On Being Tread Upon
A primer on "Join, or Die" vs. "Don't Tread on Me"
A History
Most Americans are familiar with the Gadsden flag, a symbol established in 1775 during the Revolutionary War to galvanize Continental Marines fighting a miserable war with no clear end in sight.
This flag adorns pickup trucks and flies in front of modest homes in vast swaths of the country, but is often (wrongly) cited as a form of hate speech by rootless cosmopolitans.1
There is another historical, rattlesnake-themed symbol from the 18th century, however, that does not receive nearly as much attention. That would be Benjamin Franklin’s “Join, or Die” cartoon, first featured in the The Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754.
Contrary to what it may seem, the drawing was not actually a product of the Revolutionary War, but came to existence during the Seven Years’ War, when American colonists were beginning to ponder whether a political union of some kind may be necessary to combat French settlers for their land west of the Appalachians.
When writing about the threat, Benjamin Franklin wrote:2
The Confidence of the French in this Undertaking seems well-grounded on the present disunited state of the British Colonies, and the extreme difficult of bringing so many different Governments and Assemblies to agree in any speedy and effectual Measures for our common defense and Security; while our Enemies have the very great Advantage of being under one.
Only later on, during the Stamp Act Congress (which Gadsden coincidentally attended3), did American colonists and pamphleteers begin to use the cartoon to call for a strong political union resistant to the unfair treatment of Britain. Its use only widened as the Revolutionary War began, with Paul Revere going as far as to replicate the cartoon in a wider format so as to feature it on the masthead of his Massachusetts Spy.4
Cartoons as Early American Political Thought
It should be apparent by now that even as (alleged) non-partisan General George Washington was fjording the Delaware, the nascent stirrings of political parties, philosophy, and figureheads was already beginning to emerge. Franklin’s “Join, or Die” was a harbinger of what would become Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists, while Gadsden’s “Don’t Tread on Me” flag is certainly more representative of Thomas Jefferson’s early Republicans.5
Going into the 1780s and 90s, two different visions for America grew from the figureheads of these competing political movements. Hamilton believed passionately in the joining together of the states into a strong, federal union, supporting the federal assumption of state debts,6 the creation of a national bank,7 and the maintenance of a revenue cutter service (which would become the U.S. Coast Guard) to raise revenues for the federal government.8 The young Treasury Secretary wrote prolifically in support of these views, concluding in Federalist No. 9 that:9
The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.
Hamilton’s argument could be no more direct: Join, or Die.
Jefferson took a different approach, resisting debt assumption,10 the creation of the First Bank of the United States,11 and the development of revenue cutters that enforced customs duties that funded the federal government.12 The then-Secretary of State was ardently opposed to everything Hamilton stood for, writing long after Hamilton’s untimely death that:13
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have… The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.
Jefferson’s argument, too, is direct: Don’t Tread on Me.
Join, or Die vs. Don’t Tread on Me and the Post-2016 Rightists
There is a direct line between the Federalist vs. Republican debate and the current schism in the post-2016 right-of-center. Generally called “the realignment”, there is a new base of people within the Republican party that eschew traditional Republican dogma about a weak federal government, taxes, and state’s rights (sound familiar?)
But the political realignment goes deeper than economic policy or a debate on the merits of federalism. Many people are asking: How should Christians14 respond to a culture that uses the political to suppress their values, beliefs, and way of life? And if you ask this of the post-liberal right (or even observe casually), you’ll see the divisions break down even further.
Everyone is Reading The Benedict Option
Rod Dreher certainly needs no introduction (except to the Pope.) Senior Editor at The American Conservative, author of the Twitter-favorites The Benedict Option, and Live Not By Lies, Dreher is a prolific thinker and writer with a strong influence in the post-Trump right.
Without giving away the book, which yours truly recommends you read, Dreher’s premise is that in the post-Chistian society America is veering toward, Christians must remove themselves from America’s cultural fabric and form their own communities centered around Christian virtue and cultural practice (Heavy paraphrasing — Read the book!)
On The Benedict Option’s website, there is an extremely practical guide to creating one of these communities, with brilliant insights to creating Christian community, such as making the church the center of your community, minimizing online contact with the cultural world, and resisting consumerism. This is a wise, measured, and profoundly Christian framework for community.
That being said, returning to our core premise, it is difficult not to see the tendency to veer toward a “Don’t Tread On Me” style of politics and persuasion. Alongside the sound advice above, Dreher also recommends that you “have multiple streams of income if possible; do not rely on one job that you can lose,” as well as starting a business by and for Christians. Again, these are all commendable (and correct!) courses of action, but it does imply some level of defeatism on the part of Christians in what is undoubtedly a Christian nation.
One might say that Dreher and Jefferson would not have been as far apart ideologically as the casual observer may think.
A Hostile (Benevolent) Takeover of Moscow, Idaho
For comparison, let us look at Dreher’s frequent sparring partner, Pastor Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho.
At first glance, it may seem that Wilson had a pre-release copy of The Benedict Option 40 years before it was released. He is the Pastor at Christ Church in Moscow,15 founded the Logos School, a classical, Christian education institution also in Moscow,16 and then to connect with other schools like it, formed the Association of Classical and Christian Schools that numbers over 160 schools.17 In addition to this, Wilson founded New Saint Andrews College (a Christian university), as well as Canon Press, a publishing house for ideologically and religiously-compatible authors, content creators, and thinkers. Online gossip also notes the connection of several small businesses in Moscow to Christ Church, though the author will omit these for the sake of allowing them to engage in the act of commerce in peace.
However, there is a decided difference between the Wilson and Dreher (Hamilton and Jefferson) models. Wilson, like Hamilton (and Franklin’s “Join, or Die” cartoon), believes in the creation of institutions, and the takeover of communities, towns, cities, and regions in the interest of spreading leadership, thought, and virtue. Dreher, like Jefferson (and Gadsden’s flag), believes in the retreat from threat of superseding authority in the prayer that their way of life will be allowed to stand the test of time.
Reflections on the Creation of Christian Community
This is not to say that either model is wrong, tactically or otherwise. Both place high regard on faith, virtue, and responsibility in a way that honors God, His kingdom, and creation. But it is difficult to deny that ecumenically, they stand far apart.
To follow both models to their logical conclusion:
Wilson’s “Join or Die” framework for Christian community is a strong call-to-action that refuses to recognize the cultural tides putting Christian values at risk. Given the opportunity, these institutions, embedded in communities across the nation, will hopefully be a source of revival for our nation and strengthen the national institution of federal governance that has existed for over 200 years.
Dreher’s “Don’t Tread On Me” framework for Christian community is a realistic and practical one, oriented on Christian-only communities that will raise godly, young leaders to raise their own families, build their own lives, and honor God in the ways of their ancestors. In Dreher’s scenario, the country may not survive, but these families and communities will.
As Andrew Kloster noted recently, the so-called “national divorce” is predicated from a position of legalistic weakness,18 the kind that shrieks, surprisingly “you can’t do that!” when the authorities put a toe across the line. So, too, will Christian-only communities do when facing enforcement institutions they abandoned along the way.19
Being that the United States is a Christian nation, where Christians go, so does the country. Pray tell, what will happen when Christians panic about being tread upon, rather than doing the treading.
“The Shifting Symbolism of the Gadsden Flag” (2016) The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-shifting-symbolism-of-the-gadsden-flag
“The Writings of Benjamin Franklin: Philadelphia, 1726-1757” (1993)
“Unite or Die” (1774) The Massachusetts Spy
Note: It need not matter whether Gadsden was a Federalist or a Republican — This argument is solely focused on historical interpretation and political philosophy behind the flag itself, not Gadsden’s views. Though one can reasonably suspect that Gadsden was a Federalist at heart, supporting the ratification of the Constitution, as well as his son Thomas (a Federalist) who also served as Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina.
“An Act making provision for the Debt of the United States” (1790) The United States Congress
The Bank of the United States and the American Economy Kaplan, E. (1999) p. 26
“How Alexander Hamilton Launched The Coast Guard” (2016) Task and Purpose https://taskandpurpose.com/history/badass-alexander-hamilton-father-coast-guard/
“The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” (Federalist No. 9)(1787) Independent Journal Hamilton, A.
“Account of The Bargain on The Assumption and Residence Bills” (1792?) Jefferson, T.
The Complete Anas of Thomas Jefferson (1903) Jefferson, T. p. 30
“Thomas Jefferson: The Original Isolationist” (2013) The Federalist Domenech, B.
Letter to William Ludlow (1824) Jefferson, T.
Here I refer to Catholics and Protestants together, and will continue to do so. (1 Cor. 12:12-26)
https://www.christkirk.com/our-church/leadership-staff/
https://logosschool.com/
“Doug Wilson’s Religious Empire Expanding in the Northwest” (2004) Southern Poverty Law Center, Potok, M.
“National Divorce” (2021) Right From the Ground Up Kloster, A.
See: Law enforcement, education policy, gun ownership policy, the definition of marriage, the persecution of the modern church by the IRS, the taking of political prisoners questioning the 2020 election, et. al.
The classic anti-Semitic dog whistle in the second sentence is a good indication that the rest of the article isn’t worth perusing any further...