I strongly disagree that Lincoln was correct to prioritize the union over ending slavery (though remember that this was when he was facing a risk of a massive war, a war which when it did break out killed hundreds of thousands). For one thing he probably wasnât doing that to preserve âfreedomâ in some universalist sense after cost benefit analysis, but rather because he valued US nationalism over Black lives. But I still think this is a little simplistic. In the late 18th century, many, probably most countries and cultures in the world either had slavery internally, or used slavery as part of a colonial Empire. For example, slavery was widepsread in Africa internally, many European countries had empires that used slave labour, Arabs had a large slave trade in East Africa, the Mughals sold slaves from India, and if you pick up the great 18th century Chinese novel The Story of the Stone, youâll find many characters are slaves. Meanwhile, the founding ideals of the US were unusually liberal and egalitarian relative to the vast majority of places at the time, and this probably did effect the internal experience of the average US citizen. The US reached a relatively expanded franchise with many working class male citizens able to vote far before almost anywhere else. So the US was not exceptional in its support for slavery or colonialist expansion (against Native Americans), but it was exceptional in its levels of internal (relative) liberal democracy. I think its plausible that on net the existence of the US therefore advanced the cause of âfreedomâ in some sense. Moving forward, it seems plausible that overall having the worldâs largest and most powerful country be a liberal democracy has plausibly advanced the cause of liberal democracy overall, and the US is primarily responsible for the fact that German and Japan, two other major powers, are liberal democracies. Against that, you can point to the fact that the US has certainly supported dictatorship when itâs suited it, or when itâs been in the private interests of US businesses (particularly egregiously in Guatemala was genuinely genocidal results*). But there are also plenty places where the US really has supported democracy (i.e. in the former socialist states of Eastern Europe), so I donât think this overcomes the prior that having the worldâs most powerful and one of its richest nations, with the dominant popular culture, be a liberal democracy was good for freedom overall. Washington and the other revolutionaries plausibly bear a fair amount of responsibility for this. And in particular, Washingtonâs decision to leave power willingly, when he probably could have carried on being re-elected as a war hero until he died probably did a lot to consolidate democracy (such as it was) at the time. Of course, those founders who DID oppose slavery are much more unambiguously admirable.
Iâm mainly taking issue with the âmachinery of freedomâ claim and the idea that the US is uniquely free. I would say the US is more free than average, but itâs hardly exceptional.
The US gave women the right to vote in 1919, whereas Australia had it since 1902, the UK had it in 1918, etc. And of course, there wasnât universal right to vote until the civil rights movement.
Looking further back, while slavery was widespread, many other countries were much better than the US on this issue: the uk (no saint) banned it in 1807, over half a century before the US went to war with itself over the issue.
Iâm happy to credit washington with support of democracy, but this idolisation just seems a little weird to me.
I strongly disagree that Lincoln was correct to prioritize the union over ending slavery (though remember that this was when he was facing a risk of a massive war, a war which when it did break out killed hundreds of thousands). For one thing he probably wasnât doing that to preserve âfreedomâ in some universalist sense after cost benefit analysis, but rather because he valued US nationalism over Black lives. But I still think this is a little simplistic. In the late 18th century, many, probably most countries and cultures in the world either had slavery internally, or used slavery as part of a colonial Empire. For example, slavery was widepsread in Africa internally, many European countries had empires that used slave labour, Arabs had a large slave trade in East Africa, the Mughals sold slaves from India, and if you pick up the great 18th century Chinese novel The Story of the Stone, youâll find many characters are slaves. Meanwhile, the founding ideals of the US were unusually liberal and egalitarian relative to the vast majority of places at the time, and this probably did effect the internal experience of the average US citizen. The US reached a relatively expanded franchise with many working class male citizens able to vote far before almost anywhere else. So the US was not exceptional in its support for slavery or colonialist expansion (against Native Americans), but it was exceptional in its levels of internal (relative) liberal democracy. I think its plausible that on net the existence of the US therefore advanced the cause of âfreedomâ in some sense. Moving forward, it seems plausible that overall having the worldâs largest and most powerful country be a liberal democracy has plausibly advanced the cause of liberal democracy overall, and the US is primarily responsible for the fact that German and Japan, two other major powers, are liberal democracies. Against that, you can point to the fact that the US has certainly supported dictatorship when itâs suited it, or when itâs been in the private interests of US businesses (particularly egregiously in Guatemala was genuinely genocidal results*). But there are also plenty places where the US really has supported democracy (i.e. in the former socialist states of Eastern Europe), so I donât think this overcomes the prior that having the worldâs most powerful and one of its richest nations, with the dominant popular culture, be a liberal democracy was good for freedom overall. Washington and the other revolutionaries plausibly bear a fair amount of responsibility for this. And in particular, Washingtonâs decision to leave power willingly, when he probably could have carried on being re-elected as a war hero until he died probably did a lot to consolidate democracy (such as it was) at the time. Of course, those founders who DID oppose slavery are much more unambiguously admirable.
*More people should know about this, it was genuinely hideously evil: https://ââen.wikipedia.org/ââwiki/ââGuatemalan_genocide
Iâm mainly taking issue with the âmachinery of freedomâ claim and the idea that the US is uniquely free. I would say the US is more free than average, but itâs hardly exceptional.
The US gave women the right to vote in 1919, whereas Australia had it since 1902, the UK had it in 1918, etc. And of course, there wasnât universal right to vote until the civil rights movement.
Looking further back, while slavery was widespread, many other countries were much better than the US on this issue: the uk (no saint) banned it in 1807, over half a century before the US went to war with itself over the issue.
Iâm happy to credit washington with support of democracy, but this idolisation just seems a little weird to me.