Author Alan Axelrod recently wrote an interesting sidebar about founding father John Adams:
"'For my part,' John Adams remarked, 'there was not a moment during the Revolution when I would not have given everything I ever possessed for a restoration of the state of things before the contest began.' This is perhaps the most extraordinary confession of the entire war. It tells us that debate, doubt, and even regret were active at the very core of the Revolution, that the idea of reconciliation was at least as powerful as the idea of breaking away, and that words and ideas would be as important in shaping the conflict as powder and lead. If King George III and the conservatives in Parliament had been even a little more conciliatory, or if men like Thomas Paine had been a little less persuasive, it is likely that the Revolution would have been averted or settled amicably."
We read and talk all the time about the brave defiance to tyranny the colonies exhibited during the Revolution, we see how they risked their "lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to stand up for what was right, and we know that they fought a long and bloody war and ultimately survived to birth a free nation. But it is easy to forget that they attempted, repeatedly, to offer the "olive branch" to King George III and Parliament, we forget that they also had a yearning, deep down in their breasts, for peace and harmony.
Why was the natural inclination for peace and appeasement not heeded? Why was the wish to avert armed conflict not satisfied? In my view, it was because God had other plans. Although it would have been nice to have averted war and found a way to maintain peace, it wouldn't have been right. Although it would have been easier to keep the status quo and preserve tranquility, it wouldn't have been just. And because these people were willing to sacrifice to stand firm for what was right, a great and mighty result was accomplished that has benefited hundreds of millions, living in a free society, ever since.
This brings us to, perhaps, one of the most difficult things for good-hearted, peace-loving people to understand:
Without justice, there can be no peace.
Who among us wouldn't desire peace over war? Who among us wouldn't wish tranquility over violence? Who among us wouldn't ignore some small offense for maintenance of the status quo? Who among us, in the heat of battle and at the height of sacrifice, wouldn't, like John Adams before us, wish to turn back the clock and return to simpler, quieter times?
This reminds me of a scene from the movie Lord of the Rings, in which Frodo becomes weary and scared of his un
solicited burden of carrying the ring back to Mordor. In speaking to Gandalph, Frodo basically says he wishes he'd never been given the ring to carry. Gandalph's answer is beautiful, and to me, entirely correct. Paraphrasing, Gandalph basically says, "That's how everyone feels when they find themselves in a position of great responsibility (where their peace and affluence have been wrecked by a fight for justice), the only question is, what are you going to do with the time you've been given?"
Why does Gandalph answer Frodo by talking about time? Because how we use our time goes straight to the heart of the matter. Frodo was longing for bygone days of peace and solitude. Frodo had grown weary in well-doing. But Gandalph reminded him that he still had a choice. He could continue his fight for good, his pursuit of justice against the dark forces of evil, or he could return to his solitude and peace. The choice was clear, Frodo could either serve his sense of justice, or he could serve his desire for peace. But at that moment, he could not choose both.
Peace and irrelevance?
or
Struggle and justice?
And so simplifies the choice faced by every hero who ever lived.
Who wouldn't want to avert conflict and loss? Who wouldn't want peace and affluence? But the question remains: at what price?
Peace and affluence should never be chosen over justice.
So as John Adams and Gandalph both knew:
Some fights are worth making.
