In using July 4th and the Declaration as the date and document that “brought forth” the country, he was putting it above the Constitution, the legal agreement ratified by the original 13 states in 1788, five years after the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War; a contract that had created the current federal government and might arguably be considered the real start of the United States.
However, the Constitution had allowed the
continuation of slavery—hardly in tune with the founding proposition of
equality and inalienable rights--and was the divisive issue which had led to
the civil war. In Lincoln’s reasoning, this constituted a fatal flaw. Hence his
referring to the proposition as “unfinished work” and calling for “a new birth
in freedom.”
For
Lincoln, carefully thought-out phrases and written arguments mattered. They
conveyed important meanings, distinctions, and subtleties—all key tools in the
art of persuasion.
I doubt if anyone nowadays would argue his
contention that the country’s birth occurred on July 4, 1776. I’m not sure very
many Americans did back then, whether Northerner or Southerner.
What is interesting to consider is that the
actual fighting between the colonial and British forces had begun over a year
earlier at Lexington, Massachusetts. And, furthermore, at that very moment,
General George Washington and his army were laying siege to the British forces
in Boston.
The argument could be made that the real
birth of the nation occurred on a village square in New England; however,
despite the armed conflict that ensued, no formal declaration of separation had
been made.
In
between “the shot heard around the world” and the ringing of the Liberty Bell
was a period of hesitation, of uncertainty.
For many colonialists, the emotional ties with the mother country were
difficult to sever, and more than a few hoped a peaceful settlement could be
reached.
Perhaps, more than a few of them were also
hedging their bets, well aware that while Great Britain’s army might be in dire
straits at Boston, they boasted the most powerful army and navy in the world
and would be back in force. Possibly they nursed the hope that if matters
didn’t get too far out of hand, the Crown and Parliament—after hanging the ring
leaders--might otherwise be lenient with its wayward American colonies.
Still, the fighting was going on and with each
casualty, the opportunity for a peaceful compromise was becoming more
problematic.
What
helped tip the scales, changing many people’s perception of what the fight was
all about and why independence was the better course, was a 48-page pamphlet
entitled Common Sense. Written by
Thomas Paine and published early part of 1776, it had a galvanizing effect. In
the textbook Out of Many: A History of
the American People, the authors noted that “For years Americans had
defended their actions by wrapping themselves in the mantle of British
tradition,” considering themselves aggrieved citizens and seeking remedy
through changes in the law.
“But
Paine argued that the British system rested on “the base remains of two ancient
tyrannies,” aristocracy and monarchy, neither of which was appropriate for
America,” the authors added.
A passage from history.com
noted that Paine fundamentally changed the tenor of colonists’ argument with
the crown when he wrote the following: “Europe, and not England, is the
parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the
persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of
Europe. Hither they have fled, not from the tender embraces of the
mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England,
that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their
descendants still.”
Pamphlets back then were the popular and most efficient means to distribute ideas and information and put forth a
specific political or religious point of view. They remained an important means
of mass communication through the 1800s, although newspapers became more and
more prominent and influential as the 19th century progressed.
Common Sense would prove to the most
famous and best selling one. Over 120,000 copies were sold within the first
three months, a Connecticut newspaper reprinted it in its entirety, and George Washington
had it read to his troops. By the year’s end it was estimated that a
half-million copies were distributed throughout the colonies and had even
crossed the ocean to England, France, and other European nations.
In America, the widespread dissemination of pamphlets was possible due
to printers being located in the cities and towns along the eastern seaboard,
able to easily produce these inexpensive tracts. The documents tended to be
short, written in a popular style, and were often recited aloud in gathering
places such as churches, taverns, and town meetings. Copies could be
distributed from one place to the other by postal riders, stage coaches, or
ships.
Paine and his writing would further aid the American cause during the War.
In a series called The Crisis, he
penned 16 pamphlets, with 13 of them produced in 1776-77 when many people were
still on the fence and the cause of independence seemed doubtful.
None were more moving than the opening lines of his first effort, initially
published in the Pennsylvania Journal.
It too was read to Washington’s troops on the eve of what became known as the
Battle of Trenton.
THESE are the times that try men's
souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink
from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love
and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet
we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more
glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is
dearness only that gives every thing its va
While the pamphlet (as a tool of public
advocacy) lives on in a
much smaller form as a handout for political campaigns, featuring photos of the
candidate and family and using bullet points and brief statements to highlight
their views and qualifications, modern America is well populated with would-be
Thomas Paine’s.
Their
assorted compositions on governmental policies, social and cultural issues, and
religious matters can be read in newspaper columns, magazine essays, and books.
The print media, as it did back in those Revolutionary times, continues to
serve as a mechanism for conveying thoughts, ideas, and proposals.
However, now as then, there exist gatekeepers who limit and restrict the
venue. Unless you produce your own newspaper or magazine or finance your own
book (fairly expensive endeavors), the composition has to meet the approval of
an editor or publisher and, even then, there is limited space.
The internet has, of course, created a whole new paradigm for public
discourse. Writers and advocates are only a blog or email away from presenting
their latest article or plea, while the bulk of the citizenry can join in by
posting comments or, on social media sites like Face book, offer their own
opinions.
In a lot of instances, the opinions expressed belong to a like-minded
source that they’ve located elsewhere on the internet and are sharing. I’ve noticed links to articles, often
on-line newspapers or the web site of a large reputable organization, which is
great—I’ve done a few of these “sharings” myself.
But I suspect most users don’t actually click onto the site and read
what’s been suggested by one of their social media friends. More often what you
see is a graphic illustration or photo, accompanied by a brief statement or
question (called a Meme), designed for emotional impact and to articulate in no
uncertain terms a particular position or belief. With these postings, there’s
little doubt which side of a political and policy debate the person is on.
Facts and historical accuracy are not always found in these offerings.
They are very much subjective and one-sided.
A sad outcome (at least to me) is that the internet has helped to reinforce
the alternative universes that too often exist in political and public advocacy,
with partisans having their own distinct versions of reality.
The intent may be to persuade; however, more and more people seem to be
talking past each other, preaching to the choir and demonizing any and all
opposing views.
Of course, people entrenched in their own attitudes and versions of
reality existed long before the arrival of the internet. Even so, back then and
still today, when sitting down to read a piece of writing, whether on a printed
page or a computer screen, the activity provides an opportunity to open up the
mind for a broader context, a more nuanced examination, and a different
perspective. None of which the tirades, those emotional and hard-edged pieces
of propaganda, can offer.
As Lincoln, Paine, and many others have demonstrated, there are tools to
persuasion. When the argument that’s being advocated is well constructed, its
theme presented in a thoughtful and understandable manner, if it makes sense
and seems plausible, if it inspires the reader to action or even opens their
mind to a different possibility, then the mission has been accomplished.
It’s a two-way street. What’s sought from the
reader should also be expected of the advocate. When both sides are willing to
listen, the public discourse is underway. The give-and-take of discussion and
debate has begun.
Making a persuasive argument was the goal back when pamphlets offered
their version of Common Sense; it should still be the aim in this Age of the
Internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment