American Independence: A blessing or a curse?

The person who asked this question was none other than Patrick Henry.  To be quite honest, I am of the opinion that if the founders were to return to modern day American, they would be extremely disappointed in how their experiment turned out, which was the basis of my A Message from the Founders post. Additionally, the quote from Patrick Henry scholar, Henry Mayer, I mention in this post informed my comment:

The first man to speak identified himself as Patrick Henry. He explained that the group had been transported from 1774 to see what would become of their notion of Independence from Britain. Henry was extremely upset at misquotations made by "organisations such as The National Rifle Association and its ilk" regarding the ratification of the Constitution. "These remarks were in regard to the Militia and not private ownership of firearms".

I have been thinking about the following quote from Patrick Henry and how it might relate to his opinion of the current state of the Union.

After Patrick Henry died, his family found among his papers one sealed envelope with this written on it: " Enclosed are the resolutions of the Virginia Assembly, in 1765, concerning the Stamp Act. Let my executors open this paper." There was a copy of the resolutions in his handwriting inside. On the back of the paper containing the resolutions was written in Henry's handwriting:

"The within resolutions passed the House of Burgesses in May, 1765. They formed the first opposition to the Stamp Act, and the scheme of taxing America by the British Parliament. All the colonies, either through fear, or want of opportunity to form an opposition, or from influence of some kind or other, had remained silent. I had been for the first time elected a burgess a few days before, was young, inexperienced, unacquainted with the forms of the house, and the members that composed it. Finding the men of weight averse to opposition, and the commencement of the tax at hand, and that no person was likely to step forth, I determined to venture, and alone, unadvised, and unassisted, on the blank leaf of an old law-book, wrote the within. Upon offering them to the house, violent debates ensued. Many threats were uttered, and much abuse cast on me, by the party for submission. After a long and warm contest, the resolutions passed by a very small majority, perhaps of one or two only. The alarm spread throughout America with astonishing quickness, and the ministerial party were overwhelmed. The great point of resistance to British taxation was universally established in the colonies. This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries, and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God had bestowed upon us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader, whoever thou art, remember this; and in thy sphere, practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others."

What does he mean by virtue?  Is he talking about characteristics that promote individual and collective well being? Does he mean it in the Aristotlean sense of being a mean between two extremes (For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance)?  Or is he talking about the Sainted personality which Americans desire, but human nature falls far short of being?

Also, there is a thin distinction between righteousness and self-righteousness. If he means righteousness as acting in accord with divine or moral law, was he truly righteous in engaging in his actions that caused the US to move into the mess it currently is in? Self-righteousness is a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that one's beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. It can give one conviction that their actions are correct when they are very wrong.

But the most important piece of this is "If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable."

We see a lot of self-righteous persons of contrary character in modern US politics.  US Politics is that of  division, which is most certainly contrary.  It seeks to promote various interests above others, often (as in the case of "gun rights") that interest runs contrary to public interest.  The Right exploits single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.

To Quote the Wisconsin AFL-CIO:

Union members have been fighting attacks on worker rights and protections on many fronts. These are not random, unconnected attacks. They are the result of a coordinated strategy by a corporate-funded ideological movement that aims to eventually destroy the labor movement. Other progressive movements have seen hard won gains attacked and eroded as well.

Think of fascism as an infection of the body politic that can occur when there isn't a strong leftist working class identified party. Neither US party works toward the interest of the workers. Chris Hedges wrote a great piece called Ralph Nader Was Right About Barack Obama about how he is just as much of a tool of big business as was Dubious Bush. But Liberal are to blame for failing to provide an alternative to the reactionary politics which is the norm in the United States.

Given the current state of affairs in the US, I am certain that Patrick Henry would have been a Tory.  But hindsight is 20-20 and he didn't realise the mess he was creating for future generations when he acted so ill-advisedly in demanding independence before the nation was ready for it.

Uh, Pat, look to home.

SouthernFemaleLawyer ran a letter to Pat Robertson from the Devil which made this point:

But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher. The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing.

I have to say after reading that, couldn’t Robertson be making a mistake. Shouldn't Pat look a little closer to home to find the country that made a pact with the Devil for its Independence. Isn't there a possibility that country is the US. Wouldn’t that explain how this country can be so >wealthy, yet so screwed up? Ever see Bedazzled (the Original Peter Cook and Dudley Moore version, not the later remake)? The devil gives you riches and what else you want, but there is usually a catch.

The last scene in the convent is a scream.

As OSO said at The Saturday Afternoon Post, "Good point. No way a bunch of black slaves could have outfought a modern European army."

You've got to admit this line of reasoning has a point, couldn't a country make a pact with the devil so it could defeat a much more powerful force. But, I'm talking about the US defeating Great Britain during the war of independence.

Britain was a much more powerful army and was doing a pretty good job of kicking colonial arse. The US did make a pact with the French that some, such as Benedict Arnold, might classify as a pact with the devil. But what about a real pact with the devil?

Wouldn't that explain a lot about the US's politics?

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.

Benedict Arnold--A true Patriot

I have to admit a love for alternative history: the big what if? Stuff like Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges, Robert Sobel's For Want of a Nail: If Burgoyne Had Won at Saratoga, and Redcoats' Revenge: An Alternate History of the War of 1812. A part of this comes from my conviction that the founders would not have fought the war for American Independence if they saw the ultimate outcome, especially in terms of how the United States has turned out. One can read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence and find that the Tories were correct when they said they would "rather be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants less than a mile away" since many of those grievances still exist.

But does one even need to go beyond the period of the War for American Independence to find proof of my conviction? Benedict Arnold was a strong believer in the Independence movement: whhich included spending his own money toward that effort. His numerous military victories for the Independence movement have been discounted based upon his "treason". Likewise, the reasons for his "treason" have been clouded over and covered with selfish reasons, although I have heard that one reason was that he was opposed to the Alliance with France. Other reasons are that he was disapppointed with Congress.

I have found the text of a letter he wrote to the American Public about his "treason" and it appears to confirm my opinion:

A very few words, however, shall suffice upon a subject so personal; for to the thousands who suffer under the tyranny of the usurpers in the revolted provinces, as well as to the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion, this instance of my conduct can want no vindication; and as to the class of men who are criminally protracting the war from sinister views at the expence of the public interest, I prefer their enmity to their applause. I am, therefore, only concerned in this address, to explain, myself to such of my countrymen, as want abilities, or opportunities, to detect the artifices by which they are duped...

With the highest satisfaction I bear testimony to my old fellow soldiers and citizens, that I find solid ground to rely upon the clemency of our Sovereign, and abundant conviction that it is the generous intention of Great Britain not only to leave the rights and privileges of the colonies unimpaired, together with their perpetual exemption from taxation, but to superadd such further benefits as my consist with the common prosperity of the empire. In short, I fought for much less than the parent country is as willing to grant to her colonies as they can be to receive or enjoy.

Some may think I continued in the struggle of these unhappy days too long, and others that I quitted it too soon-- To the first I reply, that I did not see with their eyes, nor perhaps had so favourable a situation to look from, and that to our common master I am willing to stand or fall. In behalf of the candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly--in the bands I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their own safety before it is too late; and with respect to that herd of censurers, whose enmity to me originates in their hatred to the principles by which I am now led to devote my life to the re-union of the British empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured, that concious of the rectitude of my intentions; I shall treat their malice and calumnies with contempt and neglect.

The problem with the War for American Independence is that it was a civil war, but it needed a pretense of righteousness to cover the fact that it was a dirty war: Us v. them. But many of "them" were also colonials (e.g., Tenche Coxe)! Unfortunately, Arnold, like another of my pantheon: Banastre Tarleton, were on the losing side and make lovely bogeymen and scapegoats in the American Myth factory which posits that ordinary people rose up to fight a foreign enemy. Never mind that the war was between three (or more) well-trained armies and Arnold was able to live out his days and died in London. The picture at the top of this piece comes from the house where he lived out his days in peace.

I would love to attribute Arnold's actions to prescience since I find it very interesting how he confirms my belief that those who supported Independence would be tremendously disappointed with how this country has turned out. If hindsight is 20-20, how many supporters of Independence would have supported insurrection over reason as the answer to their woes? Or to again quote Samuel Adams:

"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."

And ask doesn't the precedent of rebellion sanction that as a method of change: whether against a king or a republic? Was that a precedent that should be kept or does that lead to another form of tyranny?

"There's some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England."

Nothing like a quote from another Old Rugbeian to start my post (Rupert Brooke's "The Soldier"). I'm also adding one of my fav New Yorker Cartoons of all time. It had me howling when I found it.

But the point I am making here is about community or society, which are the institutions by which humans join together for cooperation.

Part of the Whig and Libertarian fantasy is that governments and society can be placed into turmoil on whims and fancies. Despite some commentators attempts to portray the radical whig concepts which led to the US War for Independence, this movement comes from the liberal spectrum: in particular republicanism. As a political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International. This belief in liberal republicanism has odd concepts regarding the legitimacy of governments, hence the War for American Independence.

Conservativism by its nature advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically within a nation over a period of time. Change is organic rather than revolutionary. Any attempt to modify society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul and creating unintended consequences. The US Whig movement did this and found itself facing Rebellions Such as Shays', The Whisky Revolts, Second American Civil War (War between the States), and quite possibly a future civil war based upon the "Insurrection theory". The War between the States is the Second American Civil war because the War for American Independence was the first civil war since it pitted those who were loyal against those who were not loyal.


The problem is that the Libertarian fantasy views government as a destroyer of liberty. The fact is that government is essential to create liberty. This notion that government is bad is peculiarly American. Even conservatives in Europe bemoan the rich/poor gap, and recognize an important role for government. The paradox is that only people with a pretty good government could come up with such an absurdity. When you really have a bad government, such as in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, or Russia, it's obvious that you need reform, not anarchy.

But my real point is that whatever you call yourself, you are a part of society. It is positively absurd that the Second Amendment was created to fight the government since in a democracy, the people are the government. To quote, once again, Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.

Somehow, there is this desire to be a frontiersman and beholden to none but the laws of nature; however, one has to go quite far afield to find somewhere that is not a part of civilisation. The world is becomming smaller and boundaries are collapsing. We need to stop seeing ourselves as being a part of a small localised community, but as part of a larger society: world civilisation. And while one can define themselves as American, British, Irish, Italian, Itrish (I thought I would keep that typo), or whatever, we are still part of a larger society and need to develop a global consciousness.

Part of the failure of Copenhagen is due to the fact that the United States has failed to notice that there is a need for environmental protection for nearly the past 40 years. Nixon achieved the clean air and clean water acts, yet such legislation was not followed upon. In fact, "Conservatives" have sought to repeal it. And following upon that Administrations have failed to show leadership regarding global warming.

Gun Control is a no-brainer, yet it is mired in bizarre rhetoric about non-existant rights. The unintended consequence of trying to prevent a professional standing army has failed. The anachronistic Second Amendment has been distorted to create rights where no right has existed. It has been used to fight regulation of firearms to the detriment of society. Thus a document which was to form a more perfect Union is being cited as justification for all sorts of silliness.

This means that a document which was to be a blueprint for society may end up being its downfall. Not from intent since the stated intent was not to destroy the nation, but to build it. Its destruction came about from failing to heed the more conservative voices of the loyalists whom they called "advocates of despotism" in the words of George Washington:

"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."

While Washington said this over 200 years ago, the sentiment remains vibrant. It may be hindsight, but despotism can come from either one person or a mob. The advocates of "independece" were such a mob in that they silenced the voices of those who would have kept the Union and sought independence through the institutions available to them. Instead the advocates of freedom created a precedent where one could scream "tyranny" and "despotism" and hope that others would follow to overthrow the government.

That is not society, but madness.

Yeah, yeah, I am over a couple of hundred years late in writing this and James Chalmers Wrote "Plain Truth" as well. No actually, as long as there is a belief in the insurrectionist theory and movements like the tea baggers, this sort of comment is never late.

More of the Widom of Matthew White

From his FAQ: Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century

Q: Is government responsible for most of the deaths by violence and oppression in the 20th Century?

A: Well, yeah. Of course. Organized thugs kill more efficiently than disorganized thugs.

Wars and oppressions are collective endeavors, and whenever humans work collectively, they work through government. Whether wars are fought using citizen militia, standing armies, hired mercenaries, tribal warriors, corporate security teams, street gangs, paramilitaries or feudal levies, there's always a ruler or governing body to determine who does what to whom. Call it a cabinet, junta, council of elders, general staff, board of directors, politburo or capo de tutti capi -- it's a government.

Unfortunately, blaming war and tyranny on government is like blaming house fires on oxygen. Strictly speaking, it's true, but no fire marshal would ever get a good performance review if that's his answer to everything. To understand house fires, you'll have to look at wiring, storage, smoking, materials and cooking, and not just insist, "It's oxygen, I tell you! Oxygen is evil! Why won't anyone listen to me?"

Most attempts to blame government for democides depend on a kind of circular reasoning. They define "government" as any organization capable of mass violence, and then are amazed when all mass violence is produced by government. If they were to instead define "government" as, say, any organization that delivers mail or builds roads, then at least they would be moving away from obvious tautologies.

He makes a point that most people miss about the "militia", especially if they believe that being a part of an "Unorganised militia" qualifies them for dick. This is partially because they are ignorant that the "unorganised militia" is a draft pool of potential militia members. As I like to say, it's the equivalent of saying you are in the army because you have a draft card.

The really salient point is that the militias, especially during the War for American Independence, were under some form of government control. Despite the common criticism that they were as effective as a mob with sticks. The reality was that the militias and ultimately the Continental Army was under the Control of the Continental Congress and other forms of rebel government.

They weren't just some people who got together with weapons and beat off the British. In fact, the War for American Independence was both a civil war, in that the Loyalists had their own militias, and an actual war in that the British, French, Spanish, and various other countries were involved in fighting it.

So, you had both revolutionary miltia units and Loyalist militia units which were under some form of government control. They wern't unorganised bans of people who just struck out at "British tyranny" or "Rebel tyranny".

This puts the modern "militia" pretenders and Libertarian loonies in a quandry about the insurrection theory since how can one have tyranny in a democracy when one is technically the government? As Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts points out in regard to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

So, there is no right to armed rebellion and one cannot make an argument that such a right exists where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.

Got that???

More Boston Tea Party!

I found an article by Thom Hartmann called The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s That pointed out:

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company (BEIC), the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

It is a less humours version of what I reprinted in the Glenn Beck and the Ghost of the Boston Tea Party post.

You can read more of Thom's article here or here

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.

Glenn Beck and the Ghost of the Boston Tea Party

http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/04/14/glenn_beck_and_the_ghost_of_the_boston_tea_party

By Paul J. O'Rourke

He stood on the stage bathing in the adulation of the assembled dignitaries. The Nobel Prize! At last, his body of work had been given the honor it deserved! As the standing ovation went on he thought of his critics. He knew they were watching. Did this great hall look like the rubber room where they said he’d spend the rest of his days bouncing? Ha! His struggle had been so worth the effort…

Glenn Beck was awakened from his dream of adequacy by the sound of a man clearing his throat. He sat up and, as his eyes adjusted, saw a glowing white Colonial ghost standing beside his bed.

“Who are you?”

“My friends call me Ben. We have been watching you for some time, and see how loyal you are to our cause. I have been sent to accord you the honor of attending the real Boston Tea Party, that you may then be able to advance our efforts with more familiarity and fervor at your tea party. We haven’t much time. Touch my sleeve and join the cause.”

Glenn reached out and in an instant found himself standing on a street in colonial Boston. A group of men were jogging by. “This is it!” he thought as he fell in beside a man disguised as an Indian and carrying a tomahawk.

“Hello, neighbor. My name is Glenn Beck, what’s yours?”

“We’re not using names tonight, friend, but since you volunteer yours, mine is Hewes. George Hewes. Now, as this is a task for arms and backbone, not lips, keep to the work and to your business. There is no need for inquiry. If you find yourself confused follow my lead.”

Their group boarded a ship and assembled on the deck. The man in charge told Hewes to get the keys so they could unlock the ship’s hold. The Captain surrendered them with no resistance. As the hatches were being opened Hewes motioned for Glenn to join him at the ship’s rail.

Soon crates of tea were being tossed at their feet. George would chop into them with his tomahawk, then they would lift and throw them into the harbor. Glenn was filled with an intense sense of patriotism. All worked in silence for well over an hour without stopping, but as the men below deck got deeper into the hold there was time to rest between crates.

During one pause George spoke. “I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed such a still night.” There wasn’t any wind, and the only sounds were the murmur of the crowd on the wharf, the tomahawks chopping and splashes made by the tea crates. Glenn took this to mean he could now speak. “Yes, it is a still night.” Pointing at some ships anchored not far away Glenn asked “Whose ships are those?”

“Those are British.”

“British?” Glenn was confused. “They don’t mind us taking tea from their ships?”

“These are American ships.”

“But the tea is British?”

“No, the tea belongs to the East India Company.”

“And the taxes made the tea too expensive”, Glenn declared, feeling himself on more familiar ground.

“The tax is a problem, but the tea is cheaper now than before.”

“I don’t understand”, Glenn said, now on even more familiar ground. “How can that be?”

George sighed impatiently. “It has long been the law that the colonies import tea only from England. Recently, because of the taxes and duties charged by the crown, our boycott and the Dutch tea smugglers, the East India Company’s warehouses became full of tea they couldn’t sell. They were near bankruptcy when Parliament and King George suspended the duties and taxes paid in Britain, and allowed for direct importation of tea to the colonies, eliminating the price addition by the English brokers. They also granted East India a monopoly on our tea imports. Now, even as a small tax remains, the cost is less than what the Dutch are charging.”

It took a moment for Glenn to grasp the meaning of it all. “Let me get this straight. We’re on an American ship destroying a private company’s legally purchased product, even after they have, through tax cuts and market innovation, trimmed their overhead, eliminated the middleman, and brought you quality tea at a low price. George, I’m sure you think yourself a patriot, but you are attacking the very engine of liberty!”

George was not pleased with Glenn’s accusation. “I have no more desire to be taxed without representation by Parliament and King than I do to be ruled by an incorporation! First a monopoly on tea, then who knows what next? Will they control everything we…”

George didn’t finish his thought. “Socialist!” Glenn shouted as he pushed him over the rail into the cold water below.

Somebody cried out “Man overboard, get a rope!” As three men attended to rescuing George, the rest began surrounding Beck. Glenn dropped to his knees and started stuffing the loose tea in his pockets, then his pants. “This is private property. It must be returned. You don’t understand what you’re doing. You’re not following free market principles!”

As the men drew closer, Glenn got to his feet. “This is class warfare! You are socialist fascists bent on destroying the free market system!”

A few men grabbed Beck and lifted him over their heads. As George was being hauled back to the deck, Glenn was sent flying into the drink, becoming the only tea bag thrown into Boston Harbor that night.

He was treading water until he realized he was back in his bedroom, standing in front of the ghost.

“Well, Mister Beck, what have you learned tonight?”

“I hope this doesn’t offend you, Ben, but I don’t think those men truly knew what they were doing. Sure, the tax on tea was wrong, but that was a minor matter compared to their outright theft of private property and vandalism. They were only hurting themselves by protesting in that way. The Tea Party was a collectivist assault on the free market principles that make for a great nation, and those men, as well intentioned as they were, were traitors. I hope you don’t mind me saying that, but that’s how I see it.”

“I don’t mind at all,” Ben replied “I quite agree. Sometimes in their passion about one issue men neglect to consider the larger point.”

“Exactly!” Glenn paused. “Come to think of it,” he said as he began to sob “it’s obvious that this descent…” Overcome with emotion, he bit his knuckles softly and held his hand up to ask for time to recover. “…into socialist fascism began 236 years ago. No wonder the forces of destruction are so strong today!”

The ghost nodded. “You have well learned the lesson of the Boston Tea Party, Glenn Beck, even if you tend towards lacing your corset a bit too tightly. I now must take my leave, confident that you will continue the battle for our cause in your own day. Never forget the lesson you learned this evening, and never surrender the cause!”

With that the ghost began to fade.

Glenn smiled. “I’ll not forget the cause, and will always carry the honor of not only meeting Benjamin Franklin, but having you validate my beliefs.”

“Not Benjamin Franklin.” The ghost said as he dissolved into the darkness.

“Benedict Arnold.”

A Blackstone timeline

--Commentaries were first published between 1765 and 1769 in Oxford, England.

1765
March 22 The Stamp Act
March 24 The Quartering Act of 1765
May 29 Patrick Henry's "If This Be Treason" speech
May 30 The Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions
Oct. 7-25 The Stamp Act Congress
1766
March 18 The Declaratory Act
1767
June 29 The Townshend Revenue Act
1768
August 1 Boston Non-Importation Agreement
1770
March 5 The Boston Massacre

1771
--Commentaries on the Laws of England first issued in an American edition.

1773
May 10 The Tea Act
Dec. 16 The Boston Tea Party
1774
March 31 Boston Port Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
May 20 Administration of Justice Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
May 20 Massachusetts Government Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
June 2 Quartering Act of 1774, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
June 22 Quebec Act, one of the "Intolerable Acts"
Sept. 5-Oct. 26 The First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia and issues Declaration and Resolves
Oct. 10 Battle of Point Pleasant, Virginia (disputed as to whether it was a battle of the American Revolution or the culmination of Lord Dunmore's War)
Oct. 20 The Association (prohibition of trade with Great Britain)

1775
Apr. 18 The Rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes
Apr. 19 Minutemen and redcoats clash at Lexington and Concord "The shot heard 'round the world."
May 10 Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys seize Fort Ticonderoga
May 10 The Second Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia
June 15 George Washington named Commander in Chief
June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill: The British drive the Americans from Breed's Hill
July 3 Washington assumes command of the Continental Army
1776
Jan. 15 Paine's "Common Sense" published
March 17 The British evacuate Boston; British Navy moves to Halifax, Canada
June 12 The Virginia Declaration of Rights
June 29 The First Virginia Constitution
June 28 Patriots decisively defeat the British Navy at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina
July 1-4 Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence. See Chronology of the Declaration
July 4 Congress adopts the Declaration of Independence; it's sent to the printer
July 8 The Declaration of Independence is read publicly

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, commonly referred to as the Articles of Confederation, was the first constitution of the thirteen United States of America. The Second Continental Congress appointed a committee to draft the 'Articles' in June 1776 and proposed the draft to the States for ratification in November 1777. The ratification process was completed in March 1781, legally federating the sovereign and independent states, allied under the Articles of Association, into a new federation styled the "United States of America". Under the Articles the states retained sovereignty over all governmental functions not specifically relinquished to the central government.

1780
--Sir William Blackstone dies on 14 February 1780

1781
Jan. 1 Mutiny of unpaid Pennsylvania soldiers
Sept. 15 French fleet drives British naval force from Chesapeake Bay
Oct. 19 Cornwallis surrounded on land and sea by Americans and French and surrenders at Yorktown, VA

1782
Nov. 30 British and Americans sign preliminary Articles of Peace

1783
April 19 Congress ratifies preliminary peace treaty

The Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended hostilities with Great Britain, languished in Congress for months because state representatives failed to attend sessions of the national legislature. Yet Congress had no power to enforce attendance under the Articles of Confederation.

Sept. 3 The United States and Great Britain sign the Treaty of Paris officially ending the War of American Independence (AKA American Revolution)
Nov. 25 British troops leave New York City
Dec. 23 Washington resigns as Commander

1786
September--Commissioners from five states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Confederation that would improve commerce.

1787
May 25 to September 17, 1787: delegates from 12 states met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation following independence from Great Britain. Although the Convention was purportedly intended only to revise the Articles of Confederation, the intention of many of its proponents, chief among them James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, was from the outset to create a new government rather than "fix" the existing one. The delegates elected George Washington to preside over the convention. The result of the Convention was the United States Constitution.
September 20, 1787 The proposed Constitution is read in Congress
September 26, 1787 Congress takes up debate on the proposed Constitution
September 28, 1787 Congress refers the proposed Constitution to the states
December 7, 1787 Constitution is ratified by the first state – Delaware

1788
August 2, 1788 First North Carolina convention refuses to ratify Constitution without amendments

1789
March 4, 1789 First United States Congress is seated
September 26, 1789 Congress sends twelve amendments to the Constitution to the states for ratification. The last ten were eventually enacted as the Bill of Rights.

1791
December 15, 1791 Bill of Rights comes into force on ratification by Virginia

Get my point?

No?

Then to clarify it for you. When Blackstone died, the Colonies were still colonies with the War for Independence raging on, The Treaty of Paris was 3 years in the future, there were the Articles of Confederation, but no US Constitution. Wouldn't be for another 7 years. The Bill of Rights was 9 years in the future and wasn't in effect for another 11 years. How could he have known about the Second Amendment, let alone the Constitution unless he was psychic.

For all Blackstone knew, the Colonies could repent their ways and become good little colonies again (there's still hope).

BUT BLACKSTONE KNEW DICK ABOUT THE US CONSTITUION OR BILL OF RIGHTS

More War for American Independence

Believe it or not, I have a lot in common with the average colonial at the time of the War for American Independence. They considered themselved British and that was a major part of their grievance at their being taxed without their consent.

I saw something in the Philadelphia Weekly that struck a chord with me about the "tea Parties" which are occurring over in the States. As Joel Mathis says: "It’s getting so you can’t tell regular Republican insanity from the lunatic fringe anymore."

I liked the part where antitax activist Larken Rose took the microphone and praised America’s Founding Fathers as “cop killers”—and wondered aloud why today’s citizens are too wimpy to follow in their footsteps.
 (A rough transcript of Rose's speech is available at his website).

“Those people were criminals, they were tax cheats, they were traitors,” Rose told the audience, which had dwindled to a few hundred people in the late afternoon. “Truth be told, some of the colonists were cop killers.”


Where, asked Rose, were the Americans who were willing to break the laws passed by crooked politicians and fight back against “crushing” governmental taxation?


“I’m not talking about voting and whining to your congressman,” he told the audience. “I’m talking about resistance.”


Needless to say, the organisers wanted to distance themselves from this type of talk.
“The speakers we had at our tea party gave the message we wanted to portray—period,” says Chris Clemency of the Independence Hall Association.


Pennsburg resident Rob Pepe helped organize the second tea party under the “ReTeaParty” banner. He says he wasn’t the person who invited Rose—but suggests Rose’s speech was to be taken metaphorically.
 “This is an educational revolution,” Pepe says. “It’s time to understand what liberty is all about.”


Rose—an author who served prison time for tax evasion—denies the legitimacy of the federal government and writes angry tirades against “Gestapo” police tactics on his website. It sure didn’t sound like he was speaking in metaphors. He mocked “Freedom Movement” members who vote and obey the law, and smilingly acknowledged a shout of “9/11 Truth!” from the crowd.


“If 2 to 3 percent taxation justified a revolution in 1776, why doesn’t 50 percent and growing justify a revolution?” Rose asked. “If a few little excise taxes on pieces of paper and tea justified open lawlessness from these rebels that were all celebrating, why don’t the myriad of incomprehensible, unavoidable, crushing taxes—state, local and federal—why don’t they justify a revolution today?”


By the way, Rose didn’t respond to an interview request from PW . But it’s worth noting that despite his fiery talk, he doesn’t always walk the walk. He urged his audience to refuse to recognize the authority of the government­—but when convicted of tax evasion in 2005 he didn’t exactly go down in a hail of bullets: Instead, he was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison and lived to write and speechify another day.


Now, this is a good point. Most of the "patriots" were pretty conservative. And, Like Rose, were quite willing to raise taxes on themselved beyond the low taxes which caused the rebellion. As I say, they didn't like taxation without representation, but would go on to tax the crap out of themselves.

The Tories were correct, things were pretty good and far from "tyranny", unless you take into account the standing armies. The problem is that rebellion for the hell of it would lead to people like Larkin Rose.

236 years of a mistake, it's time to go back!

Hallelujah !

A Message from John Cleese

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy). This means you will stop calling her the Queen of England - she's Queen of the United Kingdom i.e England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Mistakenly calling her anything else is like calling George Bush, President of Texas.

Your new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded, and a questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' , 'humour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as " cool", "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday and you will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters.
Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

God save the Queen.

Only He can.

John Cleese

If only this were true!

History is written by the victors

Ever wonder what life would be like if the British had won the war for American Independence or the French the French and Indian Wars? I do. Not sure which would be a better scenario. The first, the US would be an intelligent Canada (no sales tax on stamps, gun control, "socialised" medicine, land planning etc.) and the Second, kind of a larger Belgium with French, English, German, and Dutch being the official languages.

Anyway, I found this badge in my travels:


Sure, it is for the Island of Jersey Militia, but think with all these RKBA people talking about being able to rebel against a tyrannical government. Now, what is to prevent people from deciding that the US war for Independence was illegal and that the current government neglects the welfare of its citizens? I mean there are loads of us who have loyalist ancestors who decided it was better to keep their traps shut than say the rebels were wrong. 50,000 Loyalists left the states for Canada. And, Benedict Arnold, the true patriot, ended up living his days in London (not a bad option). Additionally, as I continuously point out, the REAL reason for the rebellion was an out of control military.

Now, Isn't the current military establishment pretty out of control? I mean several trillion for a couple of wars that really don't make sense as far as security goes. Give me a break, Iraq is a failure as is Afghanistan.

So, watch out for the Royal New Jersey Militia!