logo
In 1775 and today, an elusive American unity

In 1775 and today, an elusive American unity

Boston Globe04-07-2025
'It is hoped,' Washington continued, 'that all distinctions of colonies will be laid aside, so that one and the same spirit may animate the whole, and the only contest be who shall render, on this great and trying occasion, the most essential service to the great and common cause in which we are all engaged.'
Those orders — a plea, really — still resonate 250 years later as American politics have become fractured and polarized. The country is split along regional, racial, and cultural lines; divided by President Trump's aggressive policies; and at odds over what the nation is, was, and should be.
Advertisement
'I find it horrifying to hear people talk about having blue states secede, red states secede,' said Robert Allison, a Suffolk University history professor and chair of Revolution 250, a Massachusetts nonprofit group.
Advertisement
'This is something that Washington understood, that Lincoln understood, that the liberties we have are something that we need to be unified for. Otherwise, the states will be at war with each other.'
In July 1775, many soldiers and their families hoped that peace would prevail, and that Britain would once again permit the extraordinary level of self-government that many American Colonists, particularly in New England, had enjoyed for well over a century.
Major General Artemas Ward's orderly book for July 2 to 4, 1775, which contains General George Washington's call for Colonial unity.
Massachusetts Historical Society
In camp, regional tensions would flare among the troops, few of whom had ever traveled far from their homes. And as the war progressed, they would encounter different religious beliefs, differing tastes, and different ideas about class and society.
Still, with his orders,
'It's getting the important thing right from the beginning: This effort won't survive without everyone pulling in the same direction,' said Peter Drummey, chief historian at the Massachusetts Historical Society, founded in 1791.
'Washington understood that, at least in part, his appointment is the representation of that.'
As the war progressed, the notion of a common 'American' purpose began to take hold: a revolutionary democracy built on the rule of law; a great nation bound by principles of fairness and equality, although not for the enslaved; and a government of public service elected by and accountable to its citizens.
That Washington was a Virginian was a demonstration by the Continental Congress that beleaguered Boston was not alone, and that fighting for self-determination resonated beyond New England.
Advertisement
The George Washington statue in the Boston Public Garden in April.
David L. Ryan/Globe Staff
'The separateness of the different Colonies is what they're trying to overcome' with Washington's appointment, Drummey said. 'I think almost everyone in the army thought of themselves as a Virginian or Bay Stater or wherever else they were from.'
'It's almost like they were fighting a war as if they were NATO countries under a NATO commander,' he added.
And what the new commander saw in Cambridge 'horrified' him, Allison said.
To his genteel Virginian eyes, New England troops were dirty, undisciplined, and averse to taking orders from someone they didn't know. There also were far fewer of them than he had expected.
'Saying Washington was not particularly impressed is putting it mildly,' Allison said.
But for the rank-and-file
troops, the arrival of an upper-class, well-dressed, slave-holding Southerner to lead them must have been startling.
'They've had other generals, other officers, and who's this new guy?'
Allison said of Washington. 'But this call for unity, it's almost the first thing he says.'
The war dragged on for eight more years, shifting to New York after the British evacuated Boston in March 1776, to New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and finally to the Carolinas and Virginia before a peace treaty was signed in 1783.
But what Washington understood at the very beginning, Allison said, was a far-sighted foreshadowing of the need for national cohesion.
What Washington managed to do in 'an extraordinary couple of sentences' in his orders, Allison added, was lay the framework for an epic fight that would prove longer and larger than most of his soldiers must have imagined.
Mark DiSalvo, the North Andover town moderator and president of the Massachusetts Moderators Association, said that broadening one's allegiances beyond community or county boundaries would have been remarkable in Revolutionary times.
Advertisement
'It was really hard to communicate, and you were narrow in your view,' DiSalvo said. 'You knew your neighbors, and you came to church, which became the town meetinghouse.'
Town Meeting helped provide the spark for Revolution, DiSalvo said, as the defense of a free, local government became part of the provincial response, which also became absorbed in the broader Colonial debate.
'At first, it was what many people are fighting for today — in effect, due process,' added DiSalvo, who has encouraged moderators across the state this year to note the role of Town Meeting in the rebellion.
But unity could be fleeting, even in the newly victorious nation. Massachusetts, the birthplace of the Revolution, summoned barely enough votes to ratify the Constitution.
Local and state governments were deemed by many to be the best, most relevant means of legislating for one's neighbors. Federal law that benefited Georgia, say, might not necessarily be good for Massachusetts.
And the contentious question of slavery, a subject of fierce debate at the Constitutional Convention, threatened ratification in an ominous taste of the great conflict that lay ahead.
'Even patriotic people who fought in the Revolution were not convinced that a federal government at a distance was the way forward,' Drummey said.
For Washington, the concept of national unity remained important long after he issued his general orders in Cambridge, Allison said. Before his two terms were completed, bitter partisan battles over the scope and power of the federal government had crept into American politics.
'Washington will continue talking about this. It's a constant theme through his life and US history,' he added.
Advertisement
After 250 years, its relevance persists, and today's notion of what 'American' means has continued to evolve, just as it did at the dawn of the Revolution.
'How we define that is not as clear-cut as it seemed to be a relatively short time ago,' Drummey said. 'To some extent, the idea of what it means to be American is still being contested.'
Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why it matters who owns a newspaper
Why it matters who owns a newspaper

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why it matters who owns a newspaper

The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.

Trump threatens to escalate trade war with new round of tariffs up to 50%
Trump threatens to escalate trade war with new round of tariffs up to 50%

New York Post

time22 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump threatens to escalate trade war with new round of tariffs up to 50%

President Donald Trump said he will impose tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50% as his Aug. 1 deadline looms. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15% and 50%,' Trump said Wednesday at an artificial intelligence summit in Washington, DC. Trump's latest tariff salvo was aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. Advertisement 4 President Donald Trump said Wednesday that his administration is preparing to impose a new round of tariffs ranging from a minimum rate of 15% to a clip as high as 50%. REUTERS While some nations are actively negotiating to lower their rates, Trump emphasized that he intends to apply a 'very, very simple tariff for some of the countries,' citing the logistical challenge of negotiating individual deals with over 150 nations. 'You can't negotiate deals with everyone,' Trump said. Advertisement He added that negotiations with the European Union were 'serious' and tied potential reductions in tariffs to increased access for American businesses. 'If they agree to open up the (EU) to American businesses, then we will let them pay a lower tariff,' Trump said. The markets were mixed Thursday, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 164 points, or 0.36%, to 44,846.29 as of noon. The S&P 500 rose 13.68 points, or 0.22%, to 6,372.59, while the Nasdaq gained 43.05 points, or 0.21%, to reach 21,063.06. Advertisement 4 Trump laid out his latest tariff plans, describing them as 'reciprocal' duties ahead of an Aug. 1 deadline. Getty Images Trump's comments mark a shift from statements when he initially proposed a universal tariff of 10% on nearly every country during his 'Liberation Day' rollout in April. While his team has previously floated rates between 10% and 15%, Wednesday's remarks indicate that the baseline is now expected to begin at 15%, with significantly higher rates for countries with strained relations with the US. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Sunday that smaller nations — including 'the Latin American countries, the Caribbean countries, many countries in Africa' — would face a baseline tariff of 10%. Advertisement Despite initial expressions of interest in formal trade agreements, Trump has recently suggested that the letters themselves constitute a form of dealmaking. Still, countries may reduce their rates through side agreements. 4 Trump's tariff initiative, which he began rolling out in April, is aimed at countries that have not yet secured bilateral trade frameworks with Washington. REUTERS On Tuesday, the White House announced that Trump had agreed to reduce a proposed 25% tariff on Japan to 15%. The reduction was made in exchange for Japan lifting certain restrictions on US products and pledging $550 billion in US investments. A similar deal is reportedly under discussion with South Korea, according to people familiar with the matter. That country is also working toward securing a 15% tariff rate, including on automobiles. In Southeast Asia, the Philippines is also seeking to lower its rate. According to the country's ambassador to the US, Jose Manuel Romualdez, the Philippines hopes to bring down its current tariff rate from 19% to 15%. Vietnam, another country weighing its options, is assessing the possible consequences of not securing a trade agreement. An internal Vietnamese government estimate projects that its exports to the US could fall by as much as one-third if higher tariffs take effect. 4 An aerial view of a container shipped docked at the Port of Oakland on May 20. Getty Images Advertisement India and members of the European Union are also pushing for trade agreements before the new tariffs are enacted. As the deadline nears, multiple governments are working to either strike a deal or gauge the economic impact of the proposed levies. Trump's increasingly firm stance on tariffs suggests a broader strategy to use trade policy as a lever for international concessions. With the Aug. 1 implementation date fast approaching, the administration is signaling that countries will either accept the new terms or negotiate quickly to avoid higher costs.

USDA will move most of Washington staff "closer to" farmers
USDA will move most of Washington staff "closer to" farmers

Axios

time22 minutes ago

  • Axios

USDA will move most of Washington staff "closer to" farmers

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will shutter nearly all of its Washington, D.C. buildings and disperse most of its staff throughout the country, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced on Thursday. Why it matters: The USDA is one of several departments to majorly restructure during President Trump's second term, seeing more than 15,000 employees accept White House resignation offers. State of play: Most of the Washington-area staff will relocate to five locations around the country, Rollins confirmed in a statement. In a video message to employees, Rollins said that employees will be placed in Fort Collins, Colorado, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Missouri, Raleigh, North Carolina, and Salt Lake City. Staff will receive details about their new assignments in the coming months. The department will close nearly all of its D.C.-area buildings, except for the Whitten and Yates buildings on the National Mall. What they're saying: Rollins said that the move is a cost-cutting one in step with Trump's agenda to slash the federal budget. "President Trump has made it clear government needs to be scrutinized, and after this thorough review of USDA, the results show a bloated, expensive, and unsustainable organization," the department said in its statement. "However, there will be no large-scale reductions in force, given that the department has already seen an exodus of 15,364 employees through the administration's deferred resignation plan." Catch up quick: The department said last week that it fired 70 foreign contract researchers following a national security review intended to secure the U.S. food supply from adversaries that include Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store