More musing on Benedict Arnold

I have to admit a fascination with Benedict Arnold since his efforts helped to push forward the agenda he later described as "sinister views at the expence of the public interest". Arnold's military victories against the British, in particular the victory at Saratoga, helped to secure the French aid he so despised. It also raises the question of how many citizens were aware of the machinations that went on during the War for Independence? I have often mentioned French Involvement in this war as a contrast to the fighting farmer militiaman one is given to believe fought the war.

How many were "duped" into believing that the War for Independence was beneficial or necessary? How many would have preferred Union to independence yet remained silent? what would have been the outcome had Arnold supported Union and the Tory cause?

Arnold mentions in his letter that "we raised arms against a brother". I am assuming that he means England,but the War for Independence was a civil war. Are the Loyalists the people Arnold refers to as "the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion"? What if Arnold has cast his lot with those who argued for restraint in dealing with their grievances with the motherland?

There is a part of me who sees two possible methods of defeating the rebels: military and civil. The civil method would have been to find those who were inclined toward the motherland and keep them informed of the overatures by people such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson to the French. Would John Adams, who defended Captain Preston and his men, be inclined to a slow and reasoned approach with the motherland that would have sustained Union?

To be quite honest, when I see what has happened in this country, I am sure that many who supported Independence would regret that action. Benedict Arnold demonstrates that I don't need to travel far into the future to see evidence of this. As George Washington said about Shays' Rebellion:

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious."

I also find it interesting that another supporter of Independence, Samuel Chase, said: “our republican Constitution will sink to Mobocracy, the worst of all possible governments”. This statement is even more interesting in light of the "tea party" movement. Unfortunately (or fortunately), most colonials were not supportive of the original Tea Party's wanton destruction of property.

It seems that people can be affected by events even if they hope to remain neutral. Unfortunately, you've got to fuck up royally to admit you made a mistake after wasting lives in a war.

Shays' Rebellion

I am amazed that there isn't more interest in this little bit of US History. I tend to blog about it since it is actually a very important event in US Constitutional history. In fact, it is a good point to mention when people discuss the insurrection theory.

233 Years of Mistakes--It's time to return to England!

I've always thought if we could transport the founding fathers forward in time their reaction would be "fuck it, we're better off as a part of Britain" and just go back home.

If they had any doubts, I could take them to this quaint village that Mudflap Bubbas Found! I'm sure that would persuade them of the error of their ways far more effectively than a nuclear strike on Lexington and Concord ever would.

Why, because most of them would be appalled at how the US has turned out. The fact that the Constitution has been perverted so that something like the Second Amendment which was to ensure a Swiss style military has become a farce with the out of control military and people yammering about gun rights. Add in the fools who say this country was founded as a Christian nation.

Somebody should tell these people about Congregation Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia. Does Haym Solomon sound very Christian to you??? He was a prime financier of the American side during the American Revolutionary War. Jews have been in the US since the mid-17th Century with Jews playing a key role in the Revolution.

How would they feel to learn that Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli (nevermind he converted to Christianity, there's always hope), whereas it was a tough road to get a Catholic as US President! Would the Jewish "patriots" change their support to England if they saw people who say this country is a Christian nation?

We could get into the reaction to Shays' Rebellion and how "Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power". The problem is that by making a break from Britain in the way they did, they created a very bad precedent. Even though the Constitution was written to clarify the situation, there are still some who believe in the insurrection theory despite its not having a constitutional basis.

Break from England, it's a very bad idea!

We can get into the misunderstanding of history presented by the "tea party" crowd. Whatever the fuck it is that they believe. I know it doesn't have anything to do with clotted cream and scones.

An even more interesting point is that the American rebels saw themselves as British and were demanding that they be properly treated as British Citizens. They wanted a voice in the taxation policies. The cry wasn't "No taxation", but "No Taxation without Representation". The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case. The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. The Colonials felt that they were deprived of this right since they had no direct representation in the British Parliament.

When people who frame themselves as patriots knock Britain, they should remember that the founders considered themselves to be British Subjects. The question would be would the founders if they were alive today feel more at home in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

I think they would be much more inclined toward England than Washington: and definitely frightened by some places in the hinterlands of the US. I've heard it said that the "patriots/rebels" had the better slogans, but the tories had much stronger arguments for remaining with Britain. Time has proven that the Tories were correct and that rebellion was a foolish choice.

A thought

Part of this is something I am working on for my Michael Bellesiles vindication which is there is a technological and political argument for there not being many firearms manufacturers in Colonial North America.

One is that the Navigation Acts. These acts were a limitation on trade with the Colonies. The acts demanded that most raw materials be imported into England from the colonies in order to support British manufacturing. Particularly saliently to this matter, Iron was found in all the colonies, and forges and furnaces were established in many places (e.g., Batso, NJ). In 1750, Parliament enacted a law declaring that "no mill or other engine for rolling or slitting iron," "nor any furnace for making steel shall be erected in the colonies". After this only pig and bar iron could be made.

That would rule out one possibility for local North American firearm production since they lacked the technology to do so. Additionally, Britain wanted to make sure any manufacturing of ANYTHING took place in England: that wasn't just firearms.

The War for American Independence provided some impetus for North American Firearm production, but a fair amout of muskets used were either the British Brown Bess or the French Charleville Musket. Major North American firearms production didn't begin in strength until after 1794.

In 1794, the new Federal government decided to manufacture its own muskets so that the United States would not be dependent on foreign arms (got that "dependent on foreign arms"). President Washington selected Springfield as the site for one of the two Federal Armories, the other being the Harpers Ferry Armory at Harpers Ferry), Virginia (now part of West Virginia). Production of weaponry at the Armory began in 1795 when 220 flintlock muskets were produced.

Wow, in case you missed it, the first target of Shays' rebels was the Springfield Armoury! Now, shouldn't a bunch of Revolutionary War vets just pull their muskets from the mantle? Somehow, this crew felt the need for firearms.

I happen to believe that private ownership of firearms up until the early 1800 was pretty rare. That would point to a lack of concern with private firearm ownership at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the drafting of the Second Amendment. This is even more important when we think of the civic aspect of the "right to bear arms".

Personally, I think this is something for a historian who is much more prepared for the fallout such a revelation will have on the US mindset than I am or Michael Bellesiles was.

Bye Bye Montana!

I've been reading that Montana plans on seceding from the Union if SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects a collective, rather than individual right. The whole idea sounds like it came from the Militia of Montana, which is a pretty pathetic thought. Is Brad Johnson, Montana's secretary of state,such a political whore that he is willing to pander to a group of crazies? Anyway, that is the problem with elected officials in this country is that they are too willing to listen to the loudest constituents rather than the sanest.

On the other hand, the United States is a failed state and has been since the Treaty of Paris ended the War for Independence. I have a longer post on why the independence movement was a bad idea, but that's for a later date. This type of thing is one of the symptoms and they have been happening since Daniel Shays's little uprising. Nay, since the first idiot started screaming for independence on trumped up grounds. Since then, crazies have tried to break from the Union on all levels of scale based on the same silly arguments as the early "patriots".

Fortunately, we are seeing the culmination of my observation that the United States is the richest third world country. Infrastructure is collapsing, the economy is heading toward the shitter, the price of fuel is rising, and so on. Because the "leaders" are more interested in popularity than addressing the issues, the price of fuel will be a real problem for this country.

I see protesters wanting "fair gas prices". To them, that probably means the low prices that the US is used to, rather than the prices the rest of the world pays. It would be funny if the politicians gave the protesters the latter and petrol went to US$10 a gallon! Definitely a tax to pay for repairing and upkeep of the infrastructure. The problem is that the private automobile has been subsidised by low fuel prices and parking. Not to mention that the tax barely covers repairs to the crumbling highways.

Now, what really brought down the Soviet Union wasn't anything the US did with the possible exception of aiding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which was a bad move. Some mujahadeen later going on to form al-Queda or aid Islamic fundamentalist movements. Funny if by trying to bring down the Sovs, the Septics cause their own demise! But, the point is that what really brought down the Sovs was that foreign banks were bankrolling the state.

Now, the world economy is truly global, which most septics don't grasp. Meaning even if your job hasn't left the country, your real boss may be from overseas. I am not sure what the foreign investment level is in the states, but it's pretty stinking high. And the largest foreign investors in the US are:

THE BRITISH!

So, the US has never really been independent from England, but it has not had the benefits of its ties to Britain since they are economic rather than political. In fact, the relationship between the US and Britain has been purely economic since day one. The unfortunate thing is that we lack British administration and laws, in particular those regarding firearms, since the ninnies decided to make the break.

Anyway, Bye Bye Montana! I wish this pathetic nation a swift demise and swifter return to the breast of Mother England.

I sort of imagine this demise to be like the Battle of Mogadishu where the Malaysian and Pakistani troops come to our rescue.

Founding fathers on revolution against the Constitutionally created government.

I see loads of rubbish about how the Second Amendment allegedly means that "the people" have a right to rebel against the Constitutionally created government.

Usually this neglects Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Quick question how does the Second Amendment negate Article 3, Section 3 and allow for citizens to wage war against the US government?

Of course, people who buy into the RKBA myth usually neglect logic such as that.

Anyway, here are some quotes from the founders about rebelling against an elected government.

"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death." Samuel Adams about Shay's Rebellion

"I would infinitely prefer a limited monarchy, for I would sooner be the subject of the caprice of one man than the ignorance of the multitude." Noah Webster

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned in any country... What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious." General George Washington about Shay's Rebellion.

James Madison once described democracy as the “most vile form of government”. In Federalist Paper No. 10, he had the following to say about democracy:

“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Alexander Hamilton, in a June 1788 speech urging his fellow New Yorkers to ratify the Constitution: “It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Samuel Chase, a signer of the declaration of independence and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, delivered a charge to a Baltimore grand jury in which he blasted Congress and the Jefferson administration for repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801 which unseated federal circuit court judges on 2 May 1803. He also lashed out at the Maryland legislature for eliminating property qualifications for the franchise and for interfering with the operation of Maryland's courts. Chase railed that America was risking a descent into "mobocracy," This led to his impeachment

Of course, you probably believe that the US is a democracy if you believe the Second Amendment allows you the right to wage war upon the US government.