Equality: The Original American Invention
In my last posting, I touched on Black History Month, and decided to include a book review by famed historian Edmund S. Morgan that gave an interesting explanation of the extraordinary development of black culture during a time when those who weren’t enslaved as property were considered second-class foreigners, at best. I made a point to state that I was in the middle of reading a collection of his essays in The Genuine Article, which I’ve now finished, and I must further recommend it for its wide-reaching explanations to the complexities that dotted the development of American culture, society, and politics prior to 1800. Each chapter dives into a different arena; each purposely included to peel back the entrenched layers and shine a bit of realism-through-research on the subject.
One of these chapters is devoted to historian Gordon S. Wood’s The Radicalism of the American Revolution, a book I read during my university studies under historian Lawrence DeVaro. Wood is one of the most respected historians on the American Revolution; recently he was one of many voices critical of the pseudo-history presented in the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, which rewrites the American Revolution as a fight to preserve slavery (false), among other subjective assumptions. In Chapter 21 of Morgan’s book, Wood’s conception of what the true revolution was in 1776 is discussed. The author’s tacit narration of how equality emerged as something brand new is illuminating. Indeed, it was so new and morphed into something entirely original that it far exceeded what any of the founders — including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it in the Declaration — had ever imagined. And through this new concept, which Americans adopted to view themselves as individuals among equal individuals, we see how this has shaped our society and culture for hundreds of years.
The concept of equality had been going through a shapeshifting life for centuries. But what made its arrival in American society during the Revolution particularly striking was how it was adopted and proscribed among American citizens. Recall, the genius of the Revolution was how it removed monarchial structure from society. No more would a king be entitled to rule for life. Now, citizens could choose their leaders without fear of hereditary interference. In this process, the old hierarchical perpendicular line (power flowed from the top down) now shifted to a flattened or horizontal line: (everyone was on a level playing field), at least in theory. We know that republicanism became the mode by which many of the founders sought to orient the new political system. We know many hated democracy over fears of an uneducated population ruling by ignorance. But what really brought on the change in societal dynamics at precisely 1776?
European society functioned a specific way in the eighteenth century. If you were of the lower class, you remained there your entire life. The peasants would always remain peasants in a perpendicular society. This partially explains why Revolutionary France was much different from the American Revolution: the replacement of the French Court with a populism rooted in vengeance against monarchy — a belief that there was never going to be a chance to move up the social ladder so screw it — was not the same as replacing royal officers in government assemblies with localized American ones. But isn’t this why we fought the American Revolution, no taxation without representation? In many ways, the American Revolution was less violent than the French Revolution because it only went so far, and because Americans had already ceded their culture to changes unlike Europeans. Wood and Morgan echo that the real revolution in America occurred among its citizens. But what exactly do they mean by this?
Philosopher John Locke is often credited with pushing the concept of the social contract, i.e., governments exist because of — not in spite of — the will of the people. What the social contract reinforced was the belief that people, as a connected body, held power over the state. With this sentiment, the individual within the community could focus on individual power or autonomy, something that was quite unique and new in the world, and something not possible in European monarchial societies. Coupled with the influences the Enlightenment unleashed of learning as a way of self-improvement, emphasis on individualism in colonial America became the common mode of identity. This also partially explains the conflicting shape of the continental identity remaining stubbornly regional; indeed, identifying as an American in the nationalist sense was something slow to metastasize among Americans. (Benjamin Franklin and George Washington being among the first true nationalists)
Though British common law and its unwritten constitution, not to mention Magna Carta, were the elders of this new theory shaping colonial America, the British Isles remained wholly different. British citizens considered themselves the most free and enlightened people in the world, and were in many respects. But this freedom only went so far. In America, the concept went further. Individualism became less of an abstract concept and more of a realized potential as colonists developed their own communities and started their own businesses without the direct oversight of theological or monarchial power dictating their abilities to prosper. Yes, religion was a powerful force in early America, but it became less entrenched in political power the further away you went from seventeenth century Puritan New England. And as individualism rose to become something tangible, that a single person could rise in society without the insurance of wealth or monarchial influence, the concept took hold.
Wealth in North America factored into this emergence. Prior to the American Revolution, the distribution of wealth was far more widespread as the merchant and planter classes remained embedded within the local customs and activities of their communities. Money was certainly a thing, but it far less defined the individual than it would later post-war as the country developed. Status was far less exclusionary. The wealthy merchant attended church among the poor grocer. The blacksmith shared a tavern with the local judge. In general, the flattening of society had long been in the process among colonial America. Americans viewed each other as equals: no rich man was ever too high for the commoner. Or viewed the other way: no commoner would be deprived of striving to be a rich man. This is where the early conceptions of hard work, merit, fairness, and opportunity emerged as the cornerstones for achieving success. The plentiful ability of artisans and shopkeepers to open their own businesses, providing the right conditions surrounded them, might garner them fortune or failure. The risk or the ability to take the risk is what we commonly have named the American Dream.
As Morgan highlights, Wood lays down why this was different from anything that came before:
“if equality had meant only equality of opportunity or a rough equality of property-holding, it could never have become, as it has, the single most powerful and radical ideological force in all of American history. Equality became so potent for Americans because it came to mean that everyone was really the same as everyone else, not just at birth, not in talent or property or wealth, and not just in some transcendental religious sense of the equality of souls. Ordinary Americans came to believe that no one in a basic down-to-earth and day-in-and-day-out manner was really better than anyone else. That was equality as no other nation has ever quite had it.”
Today, we take many things for granted, including our ability to make decisions that effect the trajectory of our lives. At times, it does seem native-born Americans rarely understand just how good we have it compared to the rest of the world. This noticeable difference can be seen in how immigrants and first generation Americans view their place in society. The one common denominator among many is that America provides opportunity. But what exactly does opportunity mean? Echoing Wood, it’s the opportunity of the individual to decide how they want to live their lives, but also the opportunity presented in the knowing that the individual has power over themselves. That is typically not the case in foreign countries, which is why many have left to come here. This is exactly what Jefferson meant by the ‘pursuit of happiness.’ One can stay put or one can strive to be more. This is because equality affords options: the individual has the chance to succeed. Nothing is guaranteed in life, but here in America you get a chance (perhaps multiple chances) to succeed. So when Jefferson says “all men are created equal,” he’s first stating that all human beings begin life at the same station for potential, a concept that explicitly removes monarchial hereditary powers, and two, he’s stating that individuals have power within their own lives. Equality is the power of the individual, not of the state or of the community to hold power over the individual.
Where equality has run into issues is its conflict with the primal prejudices of groupthink human beings, whom identify as members of select, sectarian communities. We are designed to be suspicious of people different from ourselves or those outside of our close-knit group. This is where class, race, religion, gender and occupation can reinforce these natural prejudices. Understanding equality deliberately challenges these prejudices is where you discover the genius of the American experiment. It is here where the check against these natural impulses lies, and here where the individual can set the example that breaks the mold. It is why the immigrant can rise to be a successful millionaire or the illiterate child can rise to invent products that transform society, even if demographics or other forces proclaim it impossible. In other times in other countries, it would have been.
James Forten, a black child born in the 1760s, whom one day rose to become one of the wealthiest citizens in Philadelphia — at a time when the majority of white Americans would never see the type of wealth and privilege he had — proves that for America, this was entirely new.
Of course, I am not suggesting that equality extended to black America, nor did it to white women or non-property owning white men, nor has it erased modern day issues of inequality. This is why women remain committed to equal pay in the workplace and why minorities, out of a sense of fairness, continue to strive for better representation within institutions. But the seed for all of this possibility was planted with the American Revolution. It unleashed many things, but in its bedrock were the sentiments that equality mattered as much as liberty and freedom, if not more so because each reinforced the existence of the other.
The issue of slavery, the second-class status of women and the disparagement of poor white Americans immediately come to mind to challenge all of what has been said here. It’s easy to view equality as some hollow promise; a meaningless screed that meant nothing based on historical fact. One can dabble in this obviousness for eternity but would be missing the point entirely. What element do you think created the conditions that extinguished slavery forever in America, or gave way to the suffragist movement, or to the expansion of democracy to all white men — and eventually, to all Americans (and now even, to all inhabitants within the country regardless of citizenship)? What spawned the ideological pushes for citizens to band together and fight against injustices? It’s this belief in equality, that we are all humans who desire dignity and are capable of being individuals, a singular part of the ebb and flow of the greater, messy American society.
From top down ethics to a flattened line of general respect, the uniqueness of this experiment is why we’ve come so far as a society and as a country in world history. It’s why immigrants still come here. Yes, they may say they come here for America, the land of opportunity, but what they’re really thirsty for is equality: where being a first generation American is no different from being a tenth generation American. Where being a cab driver does not mean your dignity is checked when a wealthy banker asks for a ride. Ultimately, it comes down to the two people in the car.
The author begins his chapter with, “The American Revolution has always posed a challenge to historians.” Truer words have never been spoken by the masters, such as Morgan. But the same challenge can be said of American citizens, oft disconnected from the revolution through indifference or misunderstanding. One such insight is “the Revolution came about not to overthrow tyranny, but to prevent it,” hence a federal system of checks and balances. Such understandings take time to dismember and evaluate, particularly when the simplified versions are easier to consume, and easier to manipulate prior to consumption. Despite the best attempts of ‘intellectuals,’ the American Revolution was not a Marxist revolution over class and power; it was not the preservation of slavery or the rejection of tyranny. It was the gradual evolution of societal relationships within the individual, both internally and externally, that emerged to create a new entity filled with confidence and optimism unmatched in the modern world. It continues to take work by new generations of Americans to be realized; a ‘more perfect Union,’ indeed.
Morgan titled his chapter on equality “The Second American Revolution,” but I disagree. The concept remains the singular revolution America birthed to the rest of the world. If America strived to be different and original, surely liberty — an established concept — was not it, nor was democracy. No, it was equality. The conservative viewpoint of ‘pulling yourself up by your boot straps’ stems from here, as does the old progressive viewpoint that the government should not impede on an individual’s expressive rights. Individualism has thrived and defined our culture precisely because that’s what being an American is. We are equals in an unequal world; born unequal in so many ways but damned to be bound to getting on with one another to be a better people. This is why there is no such thing as the collective without the individual in America, a radicalism unknown to the world prior to 1776, and still misunderstood by progressives today.
Where the danger lies in modern times is the unlearning and misunderstanding of what equality is within the American bloodstream. It is the fuel to the engine. It is the water to the fountain; the freshly tapped libation where everybody knows your name because they, too, have a name that shares in this enlightenment. We risk more than our history if we allow it to be deluded by modern partisan distortions. Without careful maintenance, it will dry up. We risk becoming something uniquely unoriginal in the span of human history, something that is not American. No longer the celebrated freaks of history, but something more ordinary and forgettable.