By Mark Trahant
Do we need dissent in a time of war? Or are we better off supporting every decision our leaders make without question?
This is an old dilemma. On Tuesday night comedian Dennis Miller told Jay Leno’s TV audience that the media should be careful, that there are things that we the people don’t want to know. Specifically, Miller’s context was the reporting about ground troop movements – something the U.S. media hasn’t been doing anyway.
How careful should the media be when it comes to things the government doesn't want people to know? This raises the larger issue: Does a democratic society need dissent even in a time of war? Is it unpatriotic for media to ask questions, to raise concerns or doubts, even in a time of unity?
Elias Boudinot |
Liberty of the Press Essential
“As the liberty of the press is so essential to the improvement of the mind, we shall consider our paper, a free paper, with, however, proper and usual restrictions,” Boudinot wrote. “But the columns of this newspaper shall always be open to free and temperate discussions on matters of politics, religion, and so forth.”
But who decides what’s temperate discourse?
The only discussion the Georgians wanted was about a date - exactly when Cherokees would decide to move off their own land. Indeed, beginning in the 1820s the state had been aggressive enacting laws with the sole purpose of pushing Cherokees away from their homeland. The greed for Cherokee land only intensified when gold was found in 1828.
Editor Arrested and Beaten
Georgia officials, including the state’s military, arrested Boudinot and gave him a beating while in custody. He was told to stop advocating for Cherokee rights.
Boudinot used his newspaper to ask why freedom of the press - or even freedom of self-governement - could be denied to indigenous Americans. He wrote in June of 1829 that perhaps Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were “only tantalizing us when they encouraged us in the pursuit of agriculture and government. ... Why were we not told long ago that we could not be permitted to establish a government within the limits of any state? The Cherokees have always had a government of their own.”
The state of Georgia was a clear and present danger; an enemy. And the Phoenix gave a people voice.
|
"Today we are again surrounded by darkness. And now more than ever we need a conversation about the evils in the world and our policy choices before us with the back and forth that comes from true discourse." |
But what about the policy questions – the debate about what would happen next – by the Cherokee people?
An Act of Treason
Here too the newspaper gives us an idea about the nature of discourse.
Tribal leaders gave Boudinot editorial freedom until he came to the conclusion that Cherokee removal was inevitable. He saw the state of Georgia (and its ally in President Andy Jackson) as an overwhelming power. But Cherokee leaders responded that discussion about removal was illegal, an act of treason.
The newspaper shouldn’t even raise such issues, the tribal leaders said, because the Phoenix was a “powerful auxiliary in asserting and supporting our political rights ...
“The press being the public property of the nation, it would ill become its character if such infringements upon the feelings of the people should be tolerated. In other respects, the liberty of the press should be as free as the breeze that glides upon the surface.”
Phoenix Editor Quits
On Aug. 11, 1832, Boudinot quit his job. “Were I to continue as editor, I should feel myself in a most peculiar and delicate situation. I do not know whether I could, at the same time, satisfy my own views, and the views of the authorities of the nation. My situation would then be as embarrassing as it would be peculiar and delicate. I do conscientiously believe it to be the duty of every citizen to reflect upon the dangers with which we are surrounded; to view the darkness which seems to lie before our people our prospects, and the evils with which we are threatened; to talk over all these matters, and, if possible, come to some definite and satisfactory conclusion.”
I love these words. Today we are again surrounded by darkness. And now more than ever we need a conversation about the evils in the world and our policy choices before us with the back and forth that comes from true discourse. This is the only way we can come to a definite and satisfactory conclusion. We need dissent, even in a time of war. No, we need dissent especially in a time of war.
Further Reading |
to top of page