We the People are America
By Dan Shatzer
January 2024
I read a story published by the Associated Press (“Town has storied migrant support network”, 12/26) with great interest. The story about how early Hispanic immigrants arrived and were accepted in a Colorado community was enlightening. Fortunately, they found a network of support. Former immigrants who had been fortunate to overcome their own struggles had worked with others to form networks new immigrants could utilize to ease their struggles. The article reminded me of what our own ancestors must have gone through.
My ancestors arrived in Ohio in the early parts of the 19th century. Back then, Porkopolis was a place that offered hope. The meat packing industry was strong and new arrivals could find work. The industry thrived because of the cheap labor that was almost guaranteed. With struggles there was an eventual improvement in wages and labor conditions, and the resulting economic growth eventually afforded a comfortable living standard to many for generations. But the earliest immigrants to Porkopolis must have faced similar conditions as those who arrived early in Morgan County Colorado. One can imagine that most were subject to inattention at best. On the extremes, there was more likely a percentage of immigrants who were accepted immediately because of the service they could offer while others became subjects of derision and scorn.
But unlike the examples described above, the very earliest immigrants to our land had an added obstacle. They were subjects of a monarchy. Today we are fortunate that over time there were visionaries who decided a different form of government would be necessary to serve their needs. And almost a century after that new government was formed, another great American reminded us of what had been accomplished. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
But perhaps one of the greatest gifts, and yet lesser-known historical facts, was handed to us on December 23, 1783. While King George III was seen by many continentals as a religious and somewhat benevolent monarch—some historians have since likened him as a parent to his children, the British monarch offered a form of rule that our founders found dysfunctional. Slowly, a fervor for revolution developed. Notably, the Stamp Act (i.e., taxation without representation) and similar acts were the final triggers that ignited a revolution.
The man who gave us that gift was George Washington. He led the Continental Army to victory against the British. After that defeat, even King George III wondered what style of monarchy George Washington would develop. But Washington had other ideas. In my mind, however remarkable and appreciated, his war accomplishments were not his greatest gift to us. The gift that stands out to me was the resignation of his commission as Commander and Chief of the Continental Army. Rather than become a monarch, he would accept what the representatives of our new nation had in mind.
Using Lincoln’s brief description of the government our founders formed, one can imagine our founders could not have imagined how their idea of government would evolve into the form we have today. After all, what does “conceived in liberty” and “all men are created equal” mean? The founder’s solution was to have elite electors who would use their good judgment to guide us in the selection of our most prominent leaders who would then in turn guide us using their understanding of those founding principles. Nevertheless, the form of government offered revealed that our founding fathers didn’t entirely trust how local levels of government would develop. As uncertain as they were of how our guiding principles would be carried out, they had a passion for community. Networks for assisting our nation in going forward would somehow develop.
Getting back to a more local example, Ohio, we’ve seen that struggle continue to this day. We had two recent ballot initiatives which tell the story. The first was an attempt to thwart the ability of citizens to challenge their representatives. The second was an attempt by citizens to enshrine reproductive rights into our state constitution which our leaders shamelessly derided. Fortunately, the Constitutional Convention in 1912 defined that a simple majority of citizens could pass such a measure. I suspect that method of redressing grievances will come in handy for decades to come.
Overall, my sense is as a nation we need to continue our development of this great experiment. While perhaps not defined well in structure, its principles are basically sound. We may never get the implementation of liberty and equality perfect. It’s human nature for each of us to support our definition of how each should be implemented. But I also know this, the last thing we need to do is to return to a father figure handing out favors to his children while supposedly protecting them from the “vermin” amongst us. I’ve read letters from Donald Trump’s supporters that excuse his narcissism because of his “love for America”. But that belies his fitness for office. His narcissism doesn’t allow him to love Americans.
We at the local level will figure out how liberty and justice will best be defined as we interact with each other. And citizen-led initiatives (formal or otherwise) in one form or another will continue to redress grievances. The federal government can take the lead in resolving issues with other nations, and at the same time, it can identify and promulgate the best structures and solutions we the people have ascertained will best resolve our grievances. To be certain, at all levels we must continually challenge ourselves to advance solutions conceived with liberty and equality in mind.