I love history. As a history major in college, I specialized in Petrine Russia (Peter the Great’s reign, 1682-1725). I oftentimes found it amusing to compare Peter’s reforms to Lenin’s. Comparing a Russian tsar with a communist leader isn’t my intent here. I mention it only to illustrate that sometimes things happen in the past that should be remembered (but aren’t), that should serve as a harbinger. As some of my other studies are coming to an end, I thought I’d dust off some of my old history books and peruse history to see what the future might bring. Today’s study: The English Peasant’s Revolt of 1381.
As I read through the background, results and later consequences of this revolt, I could not help but think of Obamacare. How so? Let’s take a short trip, shall we?
The revolt started when tax collectors attempted to raise a poll tax from villagers in Essex. That didn’t go well. Troops were sent in along with more tax collectors. The troops were routed and six of the tax collectors were beheaded. News spread and the counties of Essex and Kent were in full revolt against the despised poll tax. In fact, the latest poll tax was the third in four years. The peasants were pissed.
Keep in mind that the period we’re talking about is less than 20 years after the Black Death had killed millions of people in Europe. Britain was not exempt from the plague. The loss of life meant the workers’ (serfs) labor was more valuable. They wanted more rights, including land ownership and participation in the governing process. They did not want a continuation of the status quo and the relationships between the serfs and the landowners and the serfs and the Church were fueling discontent.
An armed “army” of disgruntled peasants marched to London like Sherman marched to the sea. They attacked manors, churches and religious institutions. They freed prisoners, destroyed legal records and destroyed perceived icons of corruption. The went so far as to assault and enter the Tower of London wherein they executed the Archbishop of Canterbury. All-in-all, things weren’t good.
King Richard II (who was 14 or 15 at the time) agreed to meet with the leader of the rebellion (Walter “Wat” Tyler) and agreed to a number of the demands, such as the abolition of serfdom, division of church lands and implementation of fair rents. All seemed to have been resolved. Well, sort of.
The Wat Tyler was stabbed and killed and a large armed force loyal to the king surrounded the peasant army. Some of the leaders were executed but King Richard pardoned most of the peasants, reassuring them that he would abide by the agreement he had made with their leader. The peasants, now pacified, returned to their homes.
As you might have guessed, the king reneged on his promises. However, many of the landowners on the front lines of the rebellion received the message passed to them by the peasants: treat us fairly or suffer the consequences. The abolition of serfdom in Britain’s medieval period began at this time with the land owners, not the crown or the cross.
So it might just be me, but while reading through this early this morning, I saw an unwanted, unpopular tax (Obamacare) being added to an already tax-ridden working class. I also saw a microcosm of my view of labor unions. Required at one time to ensure worker’s rights and safety, their usefulness is specific and short lived. Management (the landowners, in this case) hold all the power. If they are not willing to make changes, no amount of bullying will sway them.
Ah, but the king. He was a young king. Perhaps out of cowardice or wanting to be popular with his people, he initially agreed to the demands of the people. He met with their leader and made a binding agreement. When things turned ugly and it looked like he might have a civil war on his front yard, he again reasserted his agreement and commitment to honor the will of the people who had called for an end to the oppressive taxes (amongst other things). But he lied. He was deceitful from the beginning. It all sounds so familiar today, no?