we seem to have forgotten, that governments are de rivative not originative, and that republican governments derive their style and modes from the life of the people. When these have degen erated, the people will be Ufit tools," as Jefferson put it, cCfor the designs of ambition," and rule will be by those who are most proficient in drawing up such designs. Government Is Not·Creative The late Ludwig von Mises con cluded that government cannot create money. On the contrary, money comes into currency by the valuations people place on certain goods as money. Governments can adopt such currency; they can place their stamp upon it, but its value does not derive from government.

They can, of course, debase it, counterfeit it, and flood the market with simulacrums of it. In short, they can exploit it, but they cannot create it. In like manner, personal indepen dence, the independence of states, and national independence arise from the habits and spirit of a peo ple. If they are not there govern ment cannot create them. Ifthey are there, representative governments have rough sledding in debasing them. In fact, representatives lack the incentive for attempting it. My point is this.·Americans, by and large, lost the habits and spirit of independence before they yielded it up by way of government action. As recently as 1914, say, the United States was following a resolute course of national independence. The states were still on their his toric path of independence from the general government. (It should be noted, .however, that the Seven teenth Amendment had just been ratified, providing for the direct election of Senators, thus removing some of a state's leverage in main taining independence.) Nor had the populace become dependent upon government to any significant de gree.

Nonetheless, increasing numbers of Americans were already develop ing habits of dependence. Millions of Americans were going into factory, mine, and mill for work. There they became dependent upon others to provide them with a job. Millions of 1980 WHITHER INDEPENDENCE-1980 A.D.? 395 others had become or were becoming share croppers and tenant farmers. These depended upon the landlord for housing, land, and for much of the capital with which to operate. In the absence of coercion, they were free, but to the extent that they remained in these conditions they became acclimated to dependence. Indebted and Dependent Living ~~on credit" became a way of life for many people. Farmers fre quently borrowed against the forth coming crop, not only for seed, fer tilizer, and equipment but also for buying food and clothing. If the crop was not as large as anticipated, or if prices were lower, they would be unable to payoff the debt. Thus, they would go from year to year indebted and dependent upon the creditor.

Wage-workers, too, often stayed in debt to storekeepers. UEasy terms" were becoming more generally available in the 1920s, and more and more people were availing themselves of the opportunity to Uenjoy" new appliances and au tomobiles while they paid for them. Farmers borrowed from banks to buy farms, and many who got into straitened circumstances mort gaged their land and buildings to get money to operate. Businesses turned to credit for expansion. In deed, by the late 1920s, an unpre cedented number of people were try ing to get rich on the basis of credit by buying common stock ~~on mar gin." Government did have a hand in this mounting dependence on credit. The Federal Reserve system fueled this credit binge by making easy money available on a large scale. (It was doing on a much broader scale what fractional reserve banking had been doing periodically for some time.) The habits of dependency were now widely formed and deeply ingrained.

The credit-fueled prosperity of the 1920s was like a house built upon sand. It could not stand when the storms of adversity came. The gov ernment gave, and the government took away. The Federal Reserve banks raised the rediscount rate and tightened the credit restrictions. A wave of selling hit the stock market, and as prices fell, more and more margin buyers had to sell. In the wake of the stock market crash in 1929, the house came tumbling down, so to speak. Collectivist thought offered the solution that would be adopted. Habits of dependence prepared fer tile soil in which collectivism could grow. In the 1930s, many people gladly availed themselves of one or more of the great array of programs which governments offered for aid and relief. Unionist collectivism made great strides as governments adopted policies promoting collec tivist activity. Habits of dependence 396 THE FREEMAN July were creased in the mold of perma nence by the force which govern ment intruded into the situation.

Stages of Dependency as Government Intrudes There has been a pattern to the yielding up and loss of independence in America. First came the de velopment of habits of dependence. The spirit of independence, where it had been acquired, was not strong enough to resist the lure of the gains from dependence. In this first stage, to the extent that government played a role, it was usually remote and indirect. The second stage is widespread dependence of people on government. This has taken hundreds of forms: a moratorium on mortgage payments, government guaranteed loans to business, government guaranteed loans for farmers and homeowners, crop subsidies, relief payments, privileges for collective action, so cial security, government decreed minimum wages, housing projects, school lunch programs, and so on, almost endlessly. Much of the de pendence has become permanent, and living off government .favors a way of life for many people.

The third stage is the loss of independence by the states. They have become increasingly dependent on the federal government. Many pro grams have been enacted by which F~deral funds are made available when states provide their portion of the funds. Highway building has be come increasingly dependent upon Federal funds. Federal funds for schools have become an ever more important source of monies for these. So called revenue sharing by which Federal funds are parceled out to the states is one of the more recent of such activities. (Since the federal government has been operating with a deficit, it has had no excess revenue to share. It might better be called sharing in the proceeds of the mounting Federal debt.) Though the states yield up much independence of action by par ticipating in these programs, they have also lost much of their inde pendence by Federal intrusion. The centralization of power in Washing ton has been accompanied by its decline in the states. By congres sional enactments and court deci sions uniform rules prevail in many areas throughout the United States.

The states·are losing much of their authority over city and local gov ernments because there is so much direct Federal aid and control over them. The independence of the states is important as an expression of local preferences and ways, the political reflex of an independent people. Its ultimate importance, however, is as a counterweight to the overweening power of the federal government. Power diffused is power contained 1980 WHITHER INDEPENDENCE-1980 A.D.? 397 and limited, the necessary condition for the liberties of a people. The intermingling of Federal and state power is hardly distinguishable from its being concentrated in one government and unrestrained. The fourth stage, the yielding of national independence, has been the result both of the general decline in the spirit of independence and of the thrust to collectivism. Since World War II, the United States has fol lowed a course compromising and detrimental to national indepen dence generally. By participating in the making of the United Nations Charter, joining the organization, and participating in its decisions and actions, the United States has commi tted itself, symbolically at least, to collective action. The United States has committed itself to a series of mutual security pacts which were nothing short of perma nent alliances. These, and other international agreements, consti tute entangling alliance. Many American leaders have come to ex pect that other nations will, or at least should, act with the United States against their own interests.

The compromise of national inde pendence has succeeded only thus far in proving that George Washing ton was right in his Farewell Ad dress. Whither independence in 1980, then? Much of it remains only in the memories of some of our older citizens. By their dependence upon gov ernment many have surrendered their independence for the promise of security. State and Federal action has been so intertwined, Federal control so vastly expanded, and local governments so drawn into a depen dence on the federal government that what remains of state indepe dence takes on the appearance of relics. National independence has been compromised, hamstringing the nation in international affairs with little compensating augment ing of power. We have neglected the sage advice of the Founders, and we are reaping the consequences. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, as the poet said, the bell is tolling for the passing of American independence.

Rekindling the Spirit I, for one, have no desire to attend a memorial service for American in dependence this Independence Day, 1980. The recalling of the signing of the Declaration of Independence can have but one useful purpose-to kindle anew the spirit of indepen dence which gave rise to the events which we bring to mind. Better that the day should pass unnoticed, how ever, than that it be utilized simply for the call for some kind of political action. There is undoubtedly much poli tical action needed to undo much of what has been done in the last half century or so. There was 398 THE FREEMAN much political activity which pre ceded and followed the signing of the Declaration of Independence. But political activity from a peo ple whose dependence has rendered them subservient would be little to the purpose. Republican govern ment can hardly rise above its source in the people. It is the spirit of independence which produces in dependence. It is the habits of inde pendence which maintain it. If we wait until the Federal Reserve sys tem has been abolished to retire our personal debts, we will never be prepared to favor its abolition. Ifwe wait to practice independent habits until the programs which foster our dependence are abolished, we could not endure it when it happened.

When we have men who have reso lutely trod the path of personal in dependence we shall have men who are worthy of political office, be cause they will be men, by and large, who do not want it. Then, we will have political action to the pur pose. A Blessing in Disguise Benjamin Franklin believed that personal independence was essen tial to individual morality. George Washington believed that national independence was essential to right action by nations. Thomas Jefferson believed that only those men who looked up to Heaven for their well being would keep alive the love of liberty. Their vision of independence is surely worth recalling, and a day on which the spirit was rekindled would be worth celebrating. @ -FOOTNOTESlHenry S. Commager, Documents of Ameri can History, vol. I (New York: Appleton Century-Crofts, 1962, 7th eel.), p. 209. 2Quoted in Vernon L. Parrington, The Colo nial Mind (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1954), p. 353.

3Edwin H. Cady, eel., Literature of the Early Republic (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1950), p. 311. 4Qerald N. Grob and Robert N. Beck, Ameri can Ideas, vol. I (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 126. E. sMYTHE GAMBRELL, "Our Principles of Freedom Must Stand" IDEAS ON LIBERTY THE great truths of humanity do not spring newborn to each new generation. They emerge from long experience. They are the gathered wisdom of the ages. They are renewed in times of conflict and danger. In this sense, the current challenge to our political institutions may prove to be a kind of blessing in disguise. If the times in which we are now living do not bring a further understanding of the great traditions of our civilization and a deeper desire to affirm them, we are not worthy of our heritage.