Economic Independence Day
By David Morris, AlterNet
Posted on July 1, 2005, Printed on July 1, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/23290/
Tens of millions of Americans will celebrate this 4th of July in the
conventional way: saluting the flag, marching in parades, and consuming
large quantities of beer and hotdogs. Our political leaders will urge
us to demonstrate our patriotism.
But perhaps some of us could take a few moments to ponder what
patriotism meant to those who took the considerable risk of declaring
war on the mightiest nation on earth. And how they went about declaring
and defining their independence.
Many events led up to our formal declaration of independence. But the
pace quickened when, on a cold December night in 1773, a band of
colonists forced their way onto three ships docked in Boston Harbor and
dumped more than 90,000 pounds of tea into the sea.
As Thom Hartmann points out in his excellent book, "Unequal
Protection," the colonists' actions were as much a challenge to global
corporate power as they were a rebellion against King George III.
The ships were owned by the East India Company, a vast corporation with
significant economic power over Britain's colonies around the world.
The company had suffered large economic losses, in part because of a
boycott of their merchandise by the American colonies. That represented
a significant loss of revenue to the British government as well.
Thus, in 1773 the British Parliament passed the Tea Act. The Act
exempted the East India Company from paying taxes on tea sold in the
colonies. The aim was to enable the company to undercut the prices of
small competitors, all of whom were subject to the tax, and drive them
out of business.
The British government and the East India Company were betting that the
lure of cheap tea would overpower any sense of solidarity among the
colonists. They were wrong. The colonists continued to support
independent merchants and boycott East India tea.
Britain retaliated by closing Boston's harbor to trade until the city
paid for the lost tea. The British also converted formerly elected
offices in the Massachusetts government into crown-appointed positions,
restricted town meetings unless their agendas were approved by the
royal governor and required Bostonians to house and feed British
troops.
Britain's actions inspired the 13 colonies, for the first time, to work
together. The first Continental Congress met in New York City in the
fall of 1774. The representatives passed resolutions asking the
colonies to raise militias. And they called for an organized boycott of
all British goods.
This last was a key development. The colonists understood that
independence could occur only if they had the capacity for economic
self-reliance. They could claim political authority only if they had
the economic, productive capacity.
Before we declared our political independence we declared our economic
independence. All things English were placed on the blacklist.
Frugality came into fashion. Out of the First Continental Congress in
New York came the embryonic nation's first Chamber of Commerce. Given
the current policies of the Chamber, it might be useful this July 4th
to recall its first campaign slogan, "Save your money and you can save
your country."
Bostonian Sam Adams, the fiery leader of the movement, knew that
frugality was not enough. To become truly independent, America had to
produce at home what was previously imported from England.
Members of Boston's Whig Party demonstrated their patriotism by nursing
tea leaves and mulberry trees in their gardens. New England farmers
were exhorted to convert their oak plains into sheep pastures and
produce enough wool to clothe every American. Colonists were urged to
abstain from eating lamb or mutton in order to encourage American
woolen manufactures.
In less than a year the boycott had so disrupted Transatlantic trade
that thousands of British workers lost their jobs.
Faced with this economic insurrection and the rising level of violence
in the colonies, Britain declared war. On July 2, 1776, the colonies
declared their independence. The Declaration of Independence was
adopted two days later.
When our nation was born, we understood the relationship between
political independence and economic independence. Benjamin Franklin
offered this bit of sage advice to the former colonists. "The man who
would trade independence for security usually deserves to wind up with
neither."
Our current leaders have ignored Franklin's wisdom. Today we have a
President who, surrounded by 100 American flags, ardently proclaims his
patriotism. But it is a patriotism that Sam Adams and Thomas Jefferson
and Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry would have found unfathomable and
even, perhaps, treasonable.
The United States is now the world's largest debtor. Two thirds of our
oil is imported, up from a third when OPEC first exercised its
collective power and precipitated the first oil crisis in 1973.
Our corporations have displayed their form of patriotism by fleeing our
soils and supplying us from foreign shores. As a result our trade
deficit is at all-time levels. China is now using its enormous
storehouse of American dollars to buy key U.S. productive assets: IBM,
Maytag and soon, perhaps Unocal. That last bid turned a few heads in
Washington. But just a few days ago, the White House gave the green
light for a British company to purchase a key U.S. supplier of military
hardware to the Pentagon.
The President has just asked Congress to ratify a new free trade
agreement that will aggravate our slide into dependence. He
passionately supports an omnibus energy bill that does virtually
nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
On July 4, 2005, amid awe-inspiring displays of fireworks, our
corporate and political leaders will celebrate Independence Day. Then
on July 6 they will get back to work, designing and implementing
policies that make us ever more dependent.
The brave members of the Boston Tea Party wouldn't call them patriots.
Neither should we.
David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for
Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New
Rules project.
Posts
