Life of Johnson: Americans and the end of the war

So my interest in seeing Johnson thwarted by American victory is not to be satisfied. He says almost nothing, only expressing his relief when the administration that lost the war was replaced. It seems it had an effect on him though, for he says twice to Boswell that he no longer enjoys talking about current politics; in 1783 he says, "I'd as soon have a man to break all my bones as talk to me of public affairs, internal or external. I have lived to see all things as bad as they can be." I am a little sorry for him; the American victory began the utter defeat of his kind of Toryism, though after the rapid losses from that day to the mid-19th century it took another century for old Toryism to be extinguished entirely. The fissioning of the Anglican communion, which is happening right now in the split Lambeth and FUCA conferences, shows how far things have changed from the days of loyalty to Church and Crown, but how the forms still linger.

The Anglican problems, which were caused by the theological novelties of the North American Anglicans (Episcopalians) and of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, remind me of what Johnson said about freedom of religion: "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test." It seems the gay bishop thinks much the same.

I promised to return to Taxation No Tyranny, but there is not a lot there; I think Boswell is right that it is largely bluster and sophistry. But there are two interesting arguments. The first is a familiar one; if the state's power of coercion is an affront to liberty, then there must either be anarchy or tyranny. He does not give theoretical grounds for believing the state will not become tyrannous, even though he values the power of coercion over individual liberty, but then again no one has found a theoretical basis for valuing liberty over government power that does not lead at least some enthusiasts to anarchy. What he ought to give is a discussion of the mechanisms by which the emphasis can shift back and forth between state power and liberty. He could then argue that the American revolts were a disruption of those processes and that giving in to them would make the damage irreparable. His desire to give colonies no quarter and to reserve all powers to the parent state makes that impossible though. His views remind me of Hobbes, though I do not remember a reference to him and the index does not have anything useful.

The other interesting argument still causes trouble today. Johnson spends several paragraphs on a mock Declaration of Independence by Cornwall, which because of their independent linguistic and ethnic background as Celts he considers a stronger case than the Americans make. The underlying argument is the same one used against Woodrow Wilson's puffy idealism: if any people desiring a state must have one, who can be refused a state? Soon enough all states will the size of Lichtenstein, if long tenure imposes no limits on secessions because of historical grievances or ethnic identities. A cruelly oppressed people might safely be granted that right without risking general secession, except that the colonists managed to convince themselves they were cruelly oppressed when they were really governed lightly. It is embarrassing how extravagant the complaints were when the offenses were so much less than everyday federal actions now. What makes more sense is that a people should form a separate state when it has become numerous and prosperous and has shown an effective and beneficial ability to govern itself. That is not as exciting as sic semper tyrannis and other bloody slogans, and of course men of good will and intelligence can agree on a principle like that yet bitterly disagree that it applies to any particular instance. Still, it is no way out, to try to make the whole problem disappear into the primacy of the Crown.