History of Freedom

Recently, Ann Coulter was interviewed by Vivek Ramaswamy. Many took offense with Coulter’s statement that an understanding of freedom requires cultural history, so she would not vote for Ramaswamy to be President. Ramaswamy, with the poise he has become known for holding, responded with probative questions. I have never been a fan of Ann Coulter, but she raised some valid and interesting points that every Conservative must understand in order to make effective choices at the polls.

Can a person who was not raised in the privilege of freedom understand that privilege? Can a person whose parents were not raised therein understand the same? How many generations does it take to understand freedom? History can prove to be informative here.

The salient question here is “What does it mean to understand freedom?” Surely, our Founding Fathers were raised under British Tyranny and their fathers before them. However, they understood freedom. How could this be? The question lies in the history of French, British, and Indigenous Providence for this region.

For the first roughly 150 years of European occupation, the French and British were at constant odds with one another. It was difficult for either to take or hold territory. For these early years, before American Independence, the British were more lenient, more appreciative, and more passive. The British had to be because the American colonial subjects were fighting the French to hold the line. The amount of fighting warranted self-government because this was before telephone, radio, and internet. It took more than a month to get word from one side of the ocean to the other.

After the so-called French and Indian War, the dynamic changed. The French rulers were driven out of the land (although their system of Government and language persists to this very date). With the French gone, the fighting was lessened, but the people - who were still then British subjects - had a history of self-government and freedom that could not be stamped out.

The King proceeded to disband legislatures, install soldiers in homes, and engage in all manner of political violence against the colonial Americans. When the Americans asked why they should not be ruled by legislators of their own choosing as all men are born equally free, the King responded by dismissing the request and argument outright. He responded informing Americans that they were born subjects, so it was their duty to obey him; and he was born King, so it was his duty to take care of them. He explained nothing could abdicate either from these duties. Clearly he had missed the point entirely.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strongly held that George Washington went to Europe in an attempt to plead themselves out of war. The points of Washington were so misunderstood by the Crown that Washington, before the end of the meetings, sent a letter home informing America that the war would be waged.

This idea that all men are created equal was so strong that they wanted to abolish the institution of slavery, but in a compromise, instead, merely denounced it and attempted to legislate against the practice. Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in the Declaration of Independence; he was outvoted, and the passage was stricken. He, too, drafted numerous laws when he was Governor of Virginia before the time of his Presidency attempting to ban slavery, but those laws fell to the majority as well.

If we fast forward to the time of Lincoln’s leadership, we see similar effects but more pronounced. These effects were so outsized that a war broke out to determine the size of freedom afforded within these United States. Many of the North argued for the abandonment of the practice, many (including slave-owning blacks) of the South argued for its durability. Slaves, who had no cultural history of freedom, were difficult to free. Harriett Tubman is quoted (without proper verification) stating, "I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves." We hope this quote is factual. It shows exactly what kind of mindset a person born into generational bondage held.

We see this generational bondage in China, India, Russia, Iran, and throughout the World. The fact of the matter appears to be, that an understanding of freedom is a cultural trait, not a learned ability. Of course there are outliers. There are people who are 7th+ generation in the US who would give their liberty to Government in exchange for security (we often call them Leftists). There are people who are multi-generational children of oppressive regimes who understand exactly why the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written as they are: for example Lily Tang Williams and Garry Kasparov. these are, indeed, outliers.

I believe Ramaswamy understands liberty and freedom at a deep level. He may not have a history of freedom in his family, but his deeds show a deep and abiding commitment thereto.