The experiment continues. Vladimir Abarinov - about American revolutions

"... not foreseeing any hope for the amendment of the ruling undergoing, they were found for those who were forced to make a solemn declaration of this, which the United colonies were announced by the free and independent state ... The publication of this pies, and the release of the formal declaration of war against the UK proves the whole of courage of the commanders." So, the temporary attorney in the affairs of Russia in London Vasily Lizakevich in August 1776 reported the primary overy of the foreign affairs collegium Nikita Panin on the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress. Empress Catherine II refused to King George III in the request to send Russian soldiers to pacify the rebellious colonies and proclaimed neutrality, but she did not recognize the new state - this was done by her grandson Alexander I.

The young king with his liberal hobbies, which Pushkin called "young fun", was perhaps the only ruler of Russia who sympathized with the goals of the American revolution. It would be a simplification to argue that the founding fathers of the United States agreed in everything with each other. The project of the state system was born in fierce disputes. Their book mind was looking for examples of effective and fair management in the past, but the conclusion was like this: all power - evil, hostile freedom. Only the law is able to protect freedom.

"Again" will not be, there will be another. And not necessarily bad

Hence the concept of the supremacy of the law, which is not considered either with political expediency, neither profit, nor with what in Russia they say: judgment is not by law, but by conscience. Architects of the American Republic did not have any special illusions regarding human nature. They knew that for the sake of ambition, greed and power, a person is capable of baseness, and with alarm foreshadowed that Congress could become an instrument of "tyranny of the majority", and therefore provided for procedural opportunities to prevent this. With minor repair, the constitution mechanism acts to this day, and these repair are mainly aimed at restricting the powers of the executive branch.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims the "self -evident" equality of all people before God. But there is no getting away from the original sin of America - slavery. The leaders of the struggle for independence were well aware of this contradiction, approximately like Russian Decembrists. The slave owner Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1785: “Can the freedoms of the nation can be strong if we eliminated its only solid foundation - the conviction of people is that our freedom is the gift of God, that they cannot be trampled without bringing on his anger? I tremble for their country when I think that the Lord is fair ...”

England forbade the slave trade in its colonies half a century earlier than the United States. Therefore, the descendants of the slaves have no reason to celebrate Independence Day. America celebrates his national holiday in anxiety and confusion. The pandemic curve, which quarantine was flattened, crawled up again. The parades and folk festivals are canceled. Of the mass events, only fireworks remained, which are recommended to admire the window or on TV. But this is not the only grief. It is much more serious that the United States does not know how to be with its historical narrative. One of the fashionable brands of recent days, replacing the slogan Donald Trump “Make America Great Again,” - baseball caps and T -shirts with the inscription “Make Orwell Fiction again”. What was recently portrayed in gloomy dystopia has become a reality, and it is difficult to believe in reverse transformation. But the experiment, which the founding fathers considered the state they created, continues. The towers, whether it is a deadly ailment or the vague of the minds, will pass. "Again" will not be, there will be another. And not necessarily bad.

Vladimir Abarinov - Washington journalist and political observer

Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editorial office