REVOLUTION: Keywords: American Revolution 1776, French Revolution 1789, Natural Rights, Declaration of Independence, Divine Right of Kings, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, NO KINGS, Cato's Letters, John Locke, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Voltaire, Montesquieu, separation of powers, Constitution, Human Rights, revolts and rebellions, 275 Anniversary of the USA.
 |
| The Statue of Liberty on the 4th of July A gift of the French Nation to the United States of America on its First Centennial |
REVOLUTION! NO KING!
A meditation as to which historic revolution brought about the end of Kings
by Xuan Quen Santos
It should be obvious that this long period was characterized by many wars; some seeking further territorial expansion and economic control over weaker peoples, but others, the big ones, were wars between European rivals. It is worth noting that many of the European ruling dynasties were inter-related families, their wars were recurrent over the centuries, and some were driven by purely personal animosities. Spain and Portugal had taken the lead two centuries earlier, but their centralized expansion and population losses due to the settlements in the colonies, eventually caused their decline. King Charles I of Spain, who was also Emperor Charles V of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Holy Roman Emperor controlling most of the Germanic nations of Europe, claimed to be the first to “rule over an empire where the sun never sets”. His dominions expanded over half of Europe, the new American Continent, and enclaves in Africa, India and the far east of Asia. By the end of the XIX Century, Queen Victoria was also Empress of the British Empire, and she claimed the same vision. But, at that time, absolute monarchies and colonies had begun to disappear.
In the XXI century, only a handful of decorative and powerless Kings sit on shaky thrones. American tourists are fascinated by their theatric performances and costumes. Most of the other rulers claim power based on elections and the voters are told that constitutions limit their power. Many of those countries swing periodically between fraudulent elections and peaceful military coup d’états or violent revolts that abrogate the constitution while claiming to protect it.
A TALE OF TWO REVOLUTIONS
This process of change began in the 1770s. A new form of political organization, a new social order for the ages was born. It took a revolution!
In science, a revolution is going around a circle. In history, a revolution is a radical change in the political system, where an old order is substituted by a new order. We are used to seeing political revolutions portrayed as quick fixes. Only a long view of history allows us to distinguish between social revolutions and just plain violent revolts.
The month of July gives occasion to commemorate two early social events that impacted the history of the world. One is the United States War of Independence, also called the American Revolution. The other one is the French Revolution.
 |
| The drafting committee presents the final revision of the Declaration of Independence of the United Colonies of America June 28 of 1776 |
The 4th of July marks the anniversary of the final approval of the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen British colonies in the mainland of North America. The essence of this historic document is mainly a declaration of war against the King of England George III. Signed in 1776, it was the decisive break with the monarchy after more than a decade of ever increasing taxes and abuses. The war did not end until 1783, and it was not until 1789 that a substitute system of self-government took shape. The year 2026 will be the 275th anniversary of the United States of America. Maybe we are missing the implicit question that is not written in the declaration of war. If we win, what will we do then?
 |
| The assault to the Bastille prison on July 14, 1789 The old fort was already in ruins and nearly empty |
July 14th commemorates the Storming of The Bastille, known now as French National Day and is the symbol of the French Revolution. On that day, in 1789, a mob of citizens of Paris led by women stormed an old fort that had been converted into a prison but was in use as an insane asylum. The seven lunatics were let go, the guards were murdered and the fort nearly destroyed. The French Revolution was a period of major social upheaval that began in 1787 and ended in 1799. It massacred the royal family and about 10,000 priests and nuns. It led to what historians now call The Reign of Terror. French history also records a subsequent autocratic emperor, more revolutions and the restoration of several kings and emperors alternating a handful of republics.
I was always puzzled by how the French Revolution is lauded as the beginning of a new period in human history and is celebrated in many countries around the world with holidays, parades and major public events, even in places where there has been no historic connection to France, its language or its culture. With an opposite attitude, the American Revolutionary War is overlooked if not derided. In some of those countries, public reading of the American Declaration of Independence has been cause for imprisonment and reprisals. What do most people remember about the French Revolution? I am sure their top of mind has something to do with the scientific invention of “the guillotine” as a tool for public executions. Some will also remember the beautiful young queen Marie Antoinette not wanting to share her cake, or something like that. That is why she lost her head under the new machine.
As we approach the month of July, I thought it would be of interest to review the essential facts about these two revolutions and their impact on human history. What brought about the end of kings?
DIVINE RIGHT
Since time immemorial, cultural beliefs have associated the power of rulers with some divine connection. Pharaohs were not only the top priests but also gods themselves. We also find this practice during the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar had the religious title of Pontifex Maximus (Chief Priest) when he declared himself emperor. The Roman practice is exemplified by the excesses of emperor Caligula. He ordered statues of himself placed in cities throughout the empire where the subjects were to bow. China was referred to as the Celestial Empire and the emperor was considered the son of the heavens. The Japanese Emperors were thought to be living gods, or at least descendants of the sun-goddess, until the modern constitution was adopted after their defeat in World War II.
The influence of the Roman Empire in the development of European culture merged with the growing influence of Christianity after the Emperor Constantine granted religious tolerance to Christians in 313 AD with the Edict of Milan. By the year 380 AD, the three Emperors of the divided Roman Empire (Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II) approved the Edict of Thessalonica making Christianity the official religion. The Roman Catholic Popes inherited the title of Pontifex Maximus of the pagan Roman temples and non-believers were declared heretics. This association with the ruling powers led to the Papal ceremonies of anointing-blessing Emperors, Kings and Queens. It turned into crowning in 800 AD with the ceremony celebrated by Pope Leo III in the Vatican when he designated Charlemagne as the Holy Roman Emperor and Protector of the Faith. As representative of God on Earth, the Pope became the King maker of Europe, and the Kings ruled with divine blessing under the Pope. If the Popes could grant it, they could also take it away. And they did.
The marital tribulations of Henry VIII of England and the Pope’s refusal to divorce his Spanish queen led to one of the many chapters of the Reformation and the birth of the Anglican Church. Since then, the King of England is the head of the English church, and he rules directly “by the Grace of God” not needing the Pope. One of his successors, King James I enlarged his powers by sponsoring the publication of the translation into English of the Bible known today as the King James Bible. It was the first Bible to be read in English from the pulpits. Another one, King Charles I claimed absolute powers by Divine Right, which led to the revolts led by Cromwell’s Puritans and his eventual beheading. After the revolt of the English civil war, Charles II came to power with a vengeance and restored the monarchy. From then on, this religious-political doctrine became the jurisprudence that legitimized the absolute power of rulers, mainly in the reformed kingdoms, “by the Grace of God.”
 |
| After trial by Parliament, King Charles I (Stuart) of England is decapitated in public |
Claiming to derive their authority directly from God, kings are thus not subject to the will of the people, or other earthly authority such as parliament, congress, councils, or courts, or the Pope. The connection to the Roman Emperors continued into the XX century when new Caesars adopted the name as a title. The German Kaysers and the Russian Tzars created their respective titles as derivations of the Roman word in the local dialect. Both dynasties ended with the conclusion of World War I.
THE EMERGENCE OF UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS
Parallel to the gradual usurpation of divine authority to legitimize political power, an undercurrent developed in opposite direction. What we now know as human rights has a long history of development as a force to define and limit the concentration of power to rule in what we now call “the state”. The connection to divine powers used to legitimize that concentration was always backed up by violence or the threat of violence, even eternal damnation. Opposition to the divine right of kings was necessarily limited and slow to develop, but the essential idea has been there for a long time, at least since writing was developed. The Greek and semitic belief in a higher law by which everyone can be judged, even the rulers, was the seed. The simple idea that the ruler, or ruling group, is not the ultimate source of authority, combined with the belief that we are all equal at some fundamental level, opened the door to the recognition of what makes a human person and its rights. We are able to discern, to imagine plans, and to make wise choices that could lead to our improved condition. Free will is one of the names given to this concept. It is what distinguishes organic and instinctive behavior from human action which is deliberate and purposeful. It is why we are a moral creature and why we are judgmental.
The fact we are all different is obvious, but it is also evident all those elements we have in common allow us to conclude that at some essential level we are all equal. The first idea defines the individual. The second idea leads to the discovery of what makes a human person. By the XVIII century, these ideas had been identified as part of The Enlightenment in response to the rise of absolutist monarchies, such as the Stuart, Bourbon and Habsburg dynasties.
The experience of the English Civil War, associated with the uprising led by Oliver Cromwell that ended with a headless king, opened the door to a more open discussion about the nature of human rights and of government as an extension of them. English historians point to Milton (1608-1774) and Locke (1632-1704) as beacons of the new thinking. Although some of their writings opened a path to change, their own lives exhibit the contradictions of the times. Milton seems to be a champion of free expression, but when he participated in Cromwell’s dictatorial government, he became the chief censor in charge of repressing it. Locke was an advisor and secretary to Lord Ashley during the restoration of the monarchy with Charles II, a vindictive return to the monarchy, and then again during the “cabal” of peers that steered the next king to anti-Catholicism. His “Fours Letters on Toleration” are often quoted to elevate him as a champion of liberty. A generation later, the English lords, Ashley included, staged another anti-Catholic coup d’etat and made a deal with a Dutch King who became William III in England. The English like to call this bloodless rebellion “The Glorious Revolution”. The monarchy has continued, neutered by the power of a parliament that only until recently, half of it is a really elected body of government. 2023 marked the coronation of another king that chose as his name Charles III.
The French claim their share of the Enlightenment with Montesquieu (1669-1775), Rousseau (1712-1778), and Voltaire (1694-1778). The one thing they have in common is their witnessing the longest reign of the Bourbon dynasty. King Louis XIV is said to have told an assembly of notables “I am the state”, and further questioning of the king’s authority stopped. He was responsible for the English Civil War with the secret financing of his nephews, the kings of England. He was later responsible for buying the vacant throne of Spain’s empire for one of his grandsons in the middle of The Spanish War of Succession.
The Baron de Montesquieu, after analyzing how reducing the concentration of the power of the English kings had led to a more stable system with the execution of Charles I after a trial by Parliament, proposed the idea of separating the powers of the state, then unified in the monarch. The kings enacted laws, appointed judges or acted as judges, and were the heads of armies, taxed at will and literally had dominion over all properties and titles. Taking away some of the powers of kings seemed a good idea. The constitutional monarchy was born. Of course, not many kings volunteered to undergo the change. It took more wars and revolts.
Rousseau’s ideas organized the notions initially proposed earlier by Hobbs (1651) of personifying the state as a compact that organizes power, itself the product of Machiavelli’s (1532) handbooks on the use of power to rule. He is credited with “the social contract” and the idea of “the general will”, also expressed as “the will of the people”. Written constitutions were formally inducted into political theory and society took precedence to community. It does not take much to jump to “the rule of the majority” and the obliteration of individual rights by mobs. The word democracy began to be used in opposition to monarchy. He celebrated a simpler society and promoted the idea that primitive man -“the noble savage”- lived a better life without the many constraints of morality and laws; progress leads to moral decadence and inequality.
Voltaire’s novelty was as a satirist that mainly proposed that all social evils come from established rules and traditions, religion at the top of the list, which he ridiculed in caricaturesque descriptions of his times and celebrities. Paradoxically, he was a monarchist who believed democracy would lead to idiocy; a key detail his admirers forget. He was a vehement supporter of introducing reason and science into political institutions and policies. In a way, he opened the way to bureaucracy, technocracy, and the secular state under an autocratic ruler. It was inevitable that a new religion of the state would emanate from his influence during the next generation.
In spite of their fame, mainly in the countries that bred them, the ideas of these enlightened English and French thinkers do not explain the end of the era of kings.
A MUCH OLDER TRADITION
About 1,000 years before our era, the Prophet Samuel warned the Jews about setting up a monarchy. They wanted a King to lead them in war and were ready to abandon their system of personal responsibility in following the laws applied by judges. They did not listen. The kings will take and take, and you will suffer.
Four hundred years later, in the other extreme of ancient Asia, a scribe by the name of Lao-tzu left his thinking in these aphorisms as a reflection of the common sense of the Chinese people: “Without law or compulsion, men would live in harmony”. “The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be; the more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits will be”. He lived during the longest lasting Zhou dynasty. He is known as the founder of Taoism.
Jewish and Christian religions have in their essence a moral code. Free will is a condition for personal choice and responsibility. Without it, there can be no sin or virtue, no moral behavior. This human characteristic was developed throughout the Middle Ages from Augustine of Hippo to Maimonides, Occam and Aquinas, among others. It was disputed by those that believed in pre-destination and negated our ability to choose freely. The Reformers of the Renaissance were divided into these two camps.
The discovery, early conquest and colonization of the American continent and its people by the Spanish kings led to the discussion about the nature of its natives. The missionaries and philosophers of the University of Salamanca, after their field experience with the Indians during the XVI century, questioned the royal authority to undertake “just wars” against them and to “enslave them” as justified since antiquity by Aristotle’s ideas. “Humanity is one” became their dictum and the idea that baptism could not be forced upon “inferior people” was taken to the courts. Slavery of the natives was outlawed in 1542 and the rights of Indians as persons was recognized. The names of missionaries like Frs. Montesinos, Bartolome de Las Casas, and Francisco Marroquin are recognized as early promoters of the ideas of universal human rights. De Las Casas was officially appointed as the first Ombudsman of human rights by King Charles I (Emperor Charles V) as “Defender of The Indians”.
In law, the Scholastics of Salamanca, led by notable Fracisco De Vitoria led the arguments to limit the power the kings had justified for the wars of conquest. They laid the notion of basic rights innate in all persons as the cornerstone of a universal superior law. Their ideas spread to the rest of the Holy Roman Empire and filtered into universities in Italy, France, the Germanic Principalities, and Holland. Holland was the first state to approve the law of religious toleration. Escaping from the English wars and persecution, the English Puritans and Locke took refuge there. Two writers, De Groot (1583-1645) and Pufendorf (1632-1694), had become well known in the area for expanding the ideas of the scholastics as universal. “Cato's Letters” is a collection of essays published in London newspapers by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon (1720-1723) under the pseudonym "Cato". They were influential in the colonies promoting principles of liberty. The Scottish philosophers of The Enlightenment (Ferguson, Hutcheson, Hume and Smith) promoted the ideas of a self-organizing society that did not require the direction of the state. Smith (1723-1790) discussed the concept of a social order based on “a system of natural liberty” (1759) which he developed in the well known “The Wealth of Nations”, for short (1776). Their writings were greatly influential during the constitutional debates of the American colonies.
This long tradition of intellectual speculation was labeled initially “natural rights”, not just because we find them to exist in humans absent of any legal granting authority, but also because every person born (From Latin nascitur, nato, nativity, native, innate) has them by the mere act of being born. The anti-religious secularism that influenced much of the philosophers of The Enlightenment (Rationalists and scientificists) used the word natural in opposition to supernatural, taking the divine origin out of the discussion. The brief revision of history I have made makes it evident that most of the originators of this new concept were theologians, priests, monks missionaries or even lay Christian or Jewish philosophers.
In order to exercise our ability to choose, we must do so in the absence of coercion or interference by others. This is called freedom or liberty, although they are not exactly the same concepts. Why and what would we choose? We will always tend to select the expected result that will improve our condition. In summary: 1) Our life is ours, so we have a right to it, 2) In order to do with our life what we decide, we must be free to do it, so we have a right to liberty, and 3) We make our decisions aiming at whatever we think is best. In other words, we have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that it does not guarantee the result. We can always make mistakes in our decisions, and we can’t control all exogenous events or conditions.
If we can choose, we must do so without the interference of others to make it our choice. This requirement is called freedom from a root in the Germanic-Old English, and liberty in the Latin-Romance languages tradition. There is an important difference.
"Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl wrote in “Man's Search for Meaning”: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way in how we approach them.” In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on in your brain, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct. If our mind is working, we are free until the moment we die.
“Liberty" is an external construct. It is the space between the equal rights of others. It implies the responsibility of respecting that limit, usually set by common sense, customs, norms and laws. It's the condition of being free within society from oppressive or arbitrary restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, religious or political views. Legislation by men becomes oppressive if it is not the organization of our rights to maximize the opportunities for all to pursue our happiness, that is, to live in liberty.
 |
| One of the original paper copies of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America |
The first document to cite a king’s violation of the natural rights of its subjects was the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen English colonies in North America. It reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The proclamation then goes on to state that “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” And, then it declares that if the government has not secured them, and if fact it has violated them “…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The text follows with the detailed indictments of the violations committed by King George III. It was made public on July 4 of 1776. The document is in fact a declaration of war, a situation the people had been suffering for nearly ten years. By 1776, they knew they had to change government, but had no clear plan as to what kind of government it would be. Some just wanted a new good king.
 |
| The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Inspired by Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man", revised by Thomas Jefferson and written in French by Lafayette, who became head of The Civil Guard of Paris during the French Revolution. Edited and approved by the National Assembly on July 11, 1789 Paine had been elected to the Assembly as an honor and Jefferson was the Ambassador of the United States of America, substituting Ben Franklin |
THE MUTATION OF NAMES
Some words of warning. The concept I have discussed has been included under different names as they were written in later catalogs together with a greater number of other privileges and entitlements. They are fundamental, a foundation, which is one name they received at the beginning. Then, they were called natural rights. Not wanting to discuss their natural origin, they became the rights of man. The French revolt used the phrase “the rights of man and the citizen” and introduced collective-political rights. In 1924, the League of Nations proclaimed children’s rights and a collective obligation towards them. Led by Eleanor Roosevelt, the recently created United Nations approved in 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It includes: right to social security; right to just and favorable work conditions with equal pay; right to paid vacations; rights to payment due to unemployment, disability, sickness, widowhood, and old age; rights to free education; rights to enjoy the arts…the list goes on.
Lost among the 46 rights with sub-lists of an almost equal number, the essential three natural rights have become equals to the list of possibilities that the laws of man may give you. Do you think the right to life is of the same essence and category as the right to a paid vacation?
A NEW ORDER FOR THE AGES
Take out a dollar bill and look at the green side with the big word ONE. On each side there is a circle. These are the two sides of the Great Seal of The United States, as designed and approved by the founders in 1782. Each element is symbolic of an idea. I will only point out three concepts contained in the legends. The Seal is full of mysteries worth investigating.
The right side with the bald eagle is a challenge; count how many sets of 13 you can see. The eagle is holding in its beak a banner with the inscription E PLURIBUS UNUM”, Latin for “Out of many, one”. A reference to the federal system, but also a reference to how out of many diverse people, one new nation has been born.
The other side has an incomplete pyramid. Above it, floating in the sky is the Latin phrase “ANNUIT COEPTIS”, meaning “He (God) has accepted (favored) us, an idea that in the XX century was expanded with “IN GOD WE TRUST”.
Underneath it, a banner says in Latin “NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM”: A NEW ORDER FOR THE AGES.
The Great Seal of the United States of America is indeed a recognition that they had launched The Great American Experiment, a new system of government that has withstood the tests of time. So far… Is it not quite exceptional?
It is their legacy to us.
The New Order for the Ages did not emerge in 1776. It did not get to a full start until all 13 original states eventually ratified the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, with Rhode Island being the last on May 29, 1790.
WHAT 1776 WAS ALL ABOUT
It is difficult to visualize and understand the past because our experience with the most common items, circumstances, habits or conditions of today are very different. One example is the temptation to call the places under discussion states, which is what they became much later. The word colonies seems to homogenize them, when in fact, they considered themselves separate countries, some with great animosities against each other. Another example is the controversy over the terms servant and slave that seem very far apart today. That was not the case throughout history, and not in 1776. Judging the past with today’s eyes is flawed thinking. But that issue is not the only one. Writing from the winner’s point of view will always veil many of the facts.
Without writing patriotically-retrospectively from the point of view of the victors, the 1776 Continental Congress can best be described as “a conspiracy of a few seditious plotters that wanted to overthrow the legitimate government they considered oppressive.” John Adams admitted so to his wife Abigail in one of his many letters.
The Founders could hardly be thought of as representatives of the more than two million people involved. They had no common vision of what they would do afterwards and most just wanted to return to their countries, meaning the territories that we now call states, and carry on as before the King’s new policies had been imposed.
They had been meeting -conspiring- on and off since 1774, and they could only discuss their discontent with their monarch’s abuses and what to do about it. The King’s soldiers had been coming since 1765, and had begun their actions of violence against the colonists since 1770.
The delegates to the initial meetings agreed on what they were against, not on what they were for. In the meantime, their King had invaded their homelands with a real army and had begun to round them up. By 1776, most had become firm proponents of independence. Many of them already had instructions from their own assemblies back home to that effect. Others were not so sure. All of them were already men wanted by the law. They knew they had risked it all. Just read the last lines of the Declaration of Independence.
A LIMITED AGENDA
The sole matter in question, which is what they had to decide, was: To respond to the King’s war by declaring independence, asserting it by force, and figuring out how to do it.
How to do it involved setting up some kind of permanent system of managing the situation, not quite a government. It required an army, which means people willing to die, equipped with what was needed to fight and win. It also required voices that could get the support needed to accomplish their task, such as ambassadors and community leaders. All that required money, which they did not have, and could not tax on others.
None of them were foolish enough to think that such a small group of people, genuine representatives or not, had the power to impose on the independent countries what had not specifically been previously approved. Such matters, regardless of merit, were out of the question.
Thinking today they should have abolished slavery is outright misunderstanding their predicament and powers. The issue was alive, and many of the separate colonies had made great advances towards it. The “odious institution” began to crumble from the beginning outside of the federal framework simply because the framework did not exist yet.
THE KEY TO REVOLUTION
July 14th is Bastille Day. It is commemorated in many countries where July 4th is unspeakable. The 14th is the day when in France, in 1789, the Parisian mobs stormed an old fortress that had until recently become famous for housing “celebrity intellectuals” that had been considered dangerous. The famous Voltaire and the infamous Marquis De Sade come to mind. it was not considered the worst place to be in jail in France at the time. The warden was paid in terms of the prisoners that were “surviving”, more for the celebrities than for the common men. King Louis XVI and his father had begun prison reform as part of their policies. The day of the event, it was almost empty. Very important were its convenient location and not being well guarded. A great target for the mob.
Built in the XIV century to defend the eastern entrance to Paris from a possible English attack that never happened, it had been turned into a prison by the XVI century, by then surrounded by urban growth. It was crumbling, had been scheduled for demolition to build a plaza, and was almost empty in 1789. Out of its seven prisoners, four were lunatics, what today we would call mentally ill. Hardly a military or strategic objective. It did not matter.
 |
| The public execution by guillotine of King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793. His queen followed and their children died in prison |
The mob took it over, nearly demolished it with cannon fire, murdered the guards, freed the “prisoners”, and became the symbol of the reign of terror as they paraded the head of the warden through the city of Paris on a bloody pike. The truth does not matter in official history. July 14th marks the calendars for the French Revolution and all the glory that has been re-written into it. It is celebrated by “action” socialists all over the world. The French style of revolution is the mother of “the democratic mob”.
 |
| Emperor Napoleon I Military champion of the French Revolution, became a dictator in the chaos to restore order and finally declared himself Emperor After taking Louisiana from Spain, he sold it to Thomas Jefferson, then President of the USA |
The plaza was built. Half a century later, a railroad station occupied most of the old site on one side and a commemorative column was placed in the center of a traffic rotunda. An open market operated for the next century, such as pop-up flea markets appear today. The real Bastille was forgotten, and the celebrations moved to the Arc De Triomphe ever since.
 |
| In the presence of the Pope Pius VII, after crowning himself Emperor, he crowns his wife Josephine on December 2, 1804 |
This new landmark was conceived and started in 1806 by Napoleon I as a monument to himself, the glorified military hero of the French Revolution who quashed it to restore order. He then became dictator and eventually declared himself Emperor and bought himself a royal wife from his former enemies. Napoleon was soon taken out and the Arc was not finished. After another revolutionary chaos in 1830 the monarchy was restored with the new King Louis-Phillipe I, of the original Bourbon royal family. He completed the monument, only to be toppled by another revolt in 1848. In the resulting chaos, a nephew of Napoleon was elected president. In 1851, he dissolved the second republic and crowned himself as Emperor Napoleon III (1808-1873). During the Civil War of the United States, he supported the confederacy and attempted to take over Mexico as a colony. Initially defeating the Mexican forces, he imposed as their second Emperor a royal of the Habsburg dynasty that ended in 1867.
 |
| Emperor Napoleon III A nephew of Napoleon I, elected as President of the second republic after a third French Revolution, he staged a coup d'etat and declared himself Emperor |
The third republic ended up collaborating with Hitler, who took a famous photograph under the Arc as he did his victory lap in Paris. A 4th republic was established in 1946 after the Allied Armies led by Texas born General D. Eisenhower, future President of the USA, had defeated the national socialist army of Germany and liberated Paris. The 4th republic lasted only 12 years and had 21 different governments. General De Gaulle, who had been the Commander of the Free French Army during WW II, which sounds important, but it was not, just war propaganda, was seated as Prime Minister and Minister of Defense to stop the new chaos. He re-wrote the French Constitution, had it approved by referendum, and got himself elected President of the fifth republic in 1959. After re-elections, he finally resigned in 1969.
 |
| The Fuehrer of the NAZI (National Socialist) German government Adolf Hitler after the French government entered into an armistice and allowed the occupation during World War II |
The start of the current French republic sounds to me as another cycle of mini revolution to dictator back to revolution; the circle type. The French must believe their own official history blindly. Since they started the count, they must be expecting No. 6 soon, or they are so embarrassed that they are already in the 7th but stopped counting.
 |
| Head of the French State, Marshal Joseph Petain greets the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler of the NAZI (National Socialist) regime of Germany during World War II |
THE KEY TO THE BASTILLE
Two hundred years after the first Bastille incident, during the summer of 1989, I took my family to visit Washington, the capital of the federal republic, on a pilgrimage in civic education. We began in Atlanta and admired the natural beauty of the Blue Ridge Parkway to visit Monticello. Then, we went on to Williamsburg, and the countryside of Old Dominion. In the capital, we toured The White House, the Mall and its monuments, Congress, the Smithsonian museums, the new Holocaust Museum, the National Gallery, and the National Geographic Museum. We ended up our long tour in Alexandria, Virginia.
Alexandria’s old town sector has kept its XIX century charm and character and it is easy to imagine George Washington driven to the port in his carriage to take a boat to the city being built for the new government, downstream and across the Potomac. Two sites are impressive in the area. Both are privately owned and operated.
The George Washington Masonic National Memorial is one. Visit their website and watch their video. Since they are still a secret society, they don’t really tell you the secrets. It is enough to know that, according to Masonic sources, 14 Presidents of the 46 were Masons of high ranking. Nine signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Masons, as well as a different set of nine approved the federal constitution. The Great Seal of the nation is embedded with their symbols.
 |
| The main hall of the George Washington Masonic National Memorial near Mount Vernon A temple to honor the Big Man |
Between their secrets and their impressive Temple to Washington, it seems that they have fallen into the political view usually called “The Big Man” theory of history. One of the chief Masons must have visited Napoleon’s tomb-temple in Paris. As you enter the temple in Alexandria, a giant statue of The Big Man greets you, much like Zeus must have impressed the ancient Greeks. I prefer common sense. Did everything happen in 1776 because of only one man? No offense to the Masonic Lodges and their secrets. Where are they now that the Republic needs them?
 |
| Emperor Napoleon I tomb at the Temple of The Invalides, Paris It is the main hall of the French Military Museum |
Down the river road, eight miles along the Potomac is Mount Vernon, George and Martha Washington’s home. Visit their website, where you will find out that Mount Vernon is owned and maintained in trust for the people of the United States by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union, a private, non-profit organization.” They don't accept government funding and rely upon private contributions to help preserve George Washington's home and legacy. Help if you can. They do a wonderful job, and they have for over a century.
During our visit, a team of archaeologists was working on the restoration of the slave quarters and other out-buildings that explain how a plantation operated as a largely self-sufficient, pre-industrial, large scale agricultural business. For many years, historic sites that had a past in the plantation economy have been playing down what relates to the issue of slavery. Some just erased that part of their history. It is a good thing that, just as Mount Vernon Plantation has reconstructed its past more honestly, others have followed. Slavery is part of our past, but it needs to be understood completely, objectively, and with the human side.
Mount Vernon is the site where the manor house, residences and main operations facilities were located. Its immediate land was really a farm, garden and orchard that produced the food that supported the estate. The plantation land was farther away with more than 3,000 acres. It was divided into four sections for planting tobacco, wheat, and other crops for rotation.
During the guided visit we had a chance to walk the grounds around the mansion and visit some of the 21 rooms in the house. My children were impressed by the chamber pots and warming pans. They could not conceive how the President of the United States, and one of the wealthiest men of his time, did not have indoor plumbing, a toilet and central heating.
Their observations made me think that, after all his victories and successes, and the imposing Masonic Temple that stands nearby in his honor, George Washington was only just a man. His greatest accomplishments were definitely his refusal to become king, as many in his armies were promoting after victory, and also his refusing to stand for a third term. After the initial years of nurturing and practice, he let the infant republic go its way onto the new experimental constitution.
The biggest threat to our federal republic to be ruled with the powers of a king was the obstinacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt to continue running into a fourth term being ill, with a congress and supreme court in his pocket with the excuse of the Great Depression and then, World War II. We will never know who was really exercising the executive power. We just went through another dangerous chapter that posed the same risk with President Joseph Robinette Biden. Almost declared legally incapacitated, his entourage, with the power of the party machinery and the bureaucracy in power, pushed him into running again. Maybe it is an opportunity to revise the constitutional rules, just as it happened after FDR's autocratic 4 terms.
During our visit to Mount Vernon, I was impressed by a small display case on the wall of the central hall or passage. It contained a big, unremarkable, black iron key, not an objet d’art. Just a bit over a pound of dark metal.
 |
| The Key to the Bastille Displayed at Mount Vernon |
The tour guide said the key was a gift sent to General Washington by the Marquis De Lafayette. It was the key to the Bastille, the infamous prison of Paris and symbol of the despotism of the French monarchs, and more recently, of the French Revolution. The guide also explained that in the following days, the key was going back to France. President George H. W. Bush was going to present it to the French President Francois Mitterrand on occasion of the bicentennial of the French Revolution. It was June of 1989.
President Bush had just inaugurated his term the previous January. As Vice-President of Ronald Reagan, he had a leading participation in the commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. It had been an extraordinary display of pride and joy the United States gave to the world in celebration of its open society of free people. In June of 1987, Reagan had also pronounced his famous lines in Berlin, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”, and the wall had begun to crack. Many of us saw the impending end of the soviet era. We thought it would be the end of communism too. Time has proven us wrong.
At that moment, France seemed to be going in the opposite direction. It had just elected the first socialist President of the fifth republic, who was co-governing with the communist party. They had to plan the celebration of the 200th Bastille Day. The old place was not fitting. They tore down the train station, cleaned the plaza, and built a new opera-house that was not completed on time, and a metro station.
I saw it on the news back at home. On July 13th of 1989, the President of the United States of America turned over the famous key. On the 14th, it was displayed during the inauguration of the new Opera de la Bastille. The French people were bewildered. What key? Why did they have it? Why was it in George Washington’s house? Did President Bush mean it as an insult to the socialist-communist regime of France?
The answers were provided by the actions and writings of Thomas Paine and his friend the Marquis De Lafayette. The key was given to Lafayette shortly after the event as he was the Commander of the National Guard in Paris. With a letter and other gifts to George Washington, he gave it to his friend and fellow revolutionary Thomas Paine. The revolution was unraveling, and he had announced his plans to return to the United States after finishing some business in London. Because his return was delayed, Paine also wrote a transmittal letter and gave everything to John Rutledge Jr., a representative to Congress from North Carolina who was departing shortly. The gifts and letters reached Washington in New York, where his residence and the federal government were established in the 1790s.
Lafayette’s letter has these moving lines that described the gift as “a tribute, which I owe as a son to my adopted father, as an aide de camp to my general, as a Missionary of liberty to its patriarch.” Paine was more blunt in his own letter when he wrote, “That the principles of America opened the Bastille is not to be doubted, and therefore, the key comes to the right place.” The French are not amused when any of these points are discussed. Particularly the socialists.
 |
| We, The People, celebrating the 4th of July Heroes, We, The People |
Since 1989, I believed it had been a mistake to return the Key to the Bastille to the French, who have not been good custodians of the liberty their revolution had announced it would bring. When fact checking this story, I found out the end of the story. I had been mistaken as to the final place for the key. The key is, and has been since it was gifted by Lafayette, private property, now of the Ladies of Mount Vernon. They loaned it to President Bush, who loaned it to President Mitterrand for its public exhibition for two weeks. It was duly returned and placed back in its case. I thank the historians/archivists at the Bush Presidential Library in Texas A&M University for the documentation.
After three decades, the details of the celebration of Bastille Day’s bicentennial in Paris made me think of the irony of it all. The French spent millions in the building of a new opera-house to celebrate their socialist revolution. To do that, they hired Carlos Ott, a young Uruguayan architect educated professionally in the USA who practiced in Canada, since none of the French designs were finalists of the competition. But that is not all. Opera was the entertainment of the King and his court, not of the people that cut their heads off. “Quite elitist”, I thought. And then, we took the key back. French friends of mine tell me the new opera house is mostly for the entertainment of American tourists.
The best part was the key. A reminder to the French people of the origin of the opportunity they had with the key to real liberty, which they did not understand and just wasted. which is what they have been doing. It sounds more like what happens when you drive an old vehicle on a bad road, and you blow a tire. A spare of the same kind is put in place, and you continue, around and around, until the next blowout. Had they kept it, the key would have been wasted again.
Which revolution brought about the end of the kings? The one that created the mob under the name of democracy, or the one that created a new order for the ages in the form of a federal republic that serves the united states that created it? More than two and a half centuries later, the great American experiment of 1776 seems to be holding. We just have to be vigilant in order to keep it going, with a larger population, an ever-increasing diversity, and in harmony.
 |
| The next generation of We, The People learning to celebrate their Heritage |
No comments:
Post a Comment