- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Flattr
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
I have become mildly obsessed with the AMC show TURN: Washington’s Spies. I got sucked into this drama on Netflix and have now made it nearly through its four seasons, sneaking in an episode almost every day in the early evenings.
The show is historically challenged in many respects, but — taken on its own terms and merits — it is compelling. It represents 18th Century America quite well in several ways.
TURN visually captures just how rural Colonial America was. Long Island wasn’t a suburb; it was the boondocks. And, while New York and New England c. 1776 were no longer a wilderness, the landscape was, in many places, still heavily wooded and semi-wild. Distances were great; roads were mostly poor and communications slow.
Major Robert Rogers chews all the scenery in a wild Colonial America.
And the human population was small and localized. This point is critical to understanding the evolution of the republican principles that imbued the founding of the United States. (Hat tip to historian and author Dr. Brion McClanahan for articulating this nicely in a podcast on TURN).
The largest city in the American Colonies in 1776 was Philadelphia, with 40,000 residents. Bustling New York City was home to 25,000 souls; Boston, the hotbed of the rebellion, boasted a population of 15,000 people.
As of 2017, the population of Bend, Oregon was 94,520. Sisters, Oregon, had a 2017 population of 2,701 — but counting its outlying residential areas, it has a population roughly the size of Colonial Boston or maybe Newport, Rhode Island (11,000).
New York City, 1770s: one-quarter the size of current Bend, Oregon.
The aphorism that “all politics is local” was genuinely true in Colonial and Revolutionary America. The republican form of government designed by the founders operates optimally when it is operating at a manageable scale. The structure has actually been remarkably adaptable to massive growth and change, but it was never designed to be a centralized bureaucracy responsible for managing 320 million people’s lives on a continental and transcontinental scale. It was, in short, supposed to remain a Republic, not an Empire.
Politics was never meant to be a full time obligation or occupation — it was supposed to be a matter of public service to deal with the public business, with long and frequent retreats back into the private sector (and not the kind of “private sector” represented by the deep state national-security-government-industrial complex, either).
We should not wax romantic about localism — local politics can be mean and petty (as anyone who has been involved in a homeowners association beef can attest).
But, allowing for the necessary evil, political action should rightly be as “local” as it can be made. This is the principle of subsidiarity: “Matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority.”
This means that, instead of seeking political saviors to sit in an imperial Oval Office, we should be worrying a lot more about who is running for school board or city council or planning commission or county commission. And we should be taking advantage of the politics of scale to wield our individual influence at that level, where our voices might actually be heard and heeded.
Mark Solomon says
That puts it in to perspective, I’ve never given much thought to the population of those cities back in the day. I know it had to have sucked to be a spy for a government back then but to do it in a city where everybody knows everybody that would be an unimaginable undertaking.
Dick Sandvik says
I agree with your point about engaging at the city, county and state levels of politics. I would also note that doing so has “upstream” implications. Just as the Republican concept of “trickle down” economics has proved wrong, that party’s “trickle up” approach to political power since 2008 has proved incredibly successful. Building from engagement locally is vitally important.…
Breaker Morant says
Re-Population Size.
While the cities themselves may have been small by today’s standards. The population densities outside the cities, in the immediate hinterlands, would have been pretty high. A lot of small farms with large families. Just look at Lexington and Cambridge for example.
I think the urban focus of much of our population and academia today-causes them to forget about the agrarian nature of our population at that time.
On another topic. Over on FP, I know you have mentioned Ron Thomson before.
He has a series of posts on elephant overpopulation in Botswana in his blog and how the new leader is finally realizing that something needs to be done.
https://www.mahohboh.org/author/ron-thomson/
This post is the most interesting on it.
https://www.mahohboh.org/about-the-culling-of-elephants-in-botswana/
He describes the devastation caused by too many elephants with a couple jabs at us in the west.
The devastation is heart-breaking and can only cause massive wildlife die-offs.
As a reminder, or background for those that don’t know. I have seen that devastation myself.
http://thesmokeofafrica.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-elephant-burnt-lands-of-chobe.html?q=Elephant+burnt
Thanks for the links Breaker.
Saddle Tramp says
Jim, you point out well the stark difference of the Colonial Days period and today’s ten headed monster. You can never get away from local but how effective and influential it can be remains to be the difficult task. The reasons are many including the mobility of society today and diversity multiplied by the sheer numbers of population increase just for starters. You could add to that the complexity of of our world wide involvements economically and militarily and the technological influences on every aspect of it. Local becomes a very dynamic and fast changing situation demanding constant alterations to accommodate them. I will give an example. For some small towns unless you have someone buried in the town’s cemetery you ain’t really a true local and you have no legacy or currency. There you have an example of the starting point in small town politics and prejudices and many times small mindedness that goes with it. My business experience taught me that you are always trying to work with and accommodate levels of the slow, medium and fast performers having to put in place acceptable minimum standards. In other words not everyone is gonna agree equally and play at the same level. Somehow it self organizes by either reasoning or force and succeeds or fails accordingly. Who wins and who loses lands where it will. Fair is as fair does. Reduce that down to a small town city hall meeting and the loudest grievance made might be about stray dogs. I have witnessed it myself. Local politics can get quite petty and nasty over not necessarily earth shattering issues. The stew is only as good as the ingredients put into it, but you have to start somewhere and that is local…
And Rullman’s Rules of Discourse must be applied. Will have to republish those soon.…
Mark Solomon says
I still have a few business cards left if you need some Jim
My brother sent a new supply…
John M Roberts says
Isaac Asimov wrote: “I like knowing that the people in power in this country are several hundred miles away from me. I stand a chance of escaping their notice. The local bully will find me every time.”
lane batot says
Boy-howdy, ain’t THAT the truth! Isolation in as rural a place as you can manage, and some good dogs, have always been my successful tactics to avoid the exploitation of civilized guvmint!
Ugly Hombre says
Have not seen the show “Turn” have to check it out- another great post! The American revolution is one of the great stories of all time, I study it with awe- but have only skimmed the surface so far. The population figures quite interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War
“Recent research concludes there were 9000 blacks occupying both combative and supportive roles in the Patriot side of the war, counting the Continental Army and Navy, and state militia units, as well as privateers, wagoneers in the Army, servants to officers, spies, and support roles.[1] As between 200,000 and 250,000 soldiers and militia served during the revolution in total, that would mean black soldiers made up approximately four percent of the Patriots’ numbers. Of the 9,000 black soldiers, 5,000 were combat dedicated troops.[2] Notably, the average length of time in service for an African American soldier during the war was four and a half years (due to many serving for the whole eight-year duration), which was eight times longer than the average period for white soldiers. Meaning that while they were only four percent of the manpower base, they comprised around a quarter of the Patriots’ strength in terms of man-hours, though this includes supportive roles.[3”
America has always been ‘diverse’ ever since the start a point that needs to be remembered well IMO. If you factor in population size in proportion- Americans of African descent were a massive force and made a helluva contribution in the fight for freedom. As did native Americans
The founders were giants who layed their lives and sacred honor down, not just for their ‘caste’ or ‘tribe’ but- for all Americans, nothing like it in history. Young people need to learn that GD it…
So tell em!
Truth.