The American Revolution was fought in part to preserve slavery [1] and to allow westward expansion at the expense of the Native Americans [2]. Tens of thousands of slaves, as well as most of the Native American tribes, fought alongside the British.

I also don't quite understand what you mean when you say that the Founding Fathers didn't establish an aristocracy of their own: the first five presidents were involved with writing the Constitution and establishing the Federal government, and the sixth president was one of their sons!

1: https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-rev...

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763

Basing your views on meandering blogs from a hyper partisan site is typical for the times, but an extremely bad idea. Read the actual views of the founding fathers on slavery. This article [1] sums things in a pretty balanced way. Jefferson actually wrote against slavery in the initial draft of the declaration of independence.

Of course he also owned slaves along with many other founding fathers, yet institutional ideals and personal action are often detached. For instance Apple products today are produced in factories where workers earn a pittance per day while living in on-site dormitories surrounded by suicide nets. And we can go much more overt as many chocolate treats are produced as a direct product of slave labor which is still rife in West Africa - companies like Hershey and Nestle being some of the biggest sponsors there. And then there's your seafood, or catfood and other seafood derivatives.

Okay all that aside, another big point is that the United States' original view was one of an extremely minimal federal government. States would essentially be similar to nations in terms of sovereignty, but united under a single flag for collective defense and other necessities. Slavery remained a major issue throughout the founding of the country. The Republican party was actually founded in large part as the anti-slavery party. Founded in 1854, the party's first president would be elected in 1860 - Abraham Lincoln.

Imagine Musk, and SpaceX, succeeds in their mission to colonize Mars. And Mars ends up electing its own representatives. Who do you think they might pick to the highest role available? That a people are highly reverent of the people that lead them towards progress has nothing to do with aristocracy.

[1] - https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Sl...

> institutional ideals and personal action are often detached

Yeah, there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

Yes and shouldn't our first goal to be to examine ourselves for it and understand that sometimes that our culture and times and the systems involved make living in a purely idealistic state either untenable or at least make it incredibly hard for us to have any cultural impact towards the better?

For some, living any part of the system is hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance. For others, it's trying their best to live towards their ideals while also understanding that progress is a constant journey. And for some, it's a mix of both.

Being human and flawed isn't unique to any one person or group. It's the default, and I tend to think that those who throw hypocrisy towards others should eliminate it from their lives first. I have yet to meet a single person who has done that, and even the extreme ascetics or saints engage in some form or other. Armchair quarterbacking someone else's hypocrisy a few centuries after the fact seems even harder to pull off without at least some level of humility towards our own institutional blindness.

Sure, we're all guilty of it to one degree or another. You call it "armchair quarterbacking", I call it dealing honestly with flawed people in history. I don't understand the reflexive impulse (in this thread and elsewhere) to try and absolve revered historical figures of their very real crimes and yes, hypocrisies.

Oh, I wasn't implying that I think he or any figure should be "absolved" of anything.

If we're all guilty of hypocrisy in some form or another, and we all struggle with it, and the person your describing is dead and can do nothing to change that fact, what is actually the point?

I mean, there are times hypocrisy is overt and blatant, and times when it's subtle and we don't see it in ourselves. In those times, I think it should be called out on, and even historically, it can be useful to make the distinction between outright deceit and phoniness to cognitive dissonance to just being unaware.

With Thomas Jefferson, or most people from the past, I can't know which part of the spectrum of hypocrisy they fell on.

I think it's fair for you to be honest and point it out, but it's so often used as a pejorative statement without any nuance into the relative ways in which we could easily be talking about ourselves.

But again, I don't say any of this to try to defend or deny the sins of those in the past, those should be discussed frankly and out in the open.

Why is it laughable to consider that, for example, from the perspective of the large slave population at the time of the Revolution, the event was not so much progress as regress, and signified what was possibly an extension of their slavery? Acknowledging that does not make the founders of the country any less brave or singular, nor does it suggest we should judge them against modern standards, nor does it even remotely cause us to forget the context of the revolution in the course of European political history. Instead it reminds us that behind every great movement there can be and often is great horror.

> ... behind every great movement there can be and often is great horror.

Exactly. It _was_ a great movement. It was singular and amazing there were brave people who did incredible things. At the same time: they left a lot of people worse off than they would have been otherwise. Both things are true. It sucks when you want a pure righteous hero to look up to, especially people that ultimately gave us so much. But that's what happened. Nothing honest that we can do looks past that.

> extension of their slavery

First, during the revolution, all slave trade was banned by the new government of the US. And after the war, it became of matter of state jurisdiction: several states went ahead and abolished slavery on their own in less than 10 years following the independence war. Isn't what what you call progress when institutions made it a possibility?

A cynical take on that would be that Jefferson and the other southern aristocrats wanted to limit the supply of slaves so that the value of their estates would skyrocket. I don't actually know much about the time so don't take that musing too seriously.

I would recommend reading about the founding fathers, including Jefferson. Jefferson wrote extensively against slavery and even included as such in the initial draft of the declaration of independence (without going so far as to make it unlawful) - but that was apparently stripped out by the Continental Congress. In 1784 he attempted to pass legislation federally banning slavery - it failed to pass by one vote.

Of course this might seem hypocritical given he indeed did own a substantial number of slaves, but as today the appeal of convenience often outweighs ideology when systems are widespread. For instance Warren Buffet has argued that a larger tax on the ultra-rich would be socially beneficial and I think he certainly does believe that, yet of course he himself does everything he can to minimize his own tax bill in the mean time. On the consumer level, I doubt any of us really support slavery or systems of near slavery yet it rarely stops us from buying Apple products in the near slavery case, or Hershey/Nestle/etc chocolate in the literal slavery case.

On abolition versus the phasing out issue, Jefferson also wrote there. He wanted to phase out slavery and ensure the slaves were skilled, educated, and had sufficient resources to make it on their own. He felt that abruptly abolishing slavery would lead to violence, both from dependent slave owners who would not go peacefully as well as from slaves themselves. He also thought that abrupt abolition would lead to poor outcomes for the slaves as they would set free in a land driven by the merit of the individual with generally minimal to no education, skills, or ability.

To avoid the system you mention where slave owners would simply entrench themselves by 'banning competition', he even proposed the notion of the US government buying slave children for a nominal fee, training them, and then sending them abroad (to Santo Domingo in particular) to make their way as skilled freemen. Essentially, a way to ease the transition from slavery to freedom for slave owners and slaves alike. One must say such a system feels dystopic, yet on the other hand it's interesting to consider whether such an idea would have had a better social outcome in the longrun. The civil war divides of this nation remain to this very day, as does the inequity of the now long distanced descendents of former slaves.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Sl...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery

Nestle claims to have a zero tolerance policy toward slavery, see https://www.nestle.com/ask-nestle/human-rights/answers/nestl...

We have zero tolerance for illegal trafficking or slavery. If we find any evidence of it then we report it to appropriate authorities immediately.

I'm curious. Did you expect them to praise and embrace slavery on their website?

Slavery enables companies such as Nestle to source their resources for costs far below what they would have to pay otherwise. They do so while simultaneously condemning slavery and making some token efforts to combat it. Just enough to keep their carefully crafted public relations positive enough that it doesn't effect their bottom line. Though for what it's worth, I doubt that any of Hershey, Nestle, etc actually 'like' slavery, but they love the profits it enables, and that's undoubtedly been the story throughout much of history.

Good points, thanks for the thoughtful response.

I started reading this[1] Wikipedia entry. Troubling.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_in_cocoa_productio...

Thanks for detailed reply.

Stopping the importation of slaves did not stop the growth of slavery by itself. Those born of chattel slaves became slaves themselves from birth.

Right and since Jefferson and others had large estates of the only viable slaves they would dramatically increase the value of each slave on the plantation because there was no longer any outside source.

Can you elaborate your views here?

Why would US independence, let alone one when numerous founding fathers had written against slavery, be seen as 'regress'? The British Empire would not 'abolish slavery' for 65 years after US independence. The reason I put 'abolish slavery' in quotes is because when the British Empire 'abolished slavery', they specifically excluded various territories, as well as all properties under possession of the East India Company. In other words, it was abolished in regions where it was, more or less, convenient to do so. Had the British Empire retained control of what would become the US, history would certainly have played out quite differently.

The article is trash, and fails to connect the motivations of the treasonous and ambitious Arnold with the revisionist babble dumped into the article.

It’s bizzare to me that the author would attribute the woeful ignorance of Benedict Arnold to our achieving some sort of enlightenment about the “dark and sordid” truth of the revolution. I’m actually somewhat gobsmacked at the ignorance and lack of perspective demonstrated... we’re talking about breaking away from the British Empire, who spent the next hundred years or more oppressing millions in India, China, Africa and Ireland.

If this is a demonstration of the rigor of Ivy League academia, that’s the real story here.

> we’re talking about breaking away from the British Empire, who spent the next hundred years or more oppressing millions in India, China, Africa and Ireland.

And America has oppressed millions of _its own people_ for ~200 years. I don’t see what your point is.

America has been way more benevolent even under its darkest years than the British Empire ever was. Ask Indians and most African countries what it was like to live under the British Crown.

What’s benevolent about slavery, Jim Crow, and attempted genocide?

I think the difference between the historical US and the British Empire is not so much the type of oppression as the scale. The US is currently under 8% of the world's land area. The British Empire was close to a quarter at its largest, and there has never been a larger.

Guam, the Phillipines, the Spanish American War, The Monroe Doctrine, 200+ years of meddling in Latin American affairs as a result.

Good grief, why are we even having such a conversation?

"but your genocide was worse than our genocide"

Learn to separate rhetorical devices, propaganda for the working classes via the free public education system, and actual historical facts and context.

Let's just say that altruism and moral purity haven't been high on the political values pile anywhere that power relations are exercised. A little less "my precious" will help in a dispassionate and accurate analysis.

It's not like slavery was abolished in all parts around the world before the US. And several states in the US abolished slavery in a few years after the independence war - it became a matter of state policy.

No, but Britain fought against slavery far earlier and more effectively than other countries, including the US. It saw ridding the world of slavery as its civilising mission. There's a reason why the underground railroad went north to British territories, and why a slave of the mid 19th century would see the Union Flag as the flag of freedom much more than the Stars and Stripes, in contradiction to your statements about the USA being "way more benevolent even in its darkest years".

Britain as benevolent is so ridiculous when you know they enforced discrimination by race, i.e. segregation in many of their colonies. so lets avoid going preachy against the US please.

At least we got rid of segregation before the 1950s. Nobody is claiming that Britain is perfect, but to make out the US has some sort of moral high ground on race is ludicrous. Britain's record is a thousand times better, there.

This article is a book report written by an old crank who doesn't like that modern scholarship focuses on what we can best tell what happened instead of some fairy-tale to make flag-wavers feel good about themselves. It's in a publication that generally hates intellectuals, especially those in academia.

While I agree that sentence is a dishonest summary, one has to be careful when claiming “rewriting history”. As history is written by the victors, parts are ignored, misrepresented, or plain fabricated. Eg, every American child is brought up believing the Betsy Ross story (possibly/likely) fabricated by her descendants a hundred years later. Similar examples of retroactive history exist in English history where first recorded mentions are 200+ years after the events in question, not to mention excluding whole groups of people from history, ie women, slaves, children, commoners, losers, etc.

All we can hope for is a fair reconstruction when new evidence is discovered, or critical thinking applied where it was previously absent.

History is not written by the victors, nor by the truthtellers; it is written by the people who make stuff up that others enjoy repeating. For instance, I disagree with your claim about the Betsy Ross story. I think it's ridiculous to insist that everyone treats it as gospel any more than the story of Washington and the cherry tree. But if your claim feels "truthy" to others based on their prejudices then it will be repeated and be immortal. Who "wins" or "loses" and how we define winning or losing is irrelevant.

> Similar examples of retroactive history exist in English history where first recorded mentions are 200+ years after the events in question, not to mention excluding whole groups of people from history, ie women, slaves, children, commoners, losers, etc.

Certainly, but the American revolution was just 200 years ago or so, and we have outsiders views like Alexis de Tocqueville who should be regarded as primary source of truth regarding what the Revolution led to, instead of a pullitzer prize professor from 20xx who has never even remotely lived in that period.

De Tocqueville was visiting a country that had already been purged of key dissenting voices. When the American Revolution broke out, society was quite split on whether to remain a colony or to rebel. The revolutionaries won in large part by burning down loyalists' houses and tarring and feathering them, until they either fled to Canada and the West Indies or kept their mouths shut from fear. Saying that the independent US was so great because Tocqueville thought it free and prosperous is like saying any repressive state is so great because when you traveled there you met so many happy people and did not see anything amiss.

If you like contemporary primary sources, there are plenty of letters and diaries documenting how oppressive the revolutionaries were. No surprise that doesn't get covered in American schools, it would get in the way of constructing a national mythology like every newly independent nation wants to do (my own Eastern European country is just as bad).

Have you ever read Tocqueville? He goes way beyond the simple appearances and is one of the most insightful observers about America. Its not because he liked what he saw that he should be dismissed.

But your 'outsider' is actually a temporal insider, and has nothing of the perspective that is lent by time.

That’s definitely not completely true what you just stated. Only allowing land owning white men to vote in a country that already had people with their own various forms of governance such as the Iroquois Confederacy doesn’t seem much different than aristocracy looking at it with a present day lens, and some, see indigenous people, probably didn’t think it was so great even then.

I think to say there were no benefits to others would be inaccurate, but it would also be completely inaccurate to pretend the good fortune of black peoples, indigenous people, etc were even considered.

> remember that no country had achieved freedom from oppressive monarchs in Europe

Not totally true [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

Progress is a myth (or illusion, if you prefer) that forces reductive narratives. This is a fantastic example of that: the land-owning white man now has legitimate rights. However, one of those hard-won rights was the right to own your fellow man. That seems less like progress than marginal changes that improve life for a few, written in blood.

To see something that most would agree as progress, you’d have to consider a much larger time period, over a much wider demographic than the founding fathers managed to consider.