Philadelphia Freedom
PHILADELPHIA — Exactly 248 years ago, the Second Continental Congress, in session here, made a fateful decision.
Meeting on the 9th of September in the year 1776, under the presidency of John Hancock, the delegates, a little over two months after their declaration casting off the rule of the British, made a historic name change. No longer would their aspirational nation be known as the United Colonies of North America. From this day forward, it was the United States of America. That was the name used in the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson did not invent the USA. Many believe that Thomas Paine, the Common Sense pamphleteer, created the name. He did flirt with it but never zeroed in. His writings refer to the “United Colonies,” “the American States” and the “Free and Independent States of America,” but not the “United States of America.”
Credit, as best a can be determined, goes to an anonymous writer, identifying himself only as “a Planter,” who was published in the one of the three Virginia Gazettes in Williamsburg, appealing to his fellow inhabitants of Virginia to go for independence rather than reconciliation with Great Britain. The planter, lamenting an estimated $24 million in economic losses in the colonies and the need for reparations from London rather than a truce, termed it a “prodigious sum for the united states of America to give up for the sake of a peace, that, very probably, itself would be one of the greatest misfortunes!”
Some think this anonymous planter was Benjamin Franklin, but there is no evidence of that.
Contemplating all of this, I took a stroll this evening from Penn’s Landing, where William Penn came ashore in 1682.
Over cobblestones I walked up Dock Street, past the spot where Samuel Fraunces, who would become the chief cook to America’s first president, relocated his historic tavern from New York City. I passed by the buildings of both the First and the Second Banks of the United States, those short-lived economic inspirations of Alexander Hamilton that Thomas Jefferson vehemently opposed.
Then I glanced over at the park which is a national shrine where, past dusk, artificial light bathed the Liberty Bell in glory. The bell would eventually crack in the 19th century, a premonition for the national fissure that led to Civil War.
These reflections came on the eve of what may become another momentous occasion in this City of Brotherly Love and for our country — and the reason for my latest sojourn in our nation’s first capital.
Just across from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall, the nominees of the two major political parties will take the stage at the National Constitution Center for what may be the only debate between Vice President Kamala and former President Donald Trump. It will also mark the first time the two have met.
Trump did not get his wish from ABC News, the host, for a venue filled with an audience that he thought would react more favorably to him. Harris did not get her request that both candidates’ microphones remain unmuted at all times, hoping a spontaneous Trump exclamation would work to her advantage.
With the election a dead heat at the moment, especially in Pennsylvania and the half dozen other swing states that will decide which candidate goes over the 270 Electoral Vote count, a zinger or a stumble could be the pivotal moment, especially with as many as 50 million people watching and millions more subsequently consuming the viral clips on social media.
Unless there is a second Trump-Harris debate, what happens on the Philadelphia stage on Tuesday night could be the last major event of the presidential campaign (not including the less consequential Oct. 1 debate between the vice presidential candidates).
Early voting is already underway in Delaware and North Carolina. Ballots go out next week here in Pennsylvania and 16 other states. It is indeed the beginning of the end.
The surrogates for both Harris and Trump seem to agree on only one thing — that if their opponent wins then the country, as we know it, will be destroyed.
Trump, according to the Democrats, will make good on his rhetoric to suspend the Constitution and jail his enemies as part of a revenge and retribution campaign that will be the political equivalent of carpet bombing.
Harris, as portrayed by Trump, is so extreme that the Republican calls her a Marxist and a Communist and he asserts he is the only one who can prevent World War III.
It may come as a surprise this is nothing new in American politics, as I discovered researching my book, Behind the White House Curtain.
Republican newspapers in Virginia were fed up with the president by George Washington’s second term. Washington, our only president not to represent a political party, was called a tyrant, senile and a thief. Sound familiar?
Trump’s questioning Harris’ ethnic identification echoes the campaign of 1800.
In that race, the first and only time a president found himself running against his VP, President John Adams’ camp labeled Thomas Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
Jefferson’s campaign retaliated, calling Adams a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
That was 216 years before Hillary Clinton campaigned for president wearing a pantsuit.
By 1800, most everyone was nostalgic for the relative calm of the Washington presidency. And Philadelphia was remembered as the birthplace of the nation where even Adams and Jefferson admired each other.
Will the Spirit of ‘76 re-emerge on the Philadelphia stage? However unlikely that is in 2024, there is a relatively recent precedent.
In a presidential debate 24 years ago, moderator Jim Lehrer tried to soften the clash between Republican and Democrat, prodding George W. Bush and Al Gore to say something nice about the other. Each acknowledged the other’s leadership qualities and for a brief moment civility prevailed.
Even the most sanguine observer raising such a possibility here in Philadelphia is certain to be battered by a chorus of cynics.
It is obvious from the barrage of campaign commercials on TV in Pennsylvania that going negative is deemed more effective than touting a candidate’s attributes.
Alexander Hamilton saw it all coming, warning us that “no character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false.”
Enjoy the debate.