The Real Lecture Series was the Friends You Made Along the Way

 This past Saturday I went with a group of friends to attend a lecture series on the American Revolution. The topics were various. Everything from looking at how a regulator tradition in the mountains of the Carolinas lead to robust guerilla forces during the war, to a systematic defense of Washington as the grand strategist and genius of the Revolution--not just the war, but the practical, prudent, orchestrator of the creation of an American nation.

The speaker traced Washington's grand strategy across four core objectives, articulated from his personal correspondence.

1. Independence from Britain

2. The preservation of the union of the colonies

3. To prevent the colonies from becoming a play thing for other imperial powers

4. The creation of a republic, based on the political ideals of the founders

One of the incredible things about Washington's success is how he balances competing needs. For instance, he knows that the army and naval power of the French are essential to victory, so he welcomes, encourages, and coordinates with the French, but he also deftly discourages campaigns that had expanded French holdings in Canada as an aim. Washington knew that there was a risk of trading one imperial problem for another, and managed to it.

Or that he understands the need to pivot from early opportunistic offensives to a general war of attrition, but will not allow for a scorched earth/excessive of goods from colonials, because he understands that there is going to be a peace to follow, and it cannot include resentment of the confederation.

Or even that he knows and understands the importance and centrality of the army, not only to keep the British from operating with a free hand, but also as a symbol of colonial unity in the effort--nonetheless, he intentionally limits the power of the army and insists on all authority being derived from the legislature, even when they put the army in jeopardy in their parsimony, understanding the danger of creating in the army a second seat of power: the great failure of Bolivar. 

It was a great lecture, well presented, and even with many more words I could not do it justice here.

But as usual, the lecture was not the main topic of conversation that we got into afterward. We instead got into a deep dive about popular sovereignty. Life is apt to imitate art in this way, and throw little Socratic dialogues into ones path.

It was asserted by one, that it seems a very strange thing to say that man is born free and equal, and with certain unalienable rights. That the world we are presented with makes this seem something of a fairy story.

If you know anything about the circles I am apt to run in, you know this is the philosophical equivalent to flicking your lit cigar stub into the open top of a nearby barrel of gunpowder. To say such a thing on the hallowed ground of Hillsdale is like opening up a Playboy magazine in church, or walking through the Library stacks playing the Beastie Boys. Such things cannot go without challenge.

As you can imagine, a great deal of spirited debate, and a moderate amount of talking past one another followed, but it did lead to some nice 'pieces clicking' moments for me.

The party who made the first statement was more deeply interested in the theological reality underlying the implications of the political statement.

If all men are born free and equal, and cannot rightly be governed without their consent, then the inference underneath is that the rule of monarchs, feudal lords, chieftains, and judges of the ancient world was somehow objectionable. That it was illegitimate without the expressed consent of the govern. That such an opinion is foolish, because for many of those people and societies they lacked the political and economic capital for self-rule to be possible, much less desirable.

On the flip side, man is made in God's image, and even in the law codes of the Old Testament we clearly see laws that uphold defense of self and property, that we can hold land and goods as our own and that our neighbor must respect and uphold it, and make restitution if they take or damage. That we ought to have our grievances heard by impartial council to adjudicate right and wrong.

I also think of 1 Samuel, where Israel asks for a king and is rebuked, is told the injustices a king will visit on them, but insists that they want one regardless. And while they will suffer the rule of wicked kings, and even David does some wicked things, God still blesses and uses the office for good, the setting apart of his people, the building of the temple, and will send his messiah through David's royal line.

So I am unbothered by saying that most of human government has been far off the ideal. The ideal that was laid out was divine headship, with revealed law consistent with what we would term the natural law. Rule by law, and impartial application of that law wherever feasible. Kings and lords are not in the original recipe, though they may be used for a time. Fathers are.

Which brings me to the thing that clicked, and that I'm sure I've danced around so many times before, and going back to man being made in the image of God, and that the declaration of independence was not looking to sketch out in particular.

We are inherently relational, as God Himself is inherently relational. God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as man is husband, wife, son, daughter. We are born with inherent offices and relationships to one another, and to God. And the freedoms and duties we possess are governed by these relationships. And  what we have a right to be and do is ultimately defined and constrained by our relationship to God, and it is to him that we must ultimately make accounts.

And so it is that the Feudal knight who is a fair and just overseer of his tenants fulfills his vocation. That is not to say that it would not be a better thing if his tenants were capable of being as he is, and more fully able to engage in the business of ruling and being ruled. The model of the family informs us that it is a joy to the father when the son comes of age and takes over the family business.

The core reality of man as a political and moral being is not the individual; it is the family. It was not good that the man should be alone, as God himself is not alone. 

And so rights come with obligations, and I imagine the reason the declaration of independence did not spill ink on that topic is because it was about how the father insisted on treating his adult son as a child, which is unnatural and unjust. It is focused on rights, because those rights were the obligation of the monarch to his people, by law and custom, and by the order of creation.

The lord desires sons to tend his garden with him, not slaves. And so the family. And so the government.

And so the question of maturity, at both the level of the society and the individual, is actually exactly the right question. How do you deal with the problem of those who show little inclination or ability to govern themselves, ought they to have an equal say in the business of ruling and being ruled.

I will leave that hanging for the audience to think about, but it is a quandary.