奠基者：独立战争那一代

• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  ...Support for American independence, for example, was always fragile and shifted with each victory or defeat in the field, which was often a matter of pure luck. Or the decision to locate the national capital on the Potomac was a back-room deal involving so many secret bargains and bribes that no one would ever unravel the full story.In the same vein, all the heroic portraits of the great men were romanticized distortions. Franklin, for example, was a superb scientist and masterful prose stylist, to be sure, but also a vacuous political thinker and diplomatic fraud, who spent the bulk of his time in Paris flirting with younger women of the salon set. Washington was an indisputable American patriarch, but more an actor than a leader, brilliant at striking poses “in a strain of Shakespeare...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  The insight was precocious, anticipating as it did the distinction between history as experienced and history as remembered, most famously depicted in Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace. (The core insight—that all seamless historical narratives are latter-day constructions—lies at the center of all postmodern critiques of traditional historical explanations.) Under Rush’s prodding influence and in response to his dreamy inspirations, Adams realized that the act of transforming the American Revolution into history placed a premium on selecting events and heroes that fit neatly into a dramatic formula, thereby distorting the more tangled and incoherent experience that participants actually making the history felt at the time. Jefferson’s drafting of the Declaration of Independence was a perfect exa...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  After 1800, what Adams had called “the monarchical principle” was dead in American political culture, along with the kind of towering defiance that both Washington and Adams had harbored toward what might be called the “morality of partisanship.” That defiance had always depended upon revolutionary credentials—those present at the creation of the republic could be trusted to act responsibly—and as the memory of the Revolution faded, so did the trust it conferred. Of course Jefferson could, and decidedly did, claim membership in “the band of brothers,” but his election marked the end of an era. The “people” had replaced the “public” as the sovereign source of political wisdom. No leader could credibly claim to be above the fray. As Jefferson had understood from the moment Washington stepped...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  First, it is crucial to recognize that Washington’s extraordinary reputation rested less on his prudent exercise of power than on his dramatic flair at surrendering it. He was, in fact, a veritable virtuoso of exits. Almost everyone regarded his retirement of 1796 as a repeat performance of his resignation as commander of the Continental Army in 1783....Second, when Washington spoke about the need for national unity in 1796, his message resonated with all the still-fresh memories of his conduct during the revolutionary war. Although he actually lost more battles than he won, and although he spent the first two years of the war making costly tactical mistakes that nearly lost the American Revolution at its very start, by 1778 he had reached an elemental understanding of his military strat...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  First, there is the implication, floating between the lines of the entire Report, that an authoritative new presence has appeared on the scene and taken charge. The command ethos went beyond matters of personality (though Hamilton was certainly auditioning for the part), and it even went beyond questions of constitutionality (though the Report certainly announced the unequivocal sovereignty of the federal government). More sweepingly, it suggested that the enormous but latent potential of the American economy required more than mere release to achieve its full potential. Hamilton was hardly unique in his recognition that the vast resources of the North American continent constituted a repository of riches that, once unlocked, offered prospects of unparalleled prosperity and national destin...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that “a great man represents a strategic point in the campaign of history, and part of his greatness consists of his being there.” Both Burr and Hamilton thought of themselves as great men who happened to come of age at one of those strategic points in the campaign of history called the American revolutionary era. By the summer of 1804, history had pretty much passed them by. Burr had alienated Jefferson and the triumphant Republican party by his disloyalty as a vice president and had lost by a landslide in his bid to become a Federalist governor of New York. Hamilton had not held national office for nine years and the Federalist cause he had championed was well on its way to oblivion. Even in his home state of New York, the Federalists were, as John Qui...
• 照叶

  2020-08-06
  What Hamilton seemed to see in Burr, then, was a man very much like himself in several respects: ambitious, energetic, possessing an instinctive strategic antenna and a willingness to take political risks.Hamilton understood the potency of Burr’s influence because he felt those same personal qualities throbbing away inside himself. Both men also shared a keen sense of the highly fluid and still-fragile character of the recently launched American republic. The hyperbolic tone of Hamilton’s anti-Burr comments derived not so much from intense personal dislike per se as from his intense fear that the precarious condition of the infant nation rendered it so vulnerable to Burr’s considerable talents. Burr embodied Hamilton’s daring and energy run amok in a political culture still groping for its...
• 照叶

  2020-08-05
  In its most familiar form, dominant in the nineteenth century, the tension assumes a constitutional appearance as a conflict between state and federal sovereignty. The source of the disagreement goes much deeper, however, involving conflicting attitudes toward government itself, competing versions of citizenship, differing postures toward the twin goals of freedom and equality. But the key point is that the debate was not resolved so much as built into the fabric of our national identity. If that means the United States is founded on a contradiction, then so be it. With that one bloody exception, we have been living with it successfully for over two hundred years. Lincoln once said that America was founded on a proposition that was written by Jefferson in 1776. We are really founded on an...
• 照叶

  2020-08-05
  There are two long-established ways to tell the story, both expressions of the political factions and ideological camps of the revolutionary era itself, and each first articulated in the earliest histories of the period, written while several members of the revolutionary generation were still alive. Mercy Otis Warren’s History of the American Revolution (1805) defined the “pure republicanism” interpretation, which was also the version embraced by the Republican party and therefore later called “the Jeffersonian interpretation.” It depicts the American Revolution as a liberation movement, a clean break not just from English domination but also from the historic corruptions of European monarchy and aristocracy.The ascendance of the Federalists to power in the 1790s thus becomes a hostile tak...
• 照叶

  2020-08-05
  On the assets side of the historical ledger, the full list would include the following: a bountiful continent an ocean away from European interference; a youthful population of nearly 4 million, about half of it sixteen years of age or younger and therefore certain to grow exponentially over subsequent decades; a broad dispersion of property ownership among the white populace, based on easy access to available land; a clear commitment to republican political institutions rooted in the prowess and practice of the colonial assemblies, then sanctified as the only paradigm during the successful war for independence and institutionalized in the state constitutions; and last, but far from least, a nearlyunanimous consensus that the first chief executive would be George Washington, only one man, ...
• 照叶

  2020-08-05
  On the farsighted side, the key insight, recognized by a few of the political leaders in the revolutionary generation, is that the geographic isolation of the North American continent and the bountiful natural resources contained within it provided the fledgling nation with massive advantages and almost limitless potential. In 1783, just after the military victory over Great Britain was confirmed in the Treaty of Paris, no less a figure than George Washington gave this continental vision its most eloquent formulation: “The Citizens of America,” Washington wrote, “placed in the most enviable condition, as the sole Lords and Proprietors of a vast Tract of Continent, comprehending all the various soils and climates of the World, and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life,...
• 王大人

  2019-02-17
  亚当斯是我最喜欢的人物之一，因为他生来就没有能力一直保持那种尊贵的姿态。他那醍醐灌顶但有些无礼的坦率，为我们提供了最明亮的窗口，使我们可以更深刻地窥探这些人深的野心和骚动不安的空虚。)若他们有时候看起来像历史剧中的演员，这正是他们经常自认的形象。实际上，我们是他们取得成就的同谋，因为我们正是观看他们表演的观众。知道我们一定会来观看表演，这促使他们展现自己行为最好的一面。
• 雪莱

  2018-12-25
  （杰斐逊）在1793年说道：‘请问曾经有什么时期能以如此少的鲜血，换来如此丰厚的奖品吗？我自己也为献身这项事业的烈士而深感悲恸。然而，我并不希望它失败，相反我更愿意看到半个地球都因之而人烟荒芜。即使每个国家中只剩下一个亚当和一个夏娃——自由的亚当和夏娃——也比现在的状况要好。’
• 雪莱

  2018-12-25
  在他（华盛顿）的告别演说发表之后，本杰明·富兰克林·贝奇的《曙光报》（Aurora）上出现了一封公开信。在这封信中，那位总是惹事的托马斯·潘恩庆祝华盛顿的离去，实际上也是祷告他立即死去，借着又预言“整个世界将为决定您到底是个叛国者还是一个骗子，您到底是放弃了好原则还是从未坚持过什么好原则而感到为难。”
• 雪莱

  2018-12-25
  当时任何可完成独立战争年代遗留下的一项伟大事业（废除奴隶制）的机会之窗，现在都已经关紧了。正如前文所述，或许这个窗口（如果确实存在过这样一个窗口的话）到了1790年就已经被关闭了。
• 志遠²

  2018-04-30
  有两种为人熟知的方法来讲述那一辈人的故事。这两种方法都是从独立战争年代的政治派别和意识形态阵营展开叙述，均出现于独立战争年代早期，而且相关作品写成之时，独立战争中的一些著名人物依然健在。莫西·奧蒂斯·沃伦的《美国革命史》( History of the American Revolution，1805年)提出了一种“纯粹的共和主义”历史观，这也是当时共和党所推崇的，后来又被称作“杰斐逊式历史观”。这种历史观将美国独立战争描述为一种自由主义运动，称其不仅与英格兰统治完全决裂，而且与欧洲腐朽的君主和贵族政体彻底分道扬镳。因此，联邦党人在1790年代获取权力，就成了腐朽朝臣和财阀们篡夺独立战争果实的反动行动，而汉密尔顿就是这次反动行动的元凶。这次敌对行动最终被挫败了，独立战争的真正精神终于在1800年选举中借助共和党人的获胜而重振。这种历史解释路径认为，独立战争的核心原则是个人自由。这个原则具有激进的、自由主义的意味，因为它认为任何让个人自由服从政府规制的行为都是危险的。这项原则的极端形态就是无政府主义原则，它对任何明确的政治权力集中化的表达，都可能进行偏执狂般的抵制。另一种解释路径的完整形态则首先出现在约翰·马歇尔撰写的五卷本《乔治・华盛顿生平》( The Life of GeorgeWashington)中。这种解释路径认为，美国独立战争是一次有着深刻但隐含的殖民地时代渊源的初步国民运动。因此1787~1788年制定的宪法就成了独立战争的自然成就，而联邦党人中的领袖人物，包括亚当斯、汉密尔顿以及更重要的华盛顿等，就成了独立战争遗产的真正继承人。(这里杰斐逊就成了元凶。)依据这种观点，独立战争的核心原则是集体主义原则，而不是个人主义原则，因为真正的“1776年精神”是使个人利益、州州利益和宗派利益服从让美国成为一个国家的更宏大目标。美国的国家形态首先体现在大陆军上，后来又...
• 野荞

  2018-03-22
  This last remark, while vintage Adams-Rush banter, also exposed the painfully egotistical motives lurking beneath the entire Adams campaign for a more realistic, nonmythologized version of the American Revolution. While his insistence on a deconstructed history was certainly a precocious intellectual insight, there is also no question that the Adams urge to discredit the dramatic renderings of the revolutionary era was driven by his own wounded vanity. To put it squarely, such versions of the story failed to provide him with a starring role in the drama. At its nub, his critique of the historical fictions circulating as seductive truths was much like a campaign to smash all the statues, because the sculptor had failed to render a satisfactory likeness of yours truly.
• 志遠²

  2018-05-12
  亚当斯指出，杰斐逊之所以误解了法国大革命的意义(是真正误解了，并不是出于政治目的而利用法国大革命做文章)，是因为一种错误的思考方式，这种思考方式被一个新法语单词恰当地表达出来:意识形态。是拿破仑让这个词流行起来的，而最初使用它的则是法国哲学家德崔希伯爵杰斐逊读了他的许多著作，并对他佩服得五体投地。亚当斯坦言，他之所以对这个单词着迷，是因为“这个普遍原则，我们能够从我们不能理解的事情上获得快乐”。到底什么是“意识形态”?他开玩笑地问道:“它是否意味着白痴?精精神失常科学?精精神病学?谵妄之学?”按照亚当斯的解释，这个词是法国哲学家发明的，而且这个词不但成了他们那种乌托邦式思考方式的核心，也成了他们“蠢蠢蛋学派派”的主要信条。这个词指的是像完善人性、社会平等这样的理想和愿望;那些哲学家错误地相信，因为这些理想和愿望存于他们的脑海之中，所以它们是可以在这个世界上实现的。亚亚当斯声称，杰斐逊就是以这种法国式方式思考的，并将他想象中的诱人前景与历史条件所允许的非常有限的可能性混淆了。然而，对杰斐逊思想中幻想成分的批评者们，比如亚当斯，当在事实上暴露他们的幻想本性时，反过来却被指控为拒绝了理想本身。
• 志遠²

  2018-05-12
  这种洞识在很早之前就被发掘和详述，它对被人们经历的历史和被人们记亿的历史进行了区分，这种区分在列夫・托尔斯泰的《战争与和平》中得到了最为著名的描写刻画。(这个核心洞见是:所有毫无裂缝的历史叙述都不过是后来建构而已，这种观念是对传统历史解释的后现代主义批判的核心。)在拉什的影响下和回应拉什梦中灵感的过程中，亚当斯认识到，那些将美国独立战争写成历史的人，优先考虑的是选择与戏剧模式完全契合的事件和英雄，从而歪曲了那些真正参与创造历史的人在彼时彼刻更混乱、更不连贯的体验。杰斐逊起草《独立宣言》一事就是此种戏剧化歪曲的一个完美例证。在这些浪漫的文字之中，美国独立战争成了魔术般的灵感时刻，它不可逆转地将人们带向美国独立这一必然结论。然而，按照亚当斯的记亿，“1774~1778年所有关于人与事的最为严峻的问题”都是极具争议性和高度不确定的通常“都是由某一个州的投票决定，而且这一票往往也是被个人决定的”。对于萨拉托加战场上的士兵和费城走廊中的政治家来说，没有任何东西是显而易见的、不可避免的，甚至是可以理解的:“当时的政策是碎裂斑驳的;过去如此，现在如此，未来也如此。”现实中的美国独立战争与亚当斯的记亿以及他灵魂深处的激荡不安完全一样，它们的实质都是混乱不堪的。这就意味着再现当时所有主要人物心中兴奋的恐惧感，即他们不过是摸着石头过河，在毁毁灭的边缘跳着即席创作的生死舞蹈。亚当斯在被解构的美国革命史上的权威源于这个无可争议的事实:他当时“身处缔造国家的现场”。从1765年的《印花税法案》到到1801年从总统之位上退休，亚当斯一直都是其间大部分(若不是全部的话)关键时刻的参与者，而且他与所有的主要人物都有过亲身接触。这马上就让他所喜爱的天定真相揭露者的身份获得了高度的可信性，他已经准备好揭开隐藏在所有关于独立战争的激情描述背后的混乱 现实。例例如，对美国独立的支持从来都是是脆弱的，它随...