"[T]he American Revolution ... brought about enormous net benefits not just for citizens of the newly independent United States but also, over the long run, for people across the globe. ...

"[W]hat specific benefits came about because of the American Revolution. There are at least four momentous ones. They are all libertarian alterations in the internal status quo that prevailed, although they were sometimes deplored or resisted by American nationalists.

"1. The First Abolition: Prior to the American Revolution, every New World colony, British or otherwise, legally sanctioned slavery, and nearly every colony counted enslaved people among its population. ... [T]he Revolution’s liberating spirit brought about outright abolition or gradual emancipation in all northern states by 1804. ...

"[E]mancipation had to start somewhere. The fact that it did so where opposition was weakest in no way diminishes the radical nature of this assault upon a labour system that had remained virtually unchallenged since the dawn of civilisation. Of course, slavery had largely died out within Britain. But ... Parliament did not formally and entirely abolish the institution in the mother country until 1833.

"Even in southern colonies, the Revolution’s assault on human bondage made some inroads. Several southern states banned the importation of slaves and relaxed their nearly universal restrictions on masters voluntarily freeing their own slaves. Through resulting manumissions, 10,000 Virginia slaves were freed, more than were freed in Massachusetts by judicial decree. This spawned the first substantial communities of free blacks, which in the upper South helped induce a slow, partial decline of slavery....

"2. Separation of Church and State: ... With the adoption of the Constitution and then the First Amendment, the United States become the first country to separate church and state at the national level. ...

"3. Republican Governments: As a result of the Revolution, nearly all of the former colonies adopted written state constitutions setting up republican governments with limitations on state power embodied in bills of rights. ...

"4. Extinguishing the Remnants of Feudalism and Aristocracy: ... The U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on titles of nobility may seem trivial and quaint to modern eyes. But such titles, still prevalent throughout the Old World, always involved enormous legal privileges. This provision is, therefore, a manifestation of the extent to which the Revolution witnessed a decline in deference throughout society. No one has captured this impact better than the dean of revolutionary historians, Gordon Wood, in his Pulitzer Prize winning The Radicalism of the American Revolution. He points out that in 1760 the “two million monarchical subjects” living in the British colonies “still took it for granted that society was and ought to be a hierarchy of ranks and degrees of dependency.” But “by the early years of the nineteenth century the Revolution had created a society fundamentally different from the colonial society of the eighteenth century.”

"One can view this transition even through subtle changes in language. White employees no longer referred to their employers as “master” or “mistress” but adopted the less servile Dutch word “boss.” Men generally began using the designation of “Mr.,” traditionally confined to the gentry. Although these are mere cultural transformations, they both reflected and reinforced the erosion of coercive supports for hierarchy, in a reinforcing cycle. ...

"Global Repercussions ...

"The impact of the American Revolution on the international spread of liberal and revolutionary ideals is well known. Its success immediately inspired anti-monarchical, democratic, or independence movements not only in France, but also in the Netherlands, Belgium, Geneva, Ireland, and the French sugar island of Saint Domingue (modern Haiti). What is less well understood is how the Revolution altered the trajectory of British policy with respect to its settler colonies. Imperial authorities became more cautious about imposing the rigid authoritarian control they had attempted prior to the Revolution. Over time they increasingly accommodated settler demands for autonomy and self-government. In short, the Revolution generated two distinct forms of British imperialism: one for native peoples and the other for European settlers.

"This was immediately apparent in Canada. ... [with] Parliament’s Constitutional Act of 1791 divid[ing] Quebec into two colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, each with its own elected assembly. ... Although Australia upon initial British settlement in 1788 began as a penal colony with autocratic rule, agitation for representative government emerged early and was consummated with the Australian Colonies Government Act of 1850.

"British New Zealand was originally part of the colony of New South Wales in Australia, but it was separated in 1849 and got a representative government three years later. South Africa fell under sustained British rule in 1806. By 1854, the Cape Colony had its own parliament. ...

"Conclusion ...

"[R]evolutions are always ... messy and produce mixed results. It also explains why so few revolutions actually bestow genuine benefits. ... The anti-slavery movement, first sparked by the Revolution, is one clear case.

The American Revolution is another such case. The embattled farmers who stood at Lexington green and Concord bridge in April 1775 were only part-time soldiers, with daily cares and families to support. Their lives were hard. The British redcoats they faced were highly trained and disciplined professionals serving the world’s mightiest military power. Yet when they fired the “shot heard ’round the world” that touched off the American Revolution, they initiated a cascade of positive externalities that not only U.S. citizens but also people throughout the world continue to benefit from today, more than two centuries later. They had no hope—indeed no thought—of charging for these non-excludable benefits. Nonetheless, they took the risk. What better reason to celebrate the 4th of July?

~ Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (Professor of economics at San Jose State University and the author of Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War), from his article 'Benefits of the American Revolution: An Exploration of Positive Externalities'

ARU Press showcases in-depth New Ideal essays on crucial issues in new paperback editions.

The post New Mini Books by Ghate, Mazza, Journo and Brook appeared first on New Ideal - Reason | Individualism | Capitalism.

 

Has anyone besides Murray Rothbard made a compelling case for state-free anarchy? In this week's Friday Philosophy, Dr. David Gordon extols Libertarian Anarchy by Gerard Casey, which he says provides excellent arguments for doing away with the state.

Governments have so corrupted money that we forget that sound money, by providing both fungibility and privacy, has been a defense against overreaching governments. While sound money is in the interests of citizens, governments have managed to destroy it.

Hollywood took a turn for the worse in the wake of the George Floyd riots. Not only did Cancel Culture ramp up but select programs were memory-holed for their “problematic” content. Case in point: Tina Fey approved the removal of four “30 Rock” episodes with black face-adjacent gags. Warning labels suddenly graced beloved films, from “Dumbo” to “Goodfellas.” Comedians had to watch what they said or risk career repercussions. The most shocking nod to diversity at all costs? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences made Best Picture nominees adapt to woke bylaws … or else.   The Oscars has “inclusivity rules” in order to qualify for Best Picture 2024 Films must make “underrepresented” groups 30% of the cast, the main actors, or the plot of the entire storyline pic.twitter.com/00FtFeJ7fU — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 18, 2023   Films needed to hire diverse crews, tell stories about underrepresented groups or otherwise align with woke ideology to qualify for the industry’s biggest honor. Some prominent films haven’t made the cut. The worst part? Artists remained silent on the measure, save Richard Dreyfuss. The Oscar winner said the diversity mandates made him want to vomit. Now, the Trump administration might take a stand on the punitive measures. The Washington Examiner reports that those Oscar rules may go the way of the 8-track tape. President Donald Trump’s top civil rights adviser [Harmeet K. Dhillon] said she was open to digging into the Academy’s 2020 quota requirements, suggesting that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would take the lead. The bipartisan Judicial Watch spurred Dhillon’s comments, contesting the way Best Picture winners are chosen within Hollywood. The Trump administration has made significant strides in attacking DEI-style measures across the country. That includes universities that use race in their recruitment measures. It wouldn’t be the first time Team Trump addressed Tinsel Town’s woes. President Trump recruited Hollywood legends like Jon Voight earlier this year to suggest ways to help the film industry. The issue has some bipartisan support. California is scrambling to beef up tax incentives to lure more productions back to the greater Los Angeles area.

G.K. Chesterton’s classic Father Brown story “The Sign of the Broken Sword” takes place during a fictional 19th-century military conflict between Britain and Brazil. General St. Clare commanded 800 British infantry in a campaign against the Brazilian general Olivier, a charismatic and generous enemy. St. Clare led two or three British regiments in a reckless assault on Brazilian positions, during which his troops suffered heavy casualties and had to surrender. Olivier paroled his prisoners, but soon after, St. Clare was found hanging from a tree, his broken sword around his neck.

Years later, Father Brown reveals that St. Clare, in the course of his military career in India and Africa, engaged in torture, fornication, and corruption, and ultimately sold England’s military secrets to the Brazilians. Major Murray, one of St. Clare’s officers, uncovered the treason and demanded St. Clare resign. St. Clare murdered him, the point of the general’s sword breaking off in the major’s body. Coldly calculating, St. Clare ordered a doomed assault, making “a hill of corpses to cover this one.” The surviving British troops are led by Captain Keith, who deduced the truth and lynched St. Clare as soon as the Brazilians departed.1

Is it not the case that Israel is doing the exact opposite of St. Clare: focusing on one (or some—Hamas) to cover the hill of corpses (Palestinians)? No, the Israeli government is doing what St. Clare was doing, although with an important shift. It is making a hill of corpses among the Palestinians to cover one corpse—which one? Here comes the surprise: the corpse of Jewish identity. With the majority of Jews in Israel caught in the genocidal grip, they are, in some basic sense, committing collective suicide, abandoning the spiritual greatness that once characterized their identity. And is Trump not doing the same? His corpse is the corpse of American freedom and democracy… When I write this, I can already hear “Leftist” voices shouting back at me: but were Western “freedom and democracy” not a hypocritical fake from the beginning? Is what is happening now not just their truth coming out? I think this is a simplification which, if we act upon it, can cost us dearly.

Our basic moral edifice is not just hypocritical (as it always already was); with the Gaza war, it has lost even the hypocritical force of appearance—in it and with it, appearance effectively becomes just an appearance, no longer an appearance which contains its own truth. Along these lines, Arundhati Roy remarked more than a year ago that, if the Gaza bombing goes on, then “the moral architecture of western liberalism will cease to exist. It was always hypocritical, we know. But even that provided some sort of shelter. That shelter is disappearing before our eyes.”2 Crucial here is the idea that, in spite of its hypocrisy (or, why not, because of it and through it), the liberal moral edifice nonetheless “provided some sort of shelter.”

Read more