I remember when I was in grade school that one of my favorite stories from the American revolutionary war was the story of Captain John Paul Jones of the Bonhomme Richard. In September of 1779 Captain Jones engaged the British Royal Navy in the famous battle of Flamborough Head. After withstanding a devastating assault by the British warship "Serapis", the Commanding Officer of the enemy ship called for Jones to surrender. John Paul Jone's response to the British Commander would immortalize him as a part of American History; "Sir, I have not yet begun to fight!"
Captain Jones went on to win the battle of Flamborough Head. The battle losses were heavy on both sides, but the victory had a reach that went far beyond the fleets engaged upon the seas that day. As the name of the ship under John Paul Jone's command may indicate, the Bonhomme Richard was not of American origin. The Bonhomme Richard was a gift from the French in a time of war. The victory at Flamborough Head is credited with confirming French resolve in their support of the colonies against the crown.
French involvement in the American revolution was a vital element in the eventual liberation of the colonies from Great Britain. At the time, France was a superpower, and the American colonies were...not. Arguments that the United States would not have won independence from King George without the aid of the French may be overstated, but it is clear that the struggle would have been much longer and more arduous without the aid of the French. The "foreign aid" of the French.
At the very inception of our nation we see an alliance with a foreign government play a central part in our struggle for liberty. How is it that we now hear some cry that the founders abhorred alliances? Did the founding fathers think that all nations should fend for themselves? Did they believe that only the fittest should survive and the rest be damned? It seems unlikely in the context of the very founding that they fathered. It does not comply with reason to assume that the founders were willing to embrace the alliance with the French only for selfish reasons. Neither reason nor history support that view.
When the French revolution began just a few years after the end of our own, there were many in America that thought that we should get involved to help the French in their revolution against their monarch. We do not see stirring speeches from the founding fathers regarding our need to stay out of the conflict due to "constitutional restrictions" or avoiding a role as "policeman of the world". There were practical acknowledgments that America was too weak at the time to engage a European power. History tells us that Washington's primary concern regarding involvement in the French revolution was the potential of reigniting hostilities with the British.
During this same time period there was a slave uprising against the French in Haiti. The French requested aid from the United States and Washington granted it in the form of weapons, supplies, and money. The French were ultimately unsuccessful in quelling the rebellion. While there was some concern in the Southern States that a slave rebellion in Haiti could spill over into the United States, the incident clearly was not associated with anything that could be considered a direct threat against our new nation.
Shortly after the end of their Revolution the French went on a bit of a rampage beyond their borders. They declared war on what seemed to be anybody within reach, including Great Britain. In the United States there were calls for aid to the French. Thomas Jefferson was one of the supporters of aiding the French in their escapades. This is probably a good place to highlight that Thomas Jefferson is widely considered to be one of the "founding fathers". How does this stack up against some of the rhetoric that we find when we fast-forward to the present day? How does it stack up against the rhetoric of Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is prone to wrap himself in the constitution and make claims regarding what the founding fathers were all about. Romanticizing about the founding of our nation and the amazing people that risked and sacrificed so much to bring it about is a natural thing to do. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are both heroes of mine; amazing men participating in an incredible adventure to establish what I sincerely believe is the greatest nation in the history of the world. The non-interventionism that Ron Paul ascribes to these men is simply not supported by historical fact. Paul would like to claim the mantle of the founding fathers by attributing to them ideals of his own that the founders simply didn't share.
Ron Paul's neo-libertarian philosophy points to an idealism that can not be blamed on the founding fathers. When libertarian philosophy and an understanding of the way the world works are combined in the crucible of reason, the pragmatic American conservatism that served the founders so well emerges. In the absence of the other elements, the blind application of Paul's idealism in a world of harsh realities is simply dangerous. Perhaps Ron Paul would scold the French for not supporting America's "right to defend itself" at Flamborough Head in that Summer of 1779...or in the battle of the Chesapeake...or at Yorktown, just as he has recently scolded the United States for not supporting Israel's "right to defend itself". All in all, I'm just as happy that Dr. Paul wasn't advising the French.
0 comments:
Post a Comment