Independence Day's Philosophically Muddled Foundations

Wars and revolutions are terrible ways to achieve political goals. Yet America's principal political holiday celebrates our war for independence.

A fundamental error in U.S. political doctrine is our assumption that nations and "peoples" ought to have a right to independence and "self-determination." Although this principle was best articulated by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I, its roots go clear back to the Declaration of Independence and the war by which we shook off British rule.

A major problem with claiming a right of self-determination is that such a right is incompatible with the essential nature of government. Political philosophers have long understood that government's essence is its power to impose sanctions, to deprive people of life, liberty, or property. St. Thomas Aquinas was pointing out this unpleasant fact when he noted that, "Taking away justice, then, what is government but a great robber band?" The relationship between a robber and his victim clearly is an involuntary association.

Since nobody will consent to be executed, imprisoned, or fined, our basic relationship with government is like that between robber and victim: an involuntary association, not a voluntary one. A right to voluntarily select the people with whom we are going to be involuntarily associated would be a strange right indeed.

American critics of Israeli expansion after the Six Day War in 1967 claim that the land seized by Israel when it won the war is "occupied territory" and therefore illegitimate. But these critics need to remember that all territory is only under any government's jurisdiction because it was seized by force or threat of force, or obtained from another government which itself was based on force or its threat. Ironically, the 1967 war only happened because Israel was attacked.

During the 1982 war between England and Argentina, someone asked me which country had the right to govern the Falkland Islands. My reply was that I wouldn't know until we saw who won the war. The Falklands are still British since England won that war. Likewise, Crimea is again Russian because of Russia's threatened use of force. (The results of the plebiscite in which Crimea residents ratified Russia's seizure of the area might have been honest, but there is no way to tell. The election was also irrelevant, since Russia intended to keep Crimea anyway.)

Although force is the only way a government's jurisdiction over territory can be maintained, wars and revolutions are very poor ways to bring about political changes. Peaceful reforms are much to be preferred. Unlike the United States, Canada gained its independence from Great Britain gradually and peacefully. It celebrated its 150th anniversary as a unified country last week, though complete independence came much more recently. Black people in America historically suffered intolerable injustices, but mainstream black leaders correctly resisted the bad precedent set by the Declaration of Independence and demanded reforms guaranteeing equality before the law rather than separation.

No one would suggest repudiating the Declaration of Independence and submitting once again to British rule. But the vigor with which the United States stomped on attempted secession by its southern states shows that we recognize no right to self-determination when directed against our own government. It is high time that we explicitly admit that our revolution was a mistake, and refrain from supporting efforts to secede from other countries, too.

Of course Independence Day remains our most important political holiday, and the muddled philosophical foundations of our revolution need not prevent us from celebrating it. And had it not been for its unhappy experience with our independence, Great Britain might not have acted as reasonably as it did with Canada. Sometimes people learn from experience.

Paul F. deLespinasse is Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science at Adrian College. He received his Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University in 1966, and has been a National Merit Scholar, an NDEA Fellow, a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and a Fellow in Law and Political Science at the Harvard Law School. His college textbook, "Thinking About Politics: American Government in Associational Perspective," was published 1981 and his most recent book is "The Case of the Racist Choir Conductor: Struggling With America's Original Sin." His columns have appeared in newspapers in Michigan, Oregon, and a number of other states. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.