Blog : Reply to Still: About Change and Progress

934 posts
3/13/2013 10:11 pm

Reply to Still: About Change and Progress

Hi folks!

Yesterday, Stillwater, a fine fellow and decent thinker posted a blog entry comparing the political winds of 1776 with those of today. He made an effort to do it in a non-revisionist fashion. However, by leaving out the fact that American patriots of that era were fighting for the same freedoms which conservatives are today, Stillwater has, in spite of his good intentions, nonetheless inadvertently portrayed history in a revisionist manner.

I'm not posting this blog today to criticize Still! However, the whole blog entry, and the comments by myself and everyone else that followed made me realize something that I believe the American society today has lost sight of, and MUCH TO ITS OWN DETRIMENT!

I'll summarize it at the end. First, Still's blog and my comments there:

1776: CONSERVATIVES VS LIBERALS (A Historical Perspective) -From Still's blog of 3/12/2013

To understand the roots of democracy and free debate in the United States I think we need to go back and look at our own roots as a nation and we need to do it in a non-revisionist way.

So let us take a trip back to 1776 and sum up what was happening with the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

The Tories and the Whigs were about as close to two political parties as existed in the colonies in those days. The Tories being the conservatives and the Whigs the liberals.

As is with conservatives of our own time, the Tories were against change. On July 7, 1774 a Torie publication called the Massachusetts Spy had this to say about American independence “a tree of forbidden and accursed fruit, which if any colony on this continent should be so mad as to attempt teaching, the rest would have virtue and wisdom enough to draw their swords and hew the traitors into submission, if not into loyalty.”

Without a doubt the liberals of that era had their conservative opponents who were against change. It is not hard to understand why conservatives might think that way. England was the most powerful nation on earth at that time and had recently defeated both France and Spain in wars.

Fighting a war of sedition would be costly and the chances of winning were very slim considering the Colonies had a rag-tag army going up against a trained veteran military power.

Also the colonies had substantial financial ties to England which would be severed by a war of sedition and that would effect the colonies economically.

On June 11 of 1776 the Continental Congress put together a committee of five to draft a declaration of independence. The committee consisted of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. Thomas Jefferson was assigned the task of drafting the document.

The Declaration of Independence was finished and put before the Continental Congress. It was accepted on July 2, 1776. (Not July 4th)

Jefferson was upset that one of his grievances against King George was edited out: "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."

This passage was edited out to appease delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. It is said that although Jefferson himself was a slave owner he was upset by the removal of his grievance up until the day of his death.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed it is estimated that 20% of the estimated conservatives (Tories) remaining loyal to England left the Colonies for either Canada or Europe. I guess it was a “love it or leave it” situation.

There was one signer of the Declaration of Independence who later recanted his signature and support for the document. That man was Richard Stockton of New Jersey who was captured by British soldiers and taken into captivity in the middle of the night. He was locked into a British prison and was in dire circumstances. History seems to have absolved Mr. Stockton.

Based on all of the evidence it seems to me that if the conservatives had had their way in 1776 sedition would have not happened, the Declaration of Independence would have not been signed, there would have been no Revolution and thus today we would have no Constitution to debate because the United States of America would not exist as it is, but would have remained subject to English law at that time in history.

If that is the case then I would dare say that the founding of the United States of America was a liberal enterprise.

Today, as it was in 1776, it is the liberals who embrace change. It is the liberals who point the way toward the future while conservatives want to cling to the past.

[End of Still's blog]

My first comment:

By this logic, then as soon as the liberals get their way, it will be time to change again? You are advocating change simply for the sake of change. But then when does it stop?

Wiser people would say two things:

1. "First, do no harm!"

They would also say:

2. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Those two phrases require people to THINK deeper and beyond what appears to be obvious and quick simple fixes in life.

THOSE are the REAL conservatives!

GBU all,

Gavin

Then, in a second comment, I added an afterthought:

I should add that: Not all change is progress!

GBU,

Gavin

[End of my first two comments]

Stillwater didn't respond to my first comment, but he did reply to my second afterthought:

Quoting GavinLS2: I should add that: Not all change is progress!

GBU,

Gavin

In a historical perspective that is what the Tories said who wanted to remain loyal to King George.

I would reply to "Not all change is progress" by saying "All progress is change."

[End of Still's reply]

Finally, this is my response to Still, and the reason I decided to post this blog tonight. I think this is VERY IMPORTANT for us to keep in mind in the 21st century and beyond!

Quoting Stillwatertoo: In a historical perspective that is what the Tories said who wanted to remain loyal to King George.

I would reply to "Not all change is progress" by saying "All progress is change."

NO!!!

There are MANY times, as can be seen today, that real progress very often means protecting the status quo, against people and forces that are trying to corrupt it!

Here's my analogy:

We are sailing along on a boat in the middle of the sea, and making modest progress on our journey. One problem is a large object in the base of the boat that people keep tripping over when they walk from stem to stern to fulfill their sea duties. That inability to perform their sailing duties slows our ability to change the sails as needed when the wind shifts. If we could get back and forth to change the sails easier, then our progress would be even faster.

We want progress, and if all progress is change, then we need to do something about that object attached to the floor of the boat!

So the captain orders the object ripped forcefully from the floor, and suddenly we realize that it was a plug keeping the boat afloat. Now water is gushing in too hard and fast for us to re-insert the plug. (Obviously, our "progress" has slowed considerably. Our progress would have proceeded much better had we made NO change.)

VERY OFTEN, PROGRESS IS NOT CHANGE!

Therefore, it is a fallacy to assert that "all progress is change."

GBU,

Gavin

Rentier1

3/14/2013 9:05 am

The 'patriots' were fighting for a number of things.

One of those was westward expansion. The Brits had made a deal with the natives restricting European land grabs further west.

Some British subjects were not keen on this.

I prefer to refer to this period as the First Ameican Civil War.

GavinLS2 69M

1525 posts
3/22/2013 2:59 am

skyepink

I think u're right!

GBU,

Gavin